Clark County Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We're going to get our meeting started, Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, June 16th. If you wouldn't mind, please rise and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Roll call. Commissioner Frazier. Here. Commissioner Mojica.

Present.

Commissioner Stone. Here. Commissioner Kirk. Excuse. Commissioner Kolarski. Here. Commissioner Brady.

Here.

Commissioner Reutemann.

Present.

Mr. Chair, we have a quorum. Thank you very much. All right, staff, first item of business. First item of business is public comments. NRS tells us we have to allow anyone in the audience to come down and make public comments. The staff and the commission cannot act on those comments, but you're more than welcome to come down and put anything on the record. All right, seeing no one coming down for public comments. I'm sorry, come on down, sure. No, not for items on the agenda. Just if you want to put something in general on the record. Okay. All right. So seeing no one coming down for that, we're going to close public. I'm sorry. No, no, not just in the audience. You can come down and name an address for the record and then ask your question if you have one. We just have to keep the public record clear.

Hi.

Name an address.

Matthew Womble, 6509 Peppermill Drive.

For sure. Question that you have?

Well, I just want to make sure I see something here on the agenda item about this Family Trust and Turner Michael Trust, this vocational training facility proposal for Torrey Pines Drive. Just going to need more information on what a vocational training facility is. You know, this city has failed.

All right, so, yeah, so let me interrupt you. What number are you talking about?

That's number four, but it's number five, UC260248.

Okay, so if you want to hear that item, there will be an opportunity for you to pull it off routine, and we'll hear it separately, and then you can get your information you want.

Lovely.

All right, thank you, sir. Anyone else want to put something on public record? All right, seeing no one, we're going to close the public hearing for the public record, and next item on the agenda.

The next item on the agenda is approval of the agenda after any additions, holds, or deletions. At this time, we have the following requests. Hold the following, no date specific per the applicants. Item 9, PA 2670015. Item 10, ZC 260188. Item 11, VS 260189. Item 12, WS 260190. Item 20, PA 2670010. Item 21, ZC 260137. Item 22, WS 260138. and item 23, TM 2650033. Hold the following to the July 7th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting and corresponding Board of County Commissioners meeting to August 5th, 2026 per the applicants. Item 32, PA 2670021. Item 33, ZC 260255. Item 34, WS260256. Item 35, PA2670022. Item 36, ZC260257. Item 37, VS260258. Item 38, DR260259. Item 39, PA2670023. Item 40, ZC260265. Item 41, VS260270. Item 42, PUD260266. And item 43, TM26500068. For the applicant's information, additional re-notification fees may be required in accordance with Title 30, for items held or deleted, or if there are modifications to the original application. The above public hearing items are going to be open as a public hearing and immediately recessed until the date previously stated. This is for items 9, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 23, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, and 43. If there are no requests by the Planning Commission or members of the public, the agenda stands ready for your approval.

Thank you, staff. So as you heard, staff read in a lot of items that are going to be held. So at this time, I'll just take a motion for approval of the agenda.

Mr. Chair, I make a motion to approve the agenda holding items 9, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, and 23 in items 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, and 43.

Thank you very much. There's a motion on the floor, cast your vote. There's a motion on the floor, cast your vote. Motion carries. All right. Sir, you can come down. I'll recognize you. I need your name and address for the record. And then I will take your question real quick.

Robert Yusef. I'm with LSA Development. We have the project on 7860 South Decatur Boulevard. Las Vegas 89139, and today we met with Romeo, the planner, and we were told that our item is not gonna be on hold, and to come and present the item, and he has spoken to some of...

Okay, so, sir, yeah, let me interrupt you. Can you step to the side and talk to staff about that? Thank you. Next item.

The next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes. The Planning Commission briefing and regular meeting minutes from May 5th, 2026 are ready for approval.

I'll entertain a motion.

Motion to approve the minutes as presented.

Motion on the floor. Cast your vote. That motion passes. Next item.

