It's still a thing.

That's the thing.

Commission meeting to order.

Welcome to the December 9th, 2025 Huntington Beach Planning Commission meeting.

While the planning commission welcomes public involvement in free speech, it rejects comments from anyone that are discriminatory, defamatory, or otherwise not protected speech.

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

Thank you.

Okay, I'd like to call on uh Commissioner Bush for uh pledge allegiance.

You got it.

Hands over your hearts, ready to begin.

To the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Please be seated.

Okay, may we have a roll call, please?

Yes, uh Commissioner Palman is absent.

Vice Chair Bush.

Here, Chair Theonis.

Here.

Commissioner Babano here.

Commissioner McGee?

Here.

Commissioner Palmer.

Here.

And Commissioner Goldberg is also absent.

We have a quorum.

Okay.

Uh now is the time for public comments for items that are not on the agenda.

Do we have any uh speakers uh for items not on the agenda?

We have no one signed up to speak for items that are not on the agenda.

Oh Kadoki.

Uh next on the agenda is a public hearing on the appeal of the zoning administrators approval of conditional use permit number 24-016 and coastal development permit 24-001.

Uh the TRAN residents uh on uh uh carousel.

Uh planning commissioners, please state your disclosures regarding this item.

We'll start on my right.

I spoke to uh councilwoman uh Vandermack and Brett Bush and uh Brian Thinas.

Take exception that he didn't call me vice chair.

Okay, vice chair.

Dominic McGee and Councilman Chad Williams.

Okay, and I spoke with uh Commissioner McGee and uh Commissioner uh Pellman and uh um mayor Burns at the time, uh former Mayor Burns, uh Mayor McKeon, and um, and uh Councilman uh Vandermark.

I spoke with Councilman Twining.

I spoke with Council person I spoke with Councilperson Pat Burns and Council and Mayor uh Casey McKeon and two unnamed residents.

Okay, uh staff may we uh please have a report.

Yes, Marco Cuevas, associate planner will be giving the presentation.

Uh yes, thank you, Chair and uh planning commissioners.

Uh tonight for your consideration we do have the appeal of the zoning administrators' approval of condition use permit number 24016 and coastal development permit uh 24-11.

That is the TRAN residence.

Um the project site, it's uh project is located at 1674 Carroll Cell Lane.

It is a 5,289 square foot lots.

Um the neighborhood um consists of a mix of single two and three story homes and the general plan and zoning designation is RL for residential low density, and as the slide shows, the um project site is located here with the yellow arrow.

And it's a uh within Humboldt Island waterfront lot.

So uh the project request is to uh demolish the existing two-story residence.

Um which is about the current residence, is about um five thousand and seventy square feet, um, and um construct a new 5,671 square foot three-story single-family residence at a height of thirty-four feet and one inch with uh a three-car garage.

So uh the image to your left is the site plan showing um the location, of course, of the garage up front, but also of how the addition will be or the new construction would be developed onto the site.

The image to your right is the current view of the property as it exists today.

So with our ZA action, the zoning administrator held a public hearing on October 15th, 2025 to consider the proposed project.

The applicant spoke on behalf of the project, and there were no speaker speakers in opposition to the project.

Staff recommended approval, citing that the project was in compliance with all but one of the development standards for the residential low density zone.

In order to attain full compliance, the third floor habitable area will need to be revised to reach the second story top plate and is noted as a condition 1A.

The project was also conditioned to limit the building height at 230 feet and is noted in condition one B.

The ZA considered the compatibility and variety of one to three-story homes with diverse architectural styles and also considered multiple homes approved with heights ranging from 25 feet to 35 feet within the neighborhood and the vicinity, and determined that limiting the project to a maximum height of 30 feet would be more consistent with development with adjacent residences and recently approved homes in the Huntington Harbor.

Thus, the ZA approved the project with the suggested findings and modified conditions of approval.

So on October uh 27, 2025, following the ZA's action, the project was appealed by Jacqueline Lang on behalf of the property owner, David David Tran, citing that condition 1B limiting the maximum height of the structure to not exceed 30 feet in height was arbitrary and unsupported.

Although the proposed resident will be residence will be consistent with development within the area, the ZA approval with regard to this height was based on the compatibility of one to three-story homes within the area with heights ranging from 25 to 35 feet in height, and determined that limiting the project to a maximum height of 30 feet would be more consistent with development with adjacent residences and recently approved homes in Huntington Harbor.

