Mom said it's like I'm not sure if you're a before we start, I'd like to introduce uh Dave Clifford.

He's uh replacing outgoing Tracy Pellman for Mayor McKeon.

So I just wanted to introduce Dave.

Welcome, Dave.

Thanks for being part of the team.

With that, I'd like to read my welcome speech to you all.

Welcome to the March 10th, 2026 Huntington Beach Planning Commission meeting.

While the Planning Commission welcomes public involvement and free speech, it rejects comments from anyone that are discriminatory, defamatory, or otherwise not protected speech.

Those comments will not inform or be considered by the planning commission and may cause the chair to interrupt the speaker.

Such comments will not be consented to or otherwise adopted by the planning commission in its discussion and findings for any matter tonight.

Thank you.

At this time, I'd like to have uh planning commissioner Babano lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Vice Chair.

Like to get the roll call, please.

Chair Bush.

Here.

Vice Chair Babineau.

Here.

Commissioner Thianis.

Here.

Commissioner McGee.

Here.

Commissioner Palmer.

Here.

Commissioner Goldberg.

Here.

Commissioner Clifford.

Here.

We have a quorum.

All right.

Always good to have a quorum.

At this time, uh, now is the time for public comments for items that are not on the agenda this evening, not on the agenda.

Do we have any public comments?

We have three people who checked public comments.

If you want to speak on an item that is not on the agenda, please come down.

James Torres, Linda Minko, and Becky Granger.

Just keep it in mind that it's not in relation to the agenda item.

Is that an oopsie?

Okay.

We allow those.

We have no public comments.

Good.

All right.

So public hearing items.

Um next on the agenda is a public hearing on an appeal of the zoning administrators' approval of the conditional use permit number 23 014.

The Huntington Beach School District maintenance and operation building.

Planning commissioners, please state your disclosures.

I'll start on my right regarding this item.

Please start.

Yeah, I guess I did say on my right.

One constituent, uh Mayor Pro Tem uh Twining and Chairman Bush.

I spoke with Mayor Pro Tem Twining and a resident Laura Costello.

Yeah, I spoke with uh council member uh uh Kennedy uh twining and uh Burns I spoke with Laura Costello, school staff, Butch Twining and Casey McKeon.

I spoke with uh councilman Gruel and briefly I met and discussed a few items with the school district and uh their council representative as well.

And I spoke with uh planning commissioner Thenis and Planning Commissioner McGee.

That's it.

I'd also I'd like to add I also spoke with uh Laura Costello.

Thank you.

So staff, may we please have the staff report.

Yes, uh senior planner Jason Kelly will be giving a presentation.

All right, thank you, Chair, members of the planning commission.

Uh the item before you tonight is an appeal of conditional use permit 23-014 for the proposed Huntington Beach City School District maintenance and operation building.

The project is a request to construct a 7,510 square foot maintenance building at an overall height of 17 feet six inches at the existing school district uh uh school district's office.

The property is located at 8750 Dorset Drive.

The project site is approximately 4.8 acres and consists of approximately a 34,704 square foot building at a height of 21 feet.

The existing building was formerly operated as the Kettler Elementary School, is now being operated as the school district office.

There's currently 119 existing parking spaces on site with an additional 14 stalls proposed.

The property to the north, east and west of the site are all single family residential zoned parcels, whereas the property directly to the south is a public semi-public zone property with sports fields.

Based on the Huntington Beach zoning and subdivision ordinance, uh the maintenance and service facilities is a permitted use within the public and semi-public zone properties, subject to the approval of a conditional use permit to the zoning administrator.

Um the item was heard by the zoning administrator on June 19th, 2024 with uh and and it was approved with findings and conditions of approval.

The item was then appealed to on June 25th, 2024 by the planning commission, uh, then planning commissioner Butch Twining.

And on July 23rd, 2024, the project was presented to the planning commission, at which time there was nine speakers that vote voiced their opposition while five speakers spoke in support of the project.

At the meeting, the at the planning commission meeting discussion primarily focused on whether the imported soil was tested for contaminants and also the possibility of relocating the building to mitigate noise impacts.

The planning commission then continued the item to allow the applicant to submit a noise study and to provide documentation confirming that the imported soil had no contaminants.

Both documents have been submitted and are in your package as attachments seven and eight.

Per the zoning code in the public semi-public district, the required side yard setback is 10 feet with a maximum building building height allowed to be 18 feet.

The proposed project has a is the proposed building is uh proposing a 22 and a half foot side yard setback at a height of 17 and a half feet, and again this site plan uh depicts uh the distance between the residential properties directly to the east and also uh to the west.

The next slide is a um is the proposed floor plan.

You can see that the entrance entrance entrance points and the roll-up doors to access the building are all located on the easterly side of the building, which faces the parking lot away from the nearest residential properties.

The use of the proposed building will consist primarily of warehouse storage with workshop and maintenance areas as well as office space for the school district staff.

Floor plan is also color-coded to demonstrate the areas of the different types of uses.

The next slide is the front and side elevations.

The building is a metal building.

Um they are incorporating corporating uh panels within the um within the building and with on the elevation, along with the roll-up doors, and then we have the rear elevation here, which is the west elevation directly adjacent to the residential properties.

Even though this uh the building has a greater setback than what's required by code.

Staff has work with the applicant to incorporate some faux windows, some wall panels, some landscaping trellises.

Also, the project is conditioned with enhanced uh to provide enhanced landscaping between the west property line and the building.

So to address some concerns uh raised by the neighbors throughout the entire duration of the project.

Um in May of uh 2024, the project was presented to the design review board, and at that meeting, public comments and opposition uh were um brought up.

The DRB ended up recommending additional conditions to the zoning administrator, which included increasing the side setback from 22 and a half feet to 42 and a half feet, raising the proposed block wall from six feet to eight feet, adding lighting along the walkway that leads to Edison Park, and also adding mature landscaping between the building and the adjacent residential properties.

Um enhancing the west elevation of the building.

Then in June of 2024, uh the item was presented to the zoning administrator again, which residents attended and expressed concerns.

Uh they brought up the eight foot wall height, the again the location of the building, the notice of exemption, the noise impacts along with the grade differential.

The zoning administrator did approve the project with modified conditions.

They reduced the block wall from eight feet to six feet.

They allowed the building to be set back at 22 and a half feet in lieu of the 42, and they also required a photometric plan to verify that there's no light spillage.