For the audience's information, items on tonight's agenda are final action unless appealed to the Board of County Commissioners or otherwise announced. All appeals must be filed in writing to the Comprehensive Planning Department by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, June 24, 2026, and any appeals from tonight's meeting will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners on Wednesday, July 22, 2026, at 9 a.m. in these chambers. Per Title 30, an agreed person may appeal in an item. An agreed person includes the applicant, someone who attended this meeting in person, or through an authorized representative, or someone who has submitted comments in writing, which may include a postcard or letter. Members in the audience must complete the meeting sign-in sheet found at the entrance of the chambers as well as near the dais. To confirm their attendance at this meeting, Mail notices of appealed applications will be sent to the property owners within the same notification radius as the original application and to those listed on the meeting sign-in sheet. Additionally, any person may call the Comprehensive Planning Department at 702-455-4314 or go to the county's meeting agenda webpage to review the meeting notice of final action to find out if any items have been appealed. Next are the routine action items, which consists of items 4 through 15, except those items that were previously deleted. These items may be considered together in one motion and are subject to the conditions listed with each item. Also, for the record, under item 8, staff is asking that we add a condition for a 30-foot dedication of Brentwood Street. Sorry. If there are no objections, the public hearing is now open and the routine action portion of the agenda stands ready for approval.

Thank you, staff. All right. So at this section of our meeting, we're going to approve the routine action items. So those are items that are on routine and they're all will be approved in one vote. So if there's something that's on the routine action item that you want to hear separately, And I got item number five. I think a young man wanted to hear number five. I don't see him now. Okay. All right. So I got number five. I'm pulling number five off a routine. But any of the other ones, they're going to be approved in one vote. So if you want one of those pulled off and heard separately, now's the time to come down and ask for that to happen. There's a young lady in the back that also wanted to hear in the white cap back there. Yeah. Which number? Okay, all right, yeah, that will be held, heard on the non-routine action items. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Kowalski. So yes, item 35 is being held, and that's being held to the July 7th Planning Commission meeting. So for the audience information. Yes, sir, come on down. Okay, all right, fair enough. All right, so what I have is a I need a motion for approval of the routine action items. We're going to hear number five. We're pulling it and hearing it in its order. And then I have staff added a comment on number eight. Could you read that in the record, please?

Yeah, for item number eight, right-of-way to include 30 feet for Redwood Street. Right-of-way dedication to include 30 feet for Redwood Street.

All right, so those are the items, and if I could get a motion for approval, I appreciate it.

Motion to approve routine action items four through 15, pooling item number five, and adding the condition to item number eight. and holding items nine, 10, 11, and 12.

Perfect. There's a motion on the floor. Cast your vote. Commissioner Kolarski. All right, well, just go ahead and move forward with the vote. We've got enough. That motion passes. Next item is item number five.

This is final action unless appealed. Next item on the agenda is item number five. UC 260248, use permit for proposed. Commissioner Fraser, did we have a plan amendment on the routine action items?

We had five votes, right? Did we have five?

Six. She voted before she voted.

Okay, I agree. Thank you.

Did we have a plan amendment on it?

So items 13, 14, and 15 will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for final action on July 22, 2026 at 9 a.m. Thank you. Next item. Next item is item number five, UC 260248, use permit for a proposed avocational and vocational training facility on 0.46 acres in a CP commercial professional zone generally located west of Torrey Pines Drive and south of Sahara Avenue within Spring Valley.

Is there an applicant in the audience for item number five? Yes, come on down, sir. Yes, please. Come on down and name and address for the record and tell us about your application.

Joe Engle, 3316 Plaza Del Paz, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89102. JWE Enterprises LLC is renting a property from the property owner, Mike Turner, and I have a letter from Mike Turner that he approves of this, and I have a couple of letters from the surrounding properties. What we're proposing to do is to run a DUI school out of an existing building, that's already providing behavioral health services for adults. It's licensed as an outpatient, it's a state licensed outpatient facility right now. We want to add an additional program to it. There will be no changes to the surrounding areas. There'll be no change to the architecture. There'll be no change to anything. It's just the evening classes, Monday and Wednesday from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. All right, that concludes your presentation.

Yep, thank you very much. So we're going to open this application up for a public hearing. Anybody in the audience like to speak on this item? Now's the time to come down. Sir? Yep.

So just to be clear, your only addition is to have DUI?

I apologize, sir. I still need a name and address.

Matthew Womble, 6509 Peppermill Drive, 89146.

Thank you very much.

Now I want to be clear because this commission is already responsible for shoving the Campus for Hope down our neighborhood about a mile down the road. So you're just adding nighttime DUI classes. So you're changing the hours of operation for the current facility? You said something about outpatient, saying that's what it is currently?

Okay. Talk to us. He can hear you. You talk to us. We'll ask questions for him.

Well, okay. So I want to make sure, what are the hours of operation that they're applying for? Okay. Okay. And that's the only addition that you're applying for here?

So hours of operation and you want to verify that's the only thing they're applying for. And any other questions?

That's it. All right, thank you, sir.

Can I get the applicant to come back up? So I'm going to close the public hearing, and so now we're going to speak to the applicant. Joe, we can go for the record.