All new development with uh three stories or heights greater than 30 feet are subject to a conditional use permit review and approvals are discretionary.

Uh the third floor space as conditioned is designed within the confines of the second floor roof volume, which facilitates the structure's resemblance to a two-story home.

The third floor, the third floor balcony deck is set back five feet from the building exterior and is oriented towards the channel.

The building height as conditioned and appearance of a two-story home are similar to the proportion and scale of two and three-story homes within the area.

On this slide, we have the subject property with the star, actually, noted here on the map.

And this is this is uh just to be um representative of the types of um of um development within the Humboldt Island.

So the red um dots represent um CUPs and CDPs that were approved for three-store habitable and/or decks over 30 feet, and like I said, those are represented by the red dots.

Um, uh the green dots are uh CDPs that uh do not exceed 30 feet in height.

Um so those are typically like two-story residences, um, but you could see um where they're located as well within the the green dots.

And um the blue dots are um is one uh is a project that is actually adjacent to the subject property that was um allowed with uh just a building permit uh back when the code allowed for uh such developments.

Okay, in this slide, we have um the adjacent properties, the property to the left at 1675 um Wanderer Lane has a height of uh 33 feet, and that's uh measured from uh the finished floor to the top of the rails.

The neighboring property to the right at 167 Carousel Lane is uh 30 feet high.

And you could see how it looks from the street level based on this slide.

Um, okay, and this next slide is also representative of the types of development that are within a close proximity of the subject property.

Um so you can see starting from the top left, uh 16591 Carousel Lane that's built at 35 feet.

Um that has a third floor.

Uh the following property 16 16681 Carousel Lane is built to uh 31 feet six inches.

That is actually a two-story property.

Um, six five forty one carousel lane is built to 34 feet.

That's also a two-story property.

Uh the bottom two photos represent developments that are um that do not exceed 30 feet.

Um, six, seven thirty-two, wanderer lane is built to 29 feet, and that's a two-story property, and one six, seven, eleven, uh, carousel lane built to 30, that's uh 30 feet 30 foot structure, and that actually has a three stories.

So as you can see, um the types of development within like uh the close proximity to the subject property, um, they're diverse in architectural styles, but also diverse in heights as well.

Uh for this next slide, um, as we previously mentioned the uh proposed project complies with the provisions of the Huntington pitch zoning and subdivision ordinance, including setbacks, building height, minimum landscape, privacy standards, and parking requirements as demonstrated in the table provided.

Um proposed over 30 feet in height, or with any habitable living space above the second floor, including root off decks, are subject to approval of a conditional use permit by the zoned administrator.

Within the RL zoning designation, residential subjects that do not include um improvements above the second floor are not subject to a CUP and do not need a public hearing and may proceed directly to the building uh permit process.

As detailed in the table above, the proposed single family dwelling complies with minimum residential low density development standards, but is subject to condition use permit approval due to the proposed third floor and height.

Coastal development permit is required for all new construction on the waterfront.

Um, as you could see uh within the table, um, we have the what the required development standards are, and um to the left we have uh on this column we have the proposed standards so you could see that the subject property either meets or exceeds the basic um designations of what's um required for that zoning district.

Uh for elevations, uh the proposed three-story residence as conditioned will conform with the city zoning ordinance.

Um as you can see in these elevations, the east elevation is what you would see from the street.

Uh the west elevation is what you would see from the harbor, and the south and north elevations would represent um the sides.

So you could see from uh the profiles that the house does resemble a uh two-story residence from the sides.

But of course, when you get to the um uh the the view from um uh the waterfront, um that's where you would see the um the resemblance to a third story, and of course um the third story is set back uh from the front or front of from the building um structure is set back five feet.

So uh in summary, um the plan commission may either uphold the zoning administrative decision with or without modifications or take an alternative action.

Um so the zoning administrator action is to find the proposed project categorically exempt for NASIQ from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303 class three and approved uh CUP number 24061 016 and CDP 24-11 with suggested findings and conditions of approval essentially at the height of 30 feet.

Or the alternative action is to find a proposed project categorically exempt under the same uh CEQA section, class um class three, and approve um CUP number 24-016 and CDP 24-11 with modified uh findings and conditions of approval um at a height of 34 feet one inch, essentially the applicant's request, or uh continue the C the C the C UPN CDP item and direct staff accordingly.