The zoning administrator's action was then appealed to the planning commission, which was presented in uh July 23rd, 2024.

Again, to address the neighbors' concerns, the zoning administrator limited that block wall to six feet due to the grade differential.

The zoning administrator also did not approve the additional 20-foot setback recommended by design review board because the proposed building is set back 22 and a half feet in lieu of the required 10 feet.

Also, elements have been added to the west elevation to enhance the visit visual appearance, and finally, the building is limited to a maximum height of 18 feet.

As far as the project is exempt from CEQA based on section 15301, which is existing facilities.

Since the pro site already currently operates with a maintenance use at the rear of the property, the construction of the building would bring the site into further compliance by conducting the use entirely within the building.

Also, since the proposed building is less than 10,000 square feet in size, the project could be also be exempt under Section 15301, which is a new construction.

With regards to the noise impacts, a noise study was provided and concluded that the proposed location would be in compliance with the city's noise standards.

Also, the additional setback, the proposed block wall, the additional landscape, and the condition that all work to be performed within the building helps mitigate the noise.

With regards to the grade differential, due to the added dirt on the site, the applicant did submit a phase one site environmental assessment that again concludes that there's no concerns at the site where that soil was taken, which was taken from Peterson Elementary School.

Also, the code only allows a grade differential of two feet as measured from the top of curb.

So that will mitigate the overall height of the building in relation to them raising the slab if that's if that's what they're proposing to do.

With that being said, the planning commission can uphold the zoning administrator's decision with or without modifications, or they can take an alternative action.

Planning commission may approve this project based on the following that the project is consistent with the public and semi-public land use designation of the general plan and the zoning that the project is compatible with the surrounding land uses as conditioned, and that the project is compatible with the zoning code and applicable provisions of the municipal code, that it will not result in any significant impacts to the surrounding area.

With that being said, that concludes my presentation.

If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

Thank you.

Thank you for that summary.

Um commissioners, do you have any questions for staff?

I'll start on my right.

Regarding the um the grade increase between the two properties, what what's allowable by code?

Well uh measurement is taken from the highest top of curb.

So and the city does the code does allow a two-foot difference.

So from the top of curb to the finished floor is a two-foot difference.

So if you measure the entire building, it's allowed at to from it's allowed at 18 feet, but from top of curb, it would be a maximum of 20 feet if you measured from top of curb.

So if there is a top of curb and that difference is four feet, let's say, they're they're required to reduce the overall building height by two feet.

There and at no point can the that the the height could be higher than 20 feet from measured from the highest top of curb.

And the site was measured to be two feet.

Pardon me?

And the the site itself is measured to be two uh to have a two-foot definition of the case.

They have not submitted a grading plan.

Okay, um, so when that grading plan is submitted, um the city will make sure that that dimension from the top of curb to the finished floor, whatever that dimension is, it's got to be deducted if it's greater than two feet.

And then regarding the maintenance operations, um is there is there a planning on being an increase to the current amount of operations, or is it gonna be the same operations?

From my understanding, is it's gonna be the same operation.

It's just gonna be housed in time.

It's all gonna be indoors.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, part of the reason for this appeal was the noise, right?

So um is there gonna be a differential between the noise now when they drag a uh generator out into the public and uh and a working out in the open as opposed to the noise in this building.

Will there be ample um insulation as far as the insulation goes?

I'm not sure if the plans they it hasn't been submitted to plan checks, I'm not sure if the uh there's gonna be insulation within the building.

However, you know, the planning commission could condition that to require that to mitigate it even further, but the the noise study that was submitted was analyzed at the proposed location versus the location directly to the rear of the property, and the study did conclude that the proposed location with everything being handled indoors would comply with the the municipal code as far as the noise and ordinance.

Whereas the other location, there were properties that would not be in compliance.

The noise would be would be higher.

So that's that's why they ended up sticking with this proposed location.

So just to make sure I understand, right now everything's basically being done in a connex box or outside a shipping container.

Is that somewhat accurate?

Yeah, that's probably accurate.

You probably that that might be a question and ask the applicant.

And it's gonna be moved inside for the most part.

Yes.

So one could assume, right?

We hate to use that word, that there would be a reduction in noise because it's no longer outside, it's now gonna be inside.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay, and we're not eliminating any other maintenance facilities where and you kind of answered or asked this question.

Um we're not eliminating any other maintenance facilities in the city, whereas this one's gonna be you know, double their workload or anything like that.

That's correct.

Okay, so there's not going to be additional trucks driving through there.

It's all gonna be the same except for it's inside instead of outside.

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, I was looking at the uh sound study.

Um it looked like they did a pretty thorough stance sound study.

It was requested by the planning commission um over a year ago.

Um is is I assume the building's insulated.

Is that is that correct?

Yeah, you'd have to ask the applicant in that.

I'm not I'm not sure.

Okay, because uh I I I I honestly I didn't even realize we allowed metal buildings in our code.

Uh that was that was uh something we should change.

Um they did submit a grading plan and the the finished floor is about two, two and a half feet above the existing grade.

There's there is a preliminary grading plan.

Yeah, the the the grading plan, the conceptual grading plan that is submitted is really just around the building.

I I I'm really looking for what that grade is at the top of curb to decipher what that difference is to make sure the overall building height doesn't exceed the 20 feet.

And and if we if we said, hey, this is an industrial building and it's gonna comply with i i if it had to comply with the industrial standards.

Is it correct that the industrial buildings set back would be 15 feet and then the openings would have to be 45 feet from any residential zoning.

Is that is that correct?

If we were to look at the industrial standards, well, in this in this zone, the side yard setback is zero.

However, if it is if it abuts a adjacent residential property, it it now that setback is 10 feet.

Yes, and then for the for the um for the uh semi-public zoning.

Correct.

Right.

Okay, and then um and then within 45 feet of a residential property, the setback has the height cannot exceed 18 feet.

That's correct.

And we're at 17 feet.

That's correct.

Yes, okay.

17 foot six or so, right?

Yeah, if the building was moved towards the center of the site 45 feet away from the residential, they could go all the way up to what the code allows, which I believe is a 50-foot height limit.

And that would be measured up to two feet from above the top of curve.

Highest top of highest adjacent tree.

Okay, yes.

Okay.

So they would have to keep the finished floor.

Um, well, they've got six inches to play with, so they'd have to keep the finished floor two feet above the top floor.