Ours are operation Monday. I can give you this letter, this justification letter.

I'd be happy to give it to you.

5 p.m. to 9 p.m. Monday and Wednesday night.

All right, so... All right, no, you're fine.

Anyone else in the audience want to speak on items?

I think we closed that part, we closed the public hearing, so I can take a motion for approval.

Motion to approve UC 260248.

Motion on the floor, cast your vote. That motion passes, good luck.

This is final action unless appealed. Next item on the agenda is item 16, ET264000016WS210082, Waiver Development Standards Second Extension of Time for Modified Commercial Driveway Design Standards. design review for vehicle maintenance development on five acres in my L industrial light zone, generally located south of Emerald Avenue and west of Boulder Highway within Whitney.

Thank you very much. Name and address for the record. Tell us about your application.

My name is Blaine Soule, spelled S-O-U-L-E. I'm with Dwyer Engineering at 333 North Rancho in Las Vegas. I'm here with the applicant and with the owner and developer. For this project, we have met with the senior planner for this project, Steve Demaret, and he has asked that we share with the Planning Commission that they request to have this extension of time approved. This is so they can continue to provide assistance that this project requires.

Is that it? That's it. Okay, very good. All right, so I'm gonna open this application up for a public hearing. Anyone in the audience like to speak on this item? Now's the time to come down and do so. All right, seeing no one, I'm gonna close the public hearing. I'll open it up to commissioners for comments and questions. Go ahead, Commissioner Kowarski.

Thank you. I'm just wanting, I guess, to ask Public Works, because of the comment that is made here, that the improvements remain pending. So they've turned something in, I guess. And the parcel map has not been approved. Has the parcel map been turned in? Based on that, how long do you think it'll take for the permits to get approved? And I'm asking this because I think that would determine how long I would really want to stay.

Is that a question? No, I'm asking staff.

I'm asking staff. Very well. But I'm just letting you know I'm asking this so that we know if we want to go for the amount of time that you're asking for.

Give me a moment. I have to look up to see where they are in their offsites. Sure. So the parcel map has been submitted. It is pending the offsites. Offsites were submitted. We are currently waiting for them to be submitted back to us. We sent them out for comments and have not received them back. So I can't tell you. It depends on when they get resubmitted and back and forth. I cannot give an estimated time.

So is the amount of time that they're asking for, is that reasonable or? Do you think we'd be done sooner approximately?

It's up to how fast they submit their corrections and everything, so it's kind of up to them.

We have that ready. It was just when we were doing the parcel map, the extension of time came along, and they won't take the parcel map without the extension of time.

I understand that. Okay, that was just my question. Thank you. Go ahead, Commissioner Malik.

I need some clarification from staff. I'm gonna read what is here. Staff cannot support the requested second extension of time as staff has reviewed the permitting history and noticed that the building permits submitted in January 26 have not been reviewed due to incomplete submittals, with other permits not being actively worked on by the applicant.

We have... I'm not asking you, sir. I'm asking staff. I'm sorry.

So we, at the time of writing up the staff report, we researched the history of the parcel, and we realized that on January 2026, there was a permit submitted to building department. I believe it was for grading. And it was at the submittal status, means that no reviewer has received the plans or reviewed it. So for planning staff, it was not sufficient progress to recommend approval of the extension of time.

Yeah, what I'm trying to understand is, has there's been failure on the part of the applicant to comply and submit the paperwork?

Yes, basically the submittal for building department is an online submittal process. So until they have a complete submittal, they're not gonna accept the application. So that was the basically status of the permit. It was not accepted by the building department, meaning that basically not all the required documents or plans were provided as of that time.

So they failed to submit what they needed to and timely.

They started the submittal, it was not completed, basically. Do you want to add something, Jason?

Yeah, I just want to say, it's still, as of today, the comment was sent on January 12th, 2026, and there's still no response from the customer on that building permit. And to be clear, staff's recommendation is for denial. Staff is not recommending approval, as the applicant stated. We do not support the application.

And that would be an agreement, so thank you.

Josh Hainsworth, Mountain Vista Development, 2675 East Patrick. We're the general contractor and developer. Staff will scroll further down to that application. They'll see that that resubmittal has been done. One of the comments received on the first application attempt was that they felt that the plans needed to be updated to the current code since this project was started a while ago. So that resubmittal was done under the current code. And if you scroll down, I believe you'll see that the current submittal was done and accepted on June 9th. We have email confirmation that all documents were received.