Um so with that I conclude my presentation and I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Okay, uh commissioners uh do you have any questions for staff?

Uh we'd like to uh uh start with uh Commissioner Palmer.

You you had a question.

I have a question, but it might I have a question, but it might need to go to the constructor.

Uh with one B if we were to approve that says it's I guess 34 feet one inch.

I personally don't care for anything over 30 feet, but uh we do have some precedence set.

So how much of a guarantee is there that there will be nothing?

And I mean nothing, no chimneys, no wires, no drones, no helicopter landing pads, no shade cloths above the 34 1 inch height, because that seems to be what's happening is people get a deck and then they put things up on the deck, and then uh there's just more and more stuff at higher higher heights.

So that would be my question.

Um so the the code um um does allow um heights up to 35 feet with approval of a conditional use permit.

Um so um I think there's very few exceptions to that, with exception of uh chimneys and elevators and things of that nature, but that would be the only thing.

So, and that's my question.

Are there chimneys and elevators above the height uh that's recommended in 1B?

Can we pull the elevations back up?

Let's leave the building elevations on the screen.

I'd like to say that I think you have to be two feet above the roof line 10 feet away from the building's standpoint, but the maximum of sorry about that.

Um I believe that the building code is still the same.

You the chimney where it where it goes past the third floor has to be two feet above the roof line 10 feet away.

That used to be it.

So whatever that designation is 10 feet away approximately, I would whatever that would be if you guys can figure that out.

If it's 10 feet away on a lower slope of the roof, it wouldn't go higher than the 34-1 or 35 feet.

But if it is measured from 35 feet, then you could go up to what 37 feet.

I that's my question.

I'd like to see a hard I'd like to see a hard stop at 35.

Absolutely.

So that's so just for the sake of the conversation because we're not here for the building, obviously, but I understand what you're saying.

It's not gonna go past the peak of the roof line at the top.

It'll be it'll be short of that at 10 feet away, if that makes sense.

This is questions for staff though, please.

So if I may add to that, so uh as I mentioned, the code does allow for um, I guess exceptions to that height limit, but only certain exceptions.

Um a chimney would be one of them, and like say, like maybe an elevator, and I believe it allows um, I'm gonna say a maximum of 10 feet above that, but no more than that.

So the height limit that the code requires of 35 feet is a hard 35 feet, as I said with approval of a conditional use permit, but it's up to the roof, the tip of the rooftop.

So nothing else would be allowed um above that.

Is that chimney dimensioned?

It does not look like it goes above the peak of the roof.

If it does, it might be a half a foot.

Thank you.

Let me um let me reference my plans to see if there's a uh dimension for that actual uh chimney top.

Uh so the plans reference on the elevations that the uh the top of the chimney would be um nine inches above the the tip of the highest point of the roof.

So at let's see at the requesting 34 one inch, so at nine inches above that, 34, 34 feet 10 inches.

And basically, when you go through the zoning administrator, you're you're getting approval of these conceptual plans.

The plan the construction drawings have to match the conceptual drawings, right?

That is correct.

Okay, goodie.

Asked and answered, thank you.

Commissioner uh Bush.

Oh, you want me to go vice chair Bush?

Sorry.

So I just want to confirm that the zoning code allows for 35 feet, right?

That is correct.

Right.

So um 57% of these projects, it looked like there was 21 overall.

57% of them are over the 30-foot mark.

So just kind of curious.

Uh if it's not arbitrary, how would you define it?

Uh so you know all the plans are that are over 30 feet.

Um, you know, it is, you know, subject to well, discretionary, first of all, but you know, they are subject to the plans um and what they're developing.

So um, if I understand your question, um you're you're asking um if you know how our projects you know built above the 35 or the 30 foot.

Well, how did you come to the conclusion of 30 feet considering 35?

They're asking for 341, 35's the top, you're at 30.

So to me, I'm just wondering what your method was, because it's to me it seems arbitrary.

I'm not doing the plan check.

Right.

So um the 30-foot um height limit was um uh essentially looking at uh more recently developed property, and also it looked at the um the most um like adjacent properties.

So that's how essentially, you know, comparably how 30 feet was was uh derived, but once again that was you know the zoning administrators um um decision and as I said it's it's um discretionary so they um they exercise a fair amount of discretion when evaluating these projects.

And vice chair, can I uh jump in there?