They could have the finished floor higher or higher than the top of curb.

They would just have to deduct the overall height of the building.

Right.

So the beginning point is two feet above the top of curve.

That's correct.

Okay.

Yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

And then in this w I looked up the uh division of state uh architects um ruling uh rules and regulations, and and since this is not housing any children, this is exempt from having to go to the division of state architect, right?

Yeah, the city analyzed the CEQA exemption and 1530, I believe, uh new construction is what the city would um would use to exempt this project.

You know, according to this IRAA 22 form, it it's actually it doesn't even need to go to the city.

You can ask the applicant.

You can ask the applicant on that, but it I think it's my understanding that in order to go through the state, you have to uh it has to be classroom related.

Right.

They but but it here they can elect to use the division of state architect if they choose to do so.

They can do that.

They they can or they could go to the city, or they they basically are the school district in this case, from what I've read, and I talked to uh uh an architect, a school architect, and uh it you know he basically said, yeah, they're we're their school district, city equal entity when it comes to no children in the classrooms.

They could just build a maintenance facility.

That's that's what I read.

So okay.

Thank you.

Uh I wanted to thank you very much for a very comprehensive packet.

Um read it.

Uh enjoy the the noise study because that was my biggest question.

What I didn't see, uh, or at least very well, but was explained to me when I was on site, was the um the facade of this facility will have uh uh cohesive look to the existing building and be appropriate for the surrounding community.

site was the um the facade of this facility will have uh cohesive look to the existing building and be appropriate for the surrounding community so to me uh i think it's a win for the neighborhood because they're putting a they're putting a facility there that to me would ensure that this property likely does not get sold off uh as many school districts are needing to do and that it will remain there as opposed to future development which we can see in other cities where uh once a property changes uh they can build pretty much whatever height and density they want regardless of the former zoning of a neighborhood so at any rate um I don't have any further questions uh except for when they brought up insulation I didn't see it in there I think it'd be a great idea not so much for noise but for people working in there probably be very helpful in heat or cold thank you Phil Chuper just a quick question more more of my question is going to come from the applicant from the public after they speak but currently so this originally was a school and then they they used it they converted it into uh offices and they started doing this maintenance yard as well that was not there before when the school was there it was just a school am I correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

And was it ever zoned or was there ever any application to start adding all this heavy equipment and doing work on site on this particular was that something that was approved by anyone did the city have to do that no it wasn't is that not normal though if I if I were to take a building that used to be something and make it something else wouldn't it normally require that yeah typically if they were going to convert the building to their district office they would come in and get a certificate of occupancy through the city for that new use and they never did that did not happen.

And they which is not as big of a concern for me because it's still at least office and people and not but so when they went and decided to house this equipment for all the maintenance and everything else that they're doing out of this facility now that was never originally purposed for that they didn't ask for permission either is that correct that's correct.

Okay thank you so at this time thank you commissioners you guys took all my questions so I'm all I I'm gonna do at this point with no further questions will now open uh the public hearing do we have any speakers we have nine people uh signed up to speak I'm gonna call your name please come down and line up behind each microphone make sure when you speak to state your name before speaking Robert Granger Mark Manstoff Malia Durand Jeremy Brust Evan Sorensen James Torres Linda Minko Becky Granger and John Gurgen Thank you go ahead do I need to press the button oh there we go hi I'm Robert Granger and I'm a resident near the Kettler site and I need to bring a serious regulatory vacuum uh to your attention the district is is uh building an industrial maintenance yard in our residential neighborhood and they claim this to be um in their marketing campaign their flyers and their website FAQ that they can bypass the city's process uh imagine that a state uh trying to tell the city what to do um and get this a project approved through the DSA don't care what the city says they still say that they can go to the state and get approval so I say let's let them but the undisputable fact is that the DSA regional manager has confirmed in writing that the DSA route is not a viable route the DSA does not provide conditional use permits only the city does so that's a lie uh the district is now claiming that they are exempt from city zoning even though state code supersedes city zoning another soup and they say that they only get the exemption they only they say that they only get the exemption to build when they're using it for classroom facilities this is clearly not a classroom facility they've changed from admin to industrial use illegally in 2018 didn't seek a uh conditional use permit that time so they claim that they're existing in their mind they are existing but they're only existing illegally and they're doing that to avoid any CEQA or environmental review compliance if the state says they're not responsible and the district says the city isn't responsible the state DSA said that in writing who is protecting the residents we need the city to assert its zoning authority before this sets a dangerous precedent for every neighborhood in Huntington Beach.

Now I know I'm gonna run out of time here but this has been going on since 2015 when I first met with the school district and the community about the expansion and change from the school to a district office.

We welcome that change because we didn't want vacant property over there.

But little did we foresee that they were going to be changing it from an admin building to an industrial use.

And I can't counter them at that time in 2015.

I said, How can you go around state laws where it says that you can't oversee local zoning?

I always thought this will be something that we can take up with the city and the city will protect us from them trying to claim that they're the state and be exempt and just supersede everyone.

You can't.

The reality is there's there is a distinct change in use from an admin to industrial use.

So that's the basis of their CEQA findings and their exemption that it's an existing facility and that they can add a small structure on there for their existing use.

But CEQA doesn't allow you to use that exemption when you're changing it from an admin use.

Thank you, sir.

Next speaker.

Good evening, honorable chair, vice chair, and planning commission members.

My name is Mark Mansoff.

I'm the executive director of operations for Huntington Beach City School District.

Uh, thank you for the opportunity to return to this commission to discuss this project.

In the time since the project was last before the commission, the district has complied with additional technical work as requested, including the noise study and soils analysis in your packet.

More broadly, our goal as a district is to enrich the lives of 4,500 students that attend our schools and our community and trusts to us daily.

Over the past several years, district has successfully completed construction on improving facilities across the school through them through across all of our schools through the Measure Cube bond.

Those campuses sit directly within residential neighborhoods with approximately 365 homes directly bordering our properties and 2,800 homes within 500 feet of our properties.

Currently, the maintenance and operation teams are working to upkeep this investment the community has made in the school district through the Measure Cube bonds.

Most of their work is completed at our schools.

Much like a contractor, you ask to mow your lawn or redo your bathroom or kitchen.

They can't do that in the warehouse.

Their work keeping our facilities safe, functional, and attractive affects Huntington Beach through our students, youth sports, and community groups that use our facilities.