I see a permit was submitted for the warehouse building and it was accepted or plans were received. yesterday, June 15th. I don't see any acceptance status yet. That doesn't mean that it's still insufficient. The billing department has not got to this permit yet to verify that.

All right, before I go to the next person, I just want to disclose that the applicant's representative and I are a company that I work for, do business every once in a while, but I'm still able to act and speak on this item.

Yes, I agree.

Thank you. So, Commissioner Kolarski, do you have anything else you want to put on the record?

I just want to make sure that I understand.

on the initial application it was it was approved am i correct and this is just the extension of time but staff on the initial one at a denial recommendation in 2021 i guess we're talking about it i don't know what our recommendation was but we're talking about five years later they haven't made significant progress uh so we'd like the project denied and if they want to come back in with the same or different project, we can evaluate it based on the current code. Since we've had the new code for two and a half years now.

Okay, thank you.

One more thing. We have a list of dates and everything we submitted.

So I'll recognize you, sir. Go ahead and make your comments.

Yes, okay. So let's go back to January of 2026. You can see since then that we've done submittal to Clark County Public Works in February. We did a submittal to NV Energy in which comments were received in that same month. Extension of time was applied for that same month. Clark County Water Reclamation District submittal was done in March. NB Energy right-of-ways were then done in April. Las Vegas Valley Water District comments were addressed in April. Parcel map was approved in April to go to Mylar pending the extension of time. that we're at now. In May, NV Energy comments were reviewed and comments clarified. And Clark County Building Department permit resubmittal in June. And that puts us up to see scheduled planning commission meeting for extension temporal. That's our time now. So we have been active and we have had, I think we're on a fourth submittal to the Clark County Public Works.

Thank you, sir. Personally, I don't have any issue with the extension of time, and I don't particularly see a need to send the applicant back through a new code review, but I'll defer for a second. Commissioner Workman?

Just a question on process. So they've submitted new building plans. We ask that those new building plans be up to date with the new code and the new plans that they submitted are up to date with the new code? Or we don't know, because we haven't seen that, but that's what we asked for.

If the extension of time is approved tonight, their plan basically needs to just match the originally approved plans. So project gets an extension.

That being said, I think they just said that they had submitted new plans that maybe I misunderstood.

The plans are identical, if I can respond. The plans are identical. We just had to reflect in the code analysis on a couple small tweaks just to reflect the updated codes. But the overall site plan, nothing has changed. The project is still identical.

To clarify, I think he means that the building code they had to change by the recommendation of denial for public works was based on the fact that Title 30 has changed and since there has not been any off-site improvements, permits approved or even installation, we would like them to start over so they can build to today's Title 30 and today's code for off-sites because it's been, like Jason said, two and a half years since our code has changed and nothing on this particular parcel has been constructed yet. The building stuff is a different process, different codes that they are speaking about.

Okay, but back to you. But with what they just submitted, do we expect that there will be changes so that it is up to date with respect to what Public Works want as far as the code?

If you guys approve the extension of time, they will keep the old code. They will get to build everything to old code.

For Public Works as well as buildings?

building is separate though yeah but so if you were to deny the extension of time they'd have to come back in with new entitlements which means we would look at it for today's code if you guys approve the extension of time they get to keep whatever the approved plans on file show you you i have i'm sorry go ahead commissioner so another question for staff and you may or may not be able to answer this question what they submitted

if we were to send them back for the new code, would it change significantly?

It could, yes. One of our new codes is detached sidewalks. This is not showing detached sidewalks, it's showing attached sidewalks. There could be other changes based on the fact that there's been significant changes in the area with other developments that have actually weren't there when they first came in and now that exists. So traffic patterns and everything have changed.

All right. All right. So all right. So I'm going to make one more response. Absolutely. Give me one second. Can you put your plans on the dot up there so that we can see them? And then go ahead. Applicant, you can make your comment.

Sure. So I hear staff's comments and their concerns with concerns to the sidewalk. This property sits at the end of Emerald Avenue. It's a dead end street that backs up to a drainage channel. So although, yes, we could change the sidewalk at the front of the property, there's not pedestrian traffic in that area. As addition to adding traffic flow to the street itself, again, it's at the end of a dead end street. This is a small commercial building. It's a minimal impact to the area and to the street itself. Yeah.

Thank you for showing that plan. That's helpful. Go ahead, Commissioner Workman.

I think I can probably support this extension, but for the sake of the conversation here, is there something, if we wanted them to get up to date with the new code, could we condition the extension on resubmittal of plans that would comply with the new code? And would that be any different than just denying it and having them reapply as far as like, you know, further applications or further delay or something like that? Is there a way here to kind of, you know, split the baby so that Public Works gets what they need? You know, if we need a detached sidewalk or something, maybe that happens, but we don't send them back to square one? Or does that not make sense?