And you guys are selected for your own personal expertise, and this is a novo hearing, so while you can consider um what the zoning administrator did, you really should be looking at the facts themselves and coming to your own conclusions, and uh that's definitely Commissioner Pellman, you questions?

Um, I have more of a comment.

Um I basically I'm sorry that I'm late.

There was a huge accident on Edwards Hill, and so that's why my delay in getting to the meeting.

Um I basically um still uncomfortable with the seawall situation.

Yeah, and so um, I had asked the mayor if he would provide a planning uh a study session on the seawall, and basically he said he would.

So hopefully that comes through and solves the problem for me.

Thank you.

Commissioner McGee.

Yeah, I was um wanted to ask about the uh the what seems to be arbitrary decision to make this 30 feet also.

So looking at the facts and using maybe Occam's razor as a guide, it is kind of an arbitrary decision.

Um I'd come with that conclusion anyway.

So um, so that's that's the only statement I want to make.

Um, why this particular, why this particular project was capped at 30 when there's numerous others who that are beyond that was it really okay all right uh with uh no further questions we will open the public hearing do we have any speakers tonight we have three speakers signed up to speak Jacqueline Leg David Tran and Perry Clitheroe please come down to either mic line up and make sure you state your name prior to speaking thank you please to build their home up to the 34 feet one inch as requested as some of you have mentioned other homes in the area have been granted that same tolerance and if I were a property owner I'd feel real real bad if my neighbors got something and then all of a sudden I was told no so have a good night thank you very much thank you very much next speaker please put this here hi honorable um planning commission commissioners I'm Jacqueline Lang I'm speaking on behalf of my parents David and Kimberly Tran they're here present tonight.

So a little background about them you know we're immigrants from Vietnam they've lived their American dream here since 1980 worked and lived in HB for over 30 years.

They love Huntington Beach they moved to the harbor in 2017 with the intention to rebuild the house because it was you know not it was not new it was the original condition.

So I've helped them since twenty seventeen to work with one of the top architects and home builders in the area who are very familiar with the Huntington Harbor area my mom Kimberly loves the harbor she's out there almost every day um she loves to keep the harbor clean so if you see someone on a paddle board um she's she's just loves the area and she doesn't want to move anywhere else they want this to be their forever home.

I also love the area so I also live near I bought a home nearby about a year ago um as well in the harbor so I come to visit them often because and my brother is also living in Huntington Beach.

So we finalized the plans last year and submitted it in June of 2024.

And then in October just waiting for the plans to get approved October of this year I was informed that our plans may not get approved because of the height.

So that was kind of a surprise to us because we were hoping to get this built because as soon as possible because my parents really want to get their home built um and I assure you we had our architects look at the city codes and make sure that the codes were gonna be compliant because we didn't want any delays.

So as far as compliance um you know everything except for condition one A and 1B were compliant and setbacks, massing, parking, everything is met.

The third story is really, you know, they're on the main channel, they want to enjoy they love the views of the harbor.

That's the reason we waited and purchased this property, the right time to purchase and you know waited so long to get this planned approved.

Um the third story is really just like a TV room for them to have so when the grandkids come over, they can be up there watching TV while everybody else is downstairs.

Um neighborhood compatibility.

Well, just to show you some of the views from the water, I think you can tell um with our new plans we would be compatible.

I don't think that it would um like right now I feel we're not compatible because we're you know uh two stories in between some of these really beautiful homes and really we want to build a beautiful home to make the area improve the area, so that's um precedents.

So I just did some research about the CUPs in the area, and you know, these are just some of the facts that I um came to find is also found out like there was one permit that was submitted after ours for a very similar size and higher height than ours that got approved, and they submitted their plans like a month after ours.

So I you know that was really heartbreaking.

Um I you know, just we went and talked to neighbors about our project.

I don't think you know we got some I have some more support letters from them that they signed, and I don't again we're very you know, we try to respect you know all of the um conditions that um and then um as far as design.

I mean I left we just told our architect to sorry, okay.

Go ahead.

You could if you could just please wrap it up.

You your your detailing more slides, but um yeah, the design, uh you know, everything would be compliant or you know, in compliance, and we're just asking for fairness, um, and consideration for our plans.

Um we tried to see if you know it would work, but I just it just looks really odd.

My parents just don't love the design if we have to like, you know, reduce the height, it just would make everything feel so you know, a lot like they have now, what the style of the home is now.