It reflects a shared commitment to keeping our beautiful city safe and educational space for our kids to grow and learn.

But I'll let the rest of everybody come up for public comment.

Yeah, I thank you very much.

I think we will extend a few minutes because I'm sure we do have questions, and I'll start again on my right.

I want more time.

Next speaker, please.

Please line up at each microphone.

Thank you.

Go ahead, sir.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Evan Sorens, and I also live on Breton Lane.

I'm directly west of the school.

My backyard of butts up to the former Kettler site.

Um, I think the big issue here was highlighted by Commissioner Goldberg, which is that they began doing maintenance of the facility without a permit in at least as far back as 2018, probably 2019.

And without a permit, it cannot be a proper existing use of the property.

So their entire effort to dodge the CEQA environmental requirements, which include public hearings and all this other sort of stuff, is all based on the exemption that this is an existing use.

Well, the I haven't looked and seen if the permit for the conversion of the administration from the abandoned school, but I doubt that it talks about maintenance facilities.

The staff did mention that maintenance is broadly encompassed under the permitted zoning at this property.

However, um it is in the center of an industrial, sorry, of a residential neighborhood.

It is an industrial use, it does fundamentally alter the use of the site as a school district administrative office.

So relying upon it as being an existing use as a reason to not have to go through the environmental review when your existing usage was not permitted and was improper, arguably illegal.

It just doesn't stand up to muster.

It seems like a dodge like, well, we were doing something illegal, but now because we're already doing it, you should let us keep doing it.

I don't think that's an existing use.

Not specifically with schools, but this wouldn't fly in almost any other circumstance where you had don't have a non-permitted non-conforming use, and you say, Well, I should get a permit for it now because it's a pre existing use.

That just doesn't work, and that's all I needed to say.

So please consider this carefully because I think they are trying to dodge and sort of pull the wool over your eyes a little bit on this.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Next speaker, please.

There's two microphones you can step right up.

Thank you.

Go ahead, thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners, members of the public.

My name is Jeremy Brust.

I'm with the law firm of Tal Rossini.

We represent the school district in their CEQA property and construction matters.

Um I'll be available with Mr.

Manstoff for your questions later.

I just wanted to address a couple of things that have come up so far.

First, there was a question regarding the applicability of DSA review, DSA regulations in the context when a school district is uh constructing a building that's not for school use.

Um there is uh no supervisory authority, it's not divided up, there's not a separate um review at the local level and then a DSA.

This would all be done locally, so no DSA review on this project.

Uh and uh the next thing I want to address there's been some misinformation, I think, about the SQL compliance here in this case.

Uh the first is these particular categorical exemptions, class one and class three, uh, are uh both geared toward the structure that's going to be created and the use that's existing in whatever form it is at the time that it's there.

Uh, but more important, the CEQA findings by the district were made back in 2023.

They were done in public by the school district board, and the time for challenge is passed, and that part is settled.

Uh, and then finally, um the there's no zoning exemption being sought here, and that's the reason that we're here.

We've been going through this process for over a year and a half is to comply with the code.

And that's all I have unless there are any questions.

Thank you.

If you could sticker around, we may have questions.

I will, thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Uh, my name's Linda Minko.

Um, I've lived in the Kettler track 30 plus years.

We bought our home because it was a nice family track with an elementary school that my kids could walk to.

I'm familiar with the school district and how they could have better use the money that they weren't trusted.

First, they used bond money to upgrade Kettler, a school that they knew they were closing and then let it sit empty where the upgrades deteriorated.

The school was left abandoned.

When they needed a new school district offices, did they move into Kettler?

No, they rented office spaces for years.

Then when they finally decided to move into Kettler, they used more money to turn it into the district office.

This was all wasted money, and so it's no wonder that now they need to find ways to save money as they have closed more schools and yet still have all the administration costs of a district larger than it was with closed school.

However, why should our tract of homes suffer by having a building that is not zoned for it being built because of their mistakes?

Why should our property values go down because they want to get special treatment and build a building that is not conducive to the neighborhood?

Why should we have an eye sore in our track because of their mistakes in the past?

I asked that you deny approval of this project.

Let the district find an industrial site as they did with the bus yard to use as their maintenance site.

This is where this building belongs, not in a single family home neighborhood.

You know, this wouldn't even be considered if it was in a sea cliff track.

Please don't consider it an ours.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Next speaker, please.

Good evening.

I'm appealing the planning commission to stop this proposed project.

The school district's planning to construct a commercial building in the heart of our neighborhood.

Oh, sorry, Becky Granger.

Sorry about that.

Um construct a commercial building in the heart of our neighborhood, which raises significant concerns for me.

My name is Becky Granger.

I've lived in Huntington Beach at the current look at my current location for the past 33 years.

My home is directly behind the proposed site.

The district intends to place a prefab metal metal medical or metal building, 7500 square square feet that stands 17 feet tall atop a base that they've built up, which is over five feet, with a 15-foot setback from neighbors' homes and a walkway leading to the park.

This structure does not fit to the character of our neighbor neighborhood, which consists of small single family homes with yards that are way sunk down below the parking lot where the building will reside.

The building will overshadow and dominate our homes and expose neighbor to increased noise from garage door openings, wood and metal shops, table saws, and air conditioning units.

Air conditioning units will be necessary in a metal building, raising questions about placement and noise.

Furthermore, the building and the block wall will create shadows and a narrow corridor, which is which is an area that could further f foster and lawful activities and will block significant sight lines to the park.

I am concerned for the students from Edison High School as well as softball players and those who use the walkway daily to access the park.

I'm spar concerned about our property values.

At the time I purchased my home, the adjacent property was occupied by a school.

However, plans for a large building now threatens to overshadow our neighborhood.

Please, Commissioner, do not allow the district to put in a commercial building on top of our neighborhood.

The fact that the district didn't take any of the recommendations from the design review board shows lack of respect for the community and neighbors.

The board proposed moving the building back 20 feet.

By doing this, this would they would only lose five parking spots.

It doesn't make sense when their their parking lot is never full.

It's halfway, it's like a quarter full at any time.

Or make the building look like the neighborhood and instead instead of a prefab building.

The failure of the district to consider the impact of the neighborhood community is proving what a terrible neighbor they are.

The fact they are unwilling to make compromises is unbelievable to me.

The district keeps saying they can go to the state for approval on this project and are exempt for the normal oversight because they are the state.

But we know this is not true.

This applies to school buildings where students and staff reside, not a maintenance and operation building.

Bottom line, the district is making a lot of claims that they are exempt from CEQA oversight and that they can go to the DSA for approval.

After our investigation, we have found this.

10 seconds.

Please, Commission, stop this and let the review this and review this with more detail.

Please do do not approve this project.

Thank you, ma'am.

Next speaker, please.

Thank you.

John Gerg.

Thank you for your time, folks.

Um, like all my neighbors here.

I'm uh I live on Bretton Lane.

I'm literally right behind um uh the trash bins.

I wanted to let you guys know though that uh I I consider the the the folks at the district uh good neighbors.

I've talked to them a number of times with issues of of things that made noise.

In fact, just over the last wind, um some uh changes needed to be made with the trash bands for banging and so forth.

The operations director said he'd be right on it, and and I appreciate that.

Prior to that, there were some shading issues with the new lights that went up after the initial construction.

I brought it up to him, took a couple of pictures, that lights have been turned off.

Um they've been good neighbors to me.

Regarding this particular project, I'm just asking to please reconsider the setback because when we're talking about the setback, um it's two from what I understand here, it's two feet above the curb height, but we don't know which uh the curb height is at this time.

I guess that comes out later.

So I think there's a little bit of misunderstanding that this thing can reach up a little bit higher.

For that reason, I'm just saying please then also reconsider the setback, just push it out a bit more.

Uh because it will look like we have a highway 39 uh uh screen behind us.

It'll it'll be a big-sized building, I'm sure of it.

It's it's gonna be necessary.

So again, my my final request is or my my total request is prioritize insulation.

Um I'm sure the study was done, but I don't think the study was done with all the equipment that's in there.

So why not just head it off at the past?

Just make all the homeowners comfortable knowing that they're really taken in consideration of full insulation on a project.

And I wouldn't fight the fact that it's not too uh um egregious for us to be asking just push the set back out a little bit.

It's a big lot.

Um that would that would ease a lot of the attention as well.

Uh but I want to leave with a fact that they are a good neighbors with it.

I think that maybe if we all work together with this, we get a project that works for everybody.

Um, and that's all I have to say.

Thank you, sir.

Next speaker, please.

My name is James Torres, and I'm here tonight uh speaking on behalf of AYSO.

I'm the safety director for AYSO 56.

And so I'm very much interested in safety, and I know that the school district has worked with us very, very well for many, many years.

And so, and I also agree with some of the other speakers.

I all any project that I'm ever going to be involved in, which I would always encourage community input.

So I I get it, I get a lot of the points here, and I and I respect everyone who's spoken.

At the same time, um this has been um this isn't something the reason I'm here is because of the meaningful role that AYSO plays to help kids with sports, and we need the cooperation of the school district for fields to make them safe, to keep them safe.

So anything that can move move the ball forward with that's very important to me.

And again, the families, the kids that they have their first experience many times with soccer, like my kid did.

And uh so I want to continue to work with the school district uh in in partnership and and collaborating.

Our ability to serve the kids is uh again, it depends a lot on the school with school district, and the maintenance and operations obviously very important to keep this field safe, and that's very important for me, especially in my role on the board as uh the uh being involved with safety.

So it's it's the work from the maintenance team, obviously, that helps that uh the lawns and the uh different situations you need to keep the field safe and the facilities safe, so we need that.

They need the they need the facilities to be able to do that.

So ultimately, the maintenance and operation department supports our programs, and I know that you uh the commit the commissioners support us as well as the city council.

So ultimately, my my request is that you uh support uh the district and help them with this project.

Whatever it is that you have to do to mediate or compromise or work with them.

I hope you can come up with a good you know solution.

And again, I'm supportive of our city.

I've I've lived here, I've owned the house on downtown Huntington Beach for many years, and I plan on being here many, many more years.

So I'm very supportive of our city.

I think we're a very patriotic city, and I think we're a well-run city.

So I'm honored to be here to be able to speak to you, uh, commissioners.

And uh I hope that uh you take it all in and make a good decision tonight.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker, please.

Good evening.

Members of the planning commission, I'm Brian Whitmore.

I represent Studio W architects.

We are the architects uh representing Huntington Beach City School District.

We're responsible for the plans that you see here this evening.

We've also been involved in all of the educational plans that have been um part of your community here since 2016 since the passing of measure Q.

Um I just want to address a few questions I think that came up during this process, and certainly I'm available as well, along with the applicant to go through those.

I think the question arises it relates to the height versus the property line.

There is some differential between you know the properties, the property that exists on the school district and the neighboring residences.

We are, of course, conditioned to abide by the zoning entitlements that are here this evening in terms of how tall that building can be relative to the differential in the property uh lines and the and the heights of those properties uh coincident with one another.

So I want to remind you that we are of course abiding by that process.

Umise inside the building versus outside the building.

I think you know, obviously, noise within the building is gonna be a much better solution than what's the activities that are happening outside the building here, whether or not the building is insulated or not.

As it relates to the insulation, I think it was brought up here this evening.

It is our intent to insulate the building, of course.

Um, and that's really for the purposes of the operations of the individuals in there to make it more climate, you know, rather than have them operating in a building that's non-insulated.

Um as it pertains to the setback.

I think a lot of questions, you know, we did a lot of effort, obviously working with the city and and the applicant, our client, to try to make this a better project to try to work with both landscape enhancements and enhancements when it comes to uh the visual appeal of the building in general.

The reason that that we sort of push back on the setback issue is because the further that this building pushes away from those western property lines, the more likely that there's gonna be activities that happen between the building and the neighboring properties, and we want to avoid that.

We really want to make sure that all the activities happen on the front side of the building, that any noise that's generated if those doors are open or that sort of thing are really focused towards the east, the furthest position away from the eastern properties, and that there's no activities behind the building that would create noise and create disturbance with those properties on the west side.

It was brought up here earlier, um, and I appreciate the council that it represented the school district addressing the issues between DSA versus non-DSA.

Um the the previous administration building was approved through the Department of the State Architect, and there was a secret process that enabled them to do that.

The reason this building is not being or not going through DSA is simply because the district is trying to be a good neighbor.

They're trying to work with this community to come up with a solution that I think is better, and I think ultimately our plans reflect that.

You can condition this however you want.

I sat as a planning commissioner for many years in my own city.