So they just again um so I'm just asking for consideration of the 34 feet height, um, and we'll just make sure everything is compliant with the CD and building codes.

Um so thank you so much for listening to us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

David Tran, did you wish to speak?

Hi everyone.

Um my name is David Tran.

Uh my my Y Kimberly Tran.

Uh we've been the living in Orange County since uh 1982.

Uh including the 2023 years in uh Hunter Tumbits.

Um we love Orange Healthy.

Well, special in Huntumbis, so that's why we uh we lived in here for a long time.

And uh we first open our business in the in Huntington Business and uh 2010, 2000 2002.

So we uh we all uh family worked in and uh worked in our I have two children and they are they have they own uh their own home.

And even the only two of us.

Uh my wife and I, but still um the reason that I want to build the last home uh because uh I'm we're both sending for now and um so I don't go out a lot like before so I have uh three uh three two uh two children and three grandchildren I want to have more room for them whenever uh they come to visit us.

That's the reason that we want to be able to become and I we're gonna continue to leave in this house.

We love this house, and we're gonna I think we're gonna die in this house.

Yeah, so uh thank you very much.

Thank you.

I'd like to say something with me.

Are there any other speakers?

There are other speakers.

Okay, um we will go ahead and close the public hearing and planning commissioners, we will now deliberate this idea this uh item.

Uh Commissioner McGee.

Yeah, this uh this may be just a personal thing for me to say, but this kind of thing annoys me.

Basically, we're putting arbitrary conditions on somebody's dream home.

People come here from all over the world escaping hell holes and make this place better, and I love this.

Um I actually like this project.

Um so I just think it's um just us being here, the additional expense they've had through uh revised architectural designs through appealing this thing actually grates me.

Uh I just want to put that out there.

We're we're actually very blessed for we're actually blessed and fortunate to have people like this here.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

I would agree with your assessment about uh wonderful family home, a good project, attention to detail, and working with the community.

However, I don't agree that rubber stamping every project that comes through is an absence of being arbitrary.

So we're here to make decisions, and some of the things that have been approved, some people don't approve of.

So it depends on who's sitting at the desk and what the conditions are and what the modifications are.

So I appreciate that these this family has been patient and looked at their design again.

I'm sorry if it was a delay, but I agree with you, they're a wonderful addition to our community, and they've tried to build a beautiful family home.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Bush.

So you know, we've been around this block.

I think this is at least the third time for us as a team, right?

And doing the research on this back in the day when they started doing this uh change, uh, I don't know if it was 1990, 91 or when it was, but in my research, if I'm wrong, and I don't mind being corrected, the community in Huntington Harbor came together with city staff and they formed this code that we have now.

So when we're sitting here, I I I think it's just a little pompous for us to sit here and change what was really well done, like in an ad hoc fashion, and now we're gonna come and we're gonna have the the scepter, if you would, and we're gonna rule on these people doing these things.

I just don't think it's appropriate.

I think that the the uh community spoke on this before.

I think it was well done, well researched, and here we sit as kings and queens on the throne, and we're gonna change what was a very, I thought thorough process, because in going back, I wanted to make sure I was being responsible for what my duties are when I'm sitting in this chair from a deficit, because I don't have all the historical background, but in in researching it and trying to be relevant, I I think we become irrelevant if we don't think about the history, and and and I think it's it's kind of for me sophomoric to be that pompous and arrogant when these people, this man just stop talking short of probably getting more emotional because this is his dream home.

We are at 35 feet, right?

That's what the zoning code allows for.

Again, if it was 30 feet, we're all gonna be in agreement on that if that's what the code is, if that's what the zoning code is.

But as far as I know, the zoning code allows for 35 feet, they're under that.

57% of those in that nearby map that we had were 30 plus feet.

So I don't sit see how it could be anything but arbitrary going in that direction.

I think that in the scheme of things, I'm a low density guy, but I'm not past somebody's dream because it's a single family dwelling.

And as far as the uh seawall goes, you know, that can only help what you're saying.

I I like the idea, but again, we're just here to approve what's in front of us.

So that's I said a lot, but I I'm probably gonna sleep good tonight.

Commissioner Pillman.

Can I respond to that?

Okay.

Briefly.

I agree with everything you just said.

My problem was with making a generalization about arbitrary decisions on this commission.

I don't think they are arbitrary.

I think each project comes with concerns.

If something gets appealed, it's up to us to look at what that appeal is.