You really need to find fact as to why this doesn't necessarily um you know meet the requirements of the city and the planning entitlements, and I think that's challenging to do with all of the efforts that the applicant and our firm has done.

So thank you very much for your time here this evening, and I appreciate don't go anywhere, freeze where you're at.

Um, do we have any other further speakers?

Last call for Malia Durant.

Uh she's our C book involved.

Okay.

All right, then we are good.

Okay, uh there's no other speakers, so we'll now close the uh public hearing.

Commissioners will now deliberate this item.

I think what we want to do is probably have uh all of those gentlemen representing the Huntington Beach School District.

You guys are well positioned.

I'll start on my right with questions.

Yeah, my first question is regarding the SQL process, and I guess from what I understand, my discussions with staff is that in order to have for us a public semi-public zoning, there's a requirement to have a C UP to perform maintenance.

Is that correct?

And so Ben, back in I don't know what year it was.

You've been doing maintenance for about a decade, it sounds like what is the minor saying that they should have tried to get a C UP at that point in time?

Uh I can speak to this a little bit.

The maintenance operations department moved to the Kettler site, which is housing district operations when the Kettler site became the administrative building.

So when that happened, it was a DSA renovation.

It didn't go through the city council because the site houses students.

There are students right now presenting at the Huntington Beach City School District Board meeting.

Um so that project went through the DSA route because it houses students and maintenance and operations was part of that CEQA before it went through DSA.

So that all happened in like 2018 or something like that.

Yeah, I was gonna say what year.

Yeah, so part of the conditions for this SQL exemption um was because it's at least from what I understand there were two categorical exemptions through sequence.

I'm not a SQL expert, but there was two uh categorical exemptions, correct?

Um, and was the basis of those exemptions that the operations gonna be doing the same operations before and after.

That makes sense.

I I conveniently have a CEQA expert here.

Um so I will let her come up and speak to the two exemptions and the one that was chosen to be adopted by the school district.

Good evening, commissioners.

My name is Malia Duran, and I'm the CEQA consultant for the Huntington Beach City School District.

Um the CEQA exemption that was filed on the record in October 2023 was actually a 1530, and that is a new construction of small facilities exemption.

We have a copy of that uh signed and filed exemption here with us.

The resolution that was um prepared by the board did also mention a 15301.

It mentioned a 15301 and a 15303, and so that's where the confusion has come from as far as utilization of the 15301, which is an existing facilities exemption, and utilization of the 1530, which is new construction of a building under 10,000 square feet.

So the district filed an exemption for utilization of the 1530.

Uh the clerical error of the resolution mentioning the 15301 has no founding on the CEQA determination that was filed for the project site, and that CEQA determination um went through its 30-day statute of limitations in 2023 and is on record for the project.

So to clarify, does a 15303 take into account the existing operations?

No, it has nothing to do with existing operations of the site.

It is new construction of buildings, and it provides various um different types of buildings can be constructed.

Commercial buildings, even residential buildings can be cleared under 15303, and there is uh a limitation to the size of those buildings, which is 10,000 square feet.

So that being said, I would ask staff then the PS uh zoning would that encompass the maintenance since it doesn't on their side on the district side.

Are we doing two things at one time?

Is I guess my question are you asking if it's the same classification that we have in the zoning code?

Well, we're saying that the maintenance isn't covered in the 1530s, right?

Correct.

So we separate that from what now the zoning code would allow for at that site.

Is that my confused or can you clarify that for me?

Yeah, so I'll try and answer it this way.

So the proposed use fits within a use classification in the PS zoning district.

It requires a CEP from the zoning administrator.

It's now been appealed to the planning commission.

We concur that the 15303 exemption is appropriate for this project.

Thank you.

All right, but uh I want to go back to the when you switch use of a parcel, they were able to kind of sidestep the public comment portion, otherwise, and there was the public input.

There was no input at all when they switched the use of this site, correct?

I mean, there was no there was no hearings or anything else, correct?

Correct.

Yeah, the the school district indicated that they were able to make that change by applying through DSA.

Yeah, looking for some more clarification on the grade.

Um you meant when you say there's a there's a two-foot variance from I guess the top of the curb, you're talking about the the property that you're gonna be building on, correct?

Or the or the adjacent property the highest adjacent top the top of curb is at the front property line is at the curb height off of door set at the front of the property.

Okay, so not necessarily the adjacent property on what street is it?

Do we know what that differential is?

No, I do not.

Yeah.

You in the indicated uh if this project is approved and it's submitted through uh grading permit review and building permit review, we will confirm that they comply with the building height requirements.

Okay.

Yeah, I guess just for my say, I get um if if the I mean if the property itself is you know, it's a maybe three feet, I think I heard of her it's five or six feet.

I mean, then you're talking the building keeps getting higher.

Are there controls in place to avoid that type of situation?

Correct, yeah.

As Mr.

Kelly indicated, if the the grade differential from the highest opera curve through the slab or the foundation is a building exceeds the two-foot allowance that's given.

Let's say a three, it's a three-foot difference instead of the two-foot allowance.

The excess foot is subtracted from the maximum height that it's allowed for the building.

So it's basically capped nearly in relation to the highest topic curve.

Okay, thank you.

And then last question is regarding the setback of the building.

Um, it sounds like at least a couple of the residents um wouldn't be willing to have the project move forward if it were set back.

And I think one of the reasons one of the gentlemen stated was because they don't want activities to occur back there.

What type of activities were you referring to?

Are you talking about maintenance activities?

Correct.

Uh not necessarily only limited to maintenance activities.

I I think it's a uh there's concern that this building will be there in 30 years, and everybody here will not be remembering this conversation, right?

So giving an opportunity for anything to occur in that area, whether it be um an attractive nuisance for our community or being able to park a car or build a little lot or anything like that.

Um it wouldn't be advantageous, we believe for for the community to have that additional setback.

Um additionally, as you'll see in the noise study, the building is placed as far away from the opposite side resonance to ensure that the sound dissipates over the space between the front of the building and the parking lot.

So by moving it closer, you're increasing the sound from the neighbors on this side to the neighbors on this side.

Have you done studies to show if you could potentially move it, say 10 feet to the, I guess it'd be to the east, whether or not that if that would affect the neighbors on the east side?

Because if it if it's still within the limits, it seems like you can pretty um clearly in the sound study you can discern that the the noise would push further if you look at it.

Um it's figure three condition A.

Maybe we should show the sound study.

It's only 595 pages.

Yes.

Um just have an overbeat.

I I'm not sure that we need to see this.

I'm not sure that we need to sit to see the sound study.

I think we understand that it was incorporated in the plan.

Um I I would I would stand aside on that right now.

I I guess the point I was getting at um was there's if if it's too if the building's too close, say to the west, you have I think a visual issue with the with the residents that live there, and if you were to push it further east, say I don't know, 10 feet.

If that sound still is still within compliance for the neighbors to the east, what's the harm of moving it over a little bit to avoid the visual issue with the residents to the west?

Was that considered?

Yes, that was like basically hitting the sweet spot, so to speak.

And and we believe we've done that by going the 22 feet instead of the uh required 10 feet.

Um we did models, visual models of the building from uh looking around the surrounding neighborhood and also from the walkway, and that was why we considered moving the building further than we did, and we believe it's in the appropriate sweet spot.

Okay, thank you.

Can we put the project site slide up from the PowerPoint?

So that is the western side of the property, I guess, for clarification, correct?

Closer to the down to the I think it was Granger, they live on Bretton or Brighton.

Okay.

Commissioner McGee, do you have any questions?

I'll make it brief.

Um Mr.

Mansoff, uh right now the conditions that you're working in when it comes to maintenance.

Can you describe them a little?

I mean, I know you're working out of connexes.

Yes, uh, it's not an ideal condition right now.

We have a set of seven connex boxes that we store uh primarily our maintenance equipment and tools that we use on the sites.

Um minor work that we have to do that involves welding pieces of ham rail or pieces of metal together to bring to the site to use this ham rail, um some cutting of wood to fabricate, you know, temporary stairs and things of that nature.

Um all those activities right now occur outside um in the conditions, right?

Uh we have I I hate to say this because we've we've actually had the connexes broken into, but we have a generator in one of the connexes that we bring out and operate when we need to do any welding.

Um that in and of itself is quite a task.

Um, same with our table saws or skill saws, anything of that nature.

Um, but I would say primarily our work is done on the sites.

Um our team dispatches the first thing before students get there.

We want to optimize all the time we have on site before students get there.

Um we kind of have a five-minute rule that you're shouldn't be at the district office five minutes after you are uh are reporting for work.

And like I said earlier, if you're if you have a contractor mow your lawn, refinish your bathroom, refinish your kitchen, frame up your garage, do drywall.

He's not doing that at his house and bringing it to you.

He's doing it at the school site at the work site.

Okay, so in your opinion, would this aesthetically be an improvement?

Um would it be also an improvement when it came when it comes to crime, as in uh this why wouldn't this building be broken into as opposed to the connexes?

So one benefit that we have with this building as opposed to connect boxes is we can um bring our security system over.

We'll have permanent power, we'll have our alarm system that triggers our on call that calls our security company, we'll have cameras to be able to see what occurred.

Um we don't have power in those connexes right now.

And as far as aesthetics, I think uh pretty much anything is going to be better than the connex boxes.

Um it'd be nice to be able to move the um ragtag work table inside.

It would it would clean up the place tremendously.

Thank you very much.

Okay, just a couple of questions uh for clarification.

So code on setback is 10 feet 10 feet, yes.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

And the proposal for this project is to s to move it an additional 20 feet or 20 feet total?

A total of 22 and a half feet.

Okay.

And uh code height is 20 feet.

Code height from finish floor of the building to the top of the roof is 18 feet.

18 feet.

20 feet to the top of curb to the top of the building.

And this is proposed at 17 and a half, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

And then there's an existing structure there.

I did drive by there to kind of take a look at the property, but the existing structure, it's my understanding, it's 18 feet.

The existing uh school building.

I believe it's 21 feet.

It's 21 feet.

Okay, thank you.

That's all.

Commissioner Goldberg.

I don't really have any more questions for the applicant, and I would just want to take this time to kind of just kind of take this back a little bit.

You've got a community uh neighbors, okay, uh bedroom community that had a school that closed because of budget cuts and what have you.

And then they decided to make it into a um offices for the district.

Not too bad, not a big change really, actually, probably less traffic overall just because there's not as many students there.

So now they they're they're doing maintenance work on this site in the middle of a neighborhood, okay.

And I've sat on this board with with fellow commissioners, and we and I've cited many times with business and and we've had neighbors come by and say, this is gonna be a catastrophe, this is gonna be terrible.

Why would you do this to us?

The fences or whatever happened to be the issue at the time.

In this case, it's hard for me.

I I was ex-PTA president, just like many of you have done in your community service, and parks and rec commissioner and president of the little leagues.

I get all this stuff.

I mean, I it's it's it makes sense.

I this is very hard for me to this building is exactly what the one sp uh person that spoke against this project said was this building should be in an industrial area, it should not be in the middle of a neighborhood.

And and I think that this already they've kind of slid through the system, they've used this the DSA, and then they didn't use the DSA, and they they they slid sequid by and the 30-day exemption went away, and they were in other words.

This is a a sad situation.

If I lived in that neighborhood, I'd have gotten I'm surprised there's not more people here, quite frankly, from the neighborhood, because I would be spitting nickels if this happened in my neighborhood.

So I'm just letting you know we can ask more questions, we can go ahead and dive into all this stuff, and I get that it will look quite frankly, you're right.

It will be better than the current circumstances because it's it's it's a hodgepodge of whatever.

But and it may look aesthetically okay, but it's it shouldn't be here, is what I that that's that's my that'll be my position, and certainly the commissioners can can view it other ways, but this is uh this is terrible for the people that uh live in that community so much polar.

So I have a couple of comments.

I tend to agree with you to a certain extent, but this city is running out of room and money to do a lot of things that they need to do to support the schools.

I don't know if anybody ever looked at alternative sites for this.

If we have any alternative sites, and if so, I would like very much to hear you speak to them.

But I too lived across from a school, and I chose the property because it was across from the school, and ironically, it was AYSO that came in and ruined that for our neighborhood.

They came in and they turned a grade school into AYSO soccer fields and put up clique lights of 30 feet or something and changed the entire flavor of the neighborhood to where all of our parking was gone, there was trash all over the place.

This was before the sports complex, and we did come to the city and we asked for an exemption, but they told us there was no place else for these poor kids to go.

So I'm guessing the answer is there's no place else for these poor maintenance workers to put their equipment so that they can mow the lawns and fix the fences and do the stairs and whatever it is.