And it looks to me like they've addressed everything, but normally there are CUPs, and we are, it is part of our duty to look at those and find out if we think that we should approve those those divergent um requests.

So, yes, this is a beautiful project.

I was just taking exception to the generalization that it seems like decisions here are arbitrary.

I would just like to say if this my mic's not working, that's on purpose.

Yeah, yeah.

As far as I know, the fact that it is third story, it has to come to the planning commission.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

So it has to come here when it's no, it's not correct.

No, it came to planning commission on appeal.

No, no, I understand that, but had it not been appealed, would the zoning the zoning administrator would it would it had to have come here for approval for a third floor or no?

No.

Okay, good.

Well, I'm I see I'm continuing to learn.

Commissioner Pillman.

Commissioner Pillman, do you have something?

You have comment.

No, I have no comments.

Okay.

Marco, can we pull the building elevations back up?

Um, and while you're doing that, um, you know, Huntington Beach didn't invent this process.

It it if you go to the uh City La Habra Heights, you actually have to build a house with uh PVC pipes or two by fours, uh Monterey, you have to build your house and you know form an outline of it so the public can comment on it and say, okay, here's this house that's gonna be built.

And so if you exceed 30 feet, if you go between 30 and 35 feet, or you have a third story, you need a conditional use permit.

And for me, I believe this house is is the perfect example of what the code intended.

Um there was a house here that was 30 feet tall and three stories, and it was just a straight up box that was huge.

And to me, that house appeared as if the intent was only to make that house as large as you possibly could, and not a nice, beautiful custom home like this.

So I didn't think that was a really an appropriate house, but it got through it got through um city council and it ultimately got approved.

Um so for me, I I would appreciate if if all third story homes had the five and twelve roof pitch, so it doesn't have that flat, funky looking uh commercial generic look to it.

Yeah, and and so to me, this is exactly what the picture in the code looks like.

Uh, you know, that's the the balcony on the third story is kind of like a giant dormer, but you still have it's still all contained in the roof line.

To me, this is exactly what I think the intent of the code should have should should be.

I think this is a great project.

And just to clarify though, we call the house uh in the presentation that it was uh 5600 feet or so, but I think the living area isn't that more like 4600 square feet.

Yeah, that included the garage.

So this is a 4600 square foot house.

And you know, just just you know, I don't know if anybody's familiar with the Brightwater development.

Um we have just two-story homes, um, but they're all 35 feet tall.

That that's our specific plan allows for a 35 foot tall home because we've got nice roof pitches, and the difference between the 30-foot tall and the 35 is that the 35 is actually less intrusive to your neighbor because the the height of the building is in the middle of the of the lot.

It's not straight up.

So yeah, I'm I'm I'm in favor of uh our alternate uh motion to uh approve the uh uh or to uh approve the project with the modification to the 34 foot one inch height.

So can we make a motion?

I would like to if we're uh exactly we we'd like to make sure we're careful on that.

Um b applicants request if that's okay.

So we're picking a alternative action A and B.

That's right, and I'll second it.

Can we have a vote?

Bush seconded.

Yes, yes, yes, ma'am.

Got a question.

Yeah, but I know you're not gonna sleep.

I'm not treading on that one.

Do you all see the vote screen?

Okay.

All right, we have five eyes.

Commissioner Pellman, no?

Commissioner Goldberg is absent.

Motion carries, beautiful.

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

Okay, so we have nothing on the consent calendar.

We have nothing on the uh non-public hearing items.

Uh next on the agenda are the planning items uh staff.

Can we please have a report?

Yes, yeah.

We currently don't have any items for um December 23rd.

If that holds true, we will uh officially cancel it by posting a notice of cancellation the week prior.

Okay.

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

We'll start on my right with Commissioner McGee.

Negative.

Commissioner Pellman.

Yep.

I'd like to wish everybody a Merry Christmas.

Hope everybody had a great Thanksgiving and see you back hopefully next year.

And I'd like to wish everybody a happy holiday season as well.

Same to me.

Merry Christmas and uh happy new year, everyone.

I'd like to repeat that wish.

Everybody, uh staff, visitors, and commission, please have a Merry Christmas, a happy new year.

And if I don't see you before, I'll see you next year.

Oh, no, Merry Christmas.

Of course.

All right, that's the last item on the agenda.

We hereby adjourn to our next planning commission meeting, which uh should be or may or may not be Tuesday, uh December 23rd, 2025.