But I would like some input into whether any alternative sites were ever considered for this operation.

Thank you.

So I I can speak to that if you want me to.

Go ahead.

Multiple sites have been considered for this.

Obviously, having the operations within our district is a uh substantially better doing due to the nature of their work.

Maintenance guys drive to five or six sites a day, um, going back to the shop to get stuff, come out to get things.

Um we looked at multiple different um uh opportunities on our school other campuses, other school campuses.

As I said earlier, we've got 380 neighbors, all of our schools are in residences.

Um, and I I can speak to um even working with planning on various possible locations for properties and up district operations.

Um we've this is this is uh not only the almost three years we've been planning this, but five years uh total time, and we continue to look at properties.

I was on a property two weeks ago or a week ago for potential.

Um it just doesn't exist in Huntington.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, I myself agree with uh Commissioner Goldberg.

I would be upset as hell if this were happening in my backyard.

Um I started off looking at this project, you know, thinking, okay, there's got to be something wrong with it.

And uh, you know, the school district very um properly uh filed their notice of exemption that appeal period for sequa, it could have been wrong, whatever assumptions they made that opportunity to challenge the CEQA is passed.

Um it meets all the zoning requirements.

It it's allowed in the zoning, and I unfortunately I personally cannot find a reason why it can't be done.

I I think it's it would be great if you could move it 10 feet.

I I mean I'm looking at the site plan.

I think you've got the room.

I think that would be a great compromise.

But otherwise that's that's you're meeting all the code, and I uh unfortunately I've I've I've gotten nothing against it.

Commissioner Commissioners, um, have we closed the public hearing yet before we start?

I thought we uh we didn't just yeah, we're we're we're debating it.

I apologize.

I wasn't sure because I thought there were still questions going on in this.

Given our opinion.

Thank you.

Okay, I I would having worked uh in my career in code enforcement, uh the current condition of this property.

Uh you know, I wrote down some things, you know, going out and visiting it and seeing those seven storage uh I I like how we give it a conic, like give it like it's nice.

It's Ramshackle.

At best, it's an attractive nuisance.

And my first thought was having you know work with fire and police department over the years to protect the public um from these conditions because of what they do attract.

Um the greater good is always public safety.

And you know, sure, you know, you can't help but notice this is a school building, right?

Now it's a district school building.

And when you move into a neighborhood, you know, you have to take into these uh uh vaccine, things can change.

Things are changing all the time.

You know, uh I I see this as a better solution.

Is it a perfect solution?

No.

But I I like uh Commissioner Athenis.

Uh I I I think we meet all the guidelines.

Uh you know, it's not a perfect, I uh again, it's not perfect, but you know, taking in the greater good.

Uh you know, I live in Southeast Huntington Beach, um, around it.

Um I'm interested in the safety over all of this.

So that being said, I'm gonna be a yes vote on this, but at this point, do I have a motion?

I'd like to make a motion, please.

Okay.

I'd like to make a motion to uh find the proposed project categorical categorically exempt from Sequa and to approve conditional use permit 23 hyphen one zero one four with the suggestion findings and conditions found in attachment number one.

I'll second that.

So we have a first and a second.

Let's go ahead and vote David's doesn't work.

I don't think it's not working.

I'm not getting prompted.

So okay.

Um, what is your vote?

Yes.

Okay.

We have six ayes.

Uh Commissioner Goldberg is no motion carries.

The planning commission's action is final unless an appeal is filed to the city council within 10 calendar days.

An appeal must include the reasons for the appeal and the fee, and she'll be filed with the city clerk's office within 10 calendar days.

Okay, next on the agenda is the consent calendar to approve some minutes.

Is there a motion to approve the minutes as submitted?

Can I get a second?

Second.

We have a first and a second.

Non-public hearing items.

Okay, I need you to vote first.

Oh, sorry.

No problem.

Uh Commissioner Clifford, I will mark you as abstaining since you were not in attendance.

Okay, we have six ayes, one abstention.

Motion carries.

I had to be on the right side of voting on at least one issue today, so it's fine.

So the non-public hearing items.

We have none.

And then on the planning, on the next agenda, our planning items.

Can staff provide a report?

Yeah, we currently don't have any items tentatively scheduled for the March 24th meeting.

If that holds true, we will set a cancellation the prior week.

And we currently have one item tentative scheduled for the April 14 meeting.

Okay.

Before we close for the evening, planning commissioners, do you have any comments to provide?

We'll start on my right.

Oh, yeah, just being my first meeting.

Um, you know, I'm happy to be here.

Um, you know, growing up in Huntington Beach, it's it's rewarding to be able to, you know, give back to the community this way.

So I'm excited to for the opportunity and appreciative of appreciative of the opportunity and looking forward to working with you all.

Thank you.

Great having you on board, Dave.

I had the pleasure of serving, not serving, but uh attending the Citizens Academy and became friends with David, so I'm I'm excited that he's here with us.

So welcome.

Yeah, uh welcome aboard uh Commissioner Clifford.

Um you know, I I my company turns 40 this this month, and uh I've been dealing with planning commissions um for 40 years, or probably a little more actually.

And I gotta say, uh I'm really pleased with how prepared everybody always is.

This commission is for every meeting.

This this is the best planning commission that uh that I've ever been exposed to.

And so I'd like to thank everybody for being diligent and doing your homework and doing a great job.

Thank you, everybody.

Wow.

Well, very flattered to be included in that in inclusive statement.

Welcome, David.

I've known David uh for a while as well, and I think he's a great addition here.

I wish Tracy the very best in our new assignment, and I guess I'll see you all in April or whenever and yeah, I too want to welcome Dave.

I I heard uh he when he was uh appointed and I was excited a great addition.

It's gonna be a nice uh nice few sessions coming going forward.

So and I happen to be of all things that I am, I'm also Irish because my birthday is on March say March 17 St.

Patrick's Day.

So I hope you'll uh if you're around, uh I'll be close to Pelican Isle uh at that time if you guys feel like swinging by and uh having a drink in the afternoon.

Thanks.

And again, uh thank you all and Dave do truly welcome.

Um it's great to see a new face.

Um, you know, if there's any questions you have, please contact us.

Uh you know, welcome aboard.

That being said, uh that is the last item on the agenda.

We are hereby adjourned to the next planning commission on Tuesday, March 24th, 2026.

Is that the right date, by the way, Ricky?

Should I have said April?