It would make more sense to deny it or have them withdraw and just start over.

Yep, so there's no other comments. I'm ready to make a motion, and we'll see where it goes. I'll move for approval of ET2640016. There's a motion on the floor. Cast your vote.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to support this, but I want to put on record that this will be the last time. If you come in and ask for another extension, I will not be supporting that, and I just want to be upfront with you on that.

All right, so that motion passes. Good luck.

This is final action unless appealed. Next item is 17-ET26-400043-WS20-0028, Waiver Development Standards, Third Extension of Time, to allow proposed single-family residential lots to have direct access to Collector Street, Grand Canyon Drive on 2.5 acres in an RS-20 residential single-family 20 zone within the Neighborhood Planning, I'm sorry, Neighborhood Protection R&P overlay. Generally located north of Stange Avenue and east of Grand Canyon Drive within Lone Mountain.

Gerald Worthland, 10032 Seniguac Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89149. Tell us about your application. Okay. I was contacted by the property owner. Apparently the engineer and surveyor that was working on this project throughout the years had kind of drug their feet and let it stagnate. He contacted me to take the project and go forward. The parcel map had expired. I've resubmitted the parcel map. Basically, this extension of time is for just a frontage on Grand Canyon on an arterial, I believe, for the two lots. I did get my comments back on my parcel map application, and we are in the process. I think I have an appointment in August. I'm going to ask for a waiver of the development standards as far as the detached sidewalks because it is in a rural preservation neighborhood. I don't know how that hearing is going to go, but that application is in progress.

Thank you very much. So we have, I'm going to open this application up for a public hearing. Anyone in the audience like to speak on this item? Now's the time to come down and do so. All right, seeing no one coming down, we're gonna close the public hearing and I'll open it up to commissioners for comments. No comments? Commissioner Reichman?

Any of those same issues on this extension of time? I mean, is this something that we'd be expecting, the new code? We just almost denied a second extension. What are we looking at here, staff?

Yes, Commissioner. Because they had to resubmit the parcel map, now they're required to do off-site improvements. When they had the new code update, everybody that submits any land development are responsible to construct full off-site improvements. So what he's mentioning, he has to go back to the board to get a waiver approved for off-site improvements. Otherwise, his drainage study will change. His parcel map boundary will change as well if it's not approved.

So he's still going to have to comply with the new code on this and ask for a waiver on the off-site improvements, and we'll get a chance to look at that potentially someday down the road here?

We do have an administrative process as well, but since Grand Canyon is not an RP, he does have to go back to the board to get a waiver for off-site improvements.

I think I can approve, support this if the rest of the board's okay with it.

I'm sorry, Commissioner Mojica?

If I'm on the fence with approving this. I know this is not your fault because you're picking it up. But if we do approve this, please make sure it gets done. Please.

I'm working on that. I am. I'm hoping to get the waiver of offsites because he's fully intended on putting Stang Lane. It's paved. It's going to be paved in. But the detached sidewalks, curb gutter sidewalks, streetlights, we're going to be asked to be waived. And that's going to be on that other hearing.

And I'm going to make one more comment for the record. Just, you know, this is just is like the I would say the pain of going through a code change. I think it was a code change in January this year. And so. we'll be getting a lot of these things, and no one's immune to getting caught in the mix of it. So we do appreciate you going through the process. If you're ready, Commissioner.

Oh, sorry, Commissioner Kolarski. Can I just ask a question based on this new, as you were talking about the new code and everything else, don't we still have rural neighborhood, rnp overlays standards and do they not include and i guess i'm asking public works i don't know who i'm asking uh don't they include where we don't have sidewalks and all that stuff lights and they would still need to ask for waivers for them in new code um the wording was taken out of new code that gave exceptions to those areas

So all sites are required to put in full off sites on less waste.

So there's no grant bothering because they're in the RNP? Correct. Okay. Thank you.

All right.

Commissioner Brady, you want to take us home? Hi. So first off, I used to live right down the street from here. I'm looking at overall, I wish I could see the plot map and how it was supposed to be.

On this map, the two parcels are the yellowish colored where my finger is. They're going to be two one-acre lots that are going to front on Grand Canyon.

I highlighted all the...

I highlighted all of the properties up and down Grand Canyon just in that area that are fronting on Grand Canyon, which is primarily all of them. The four that sit just north, they're brand-new development. They're not even built yet, but they're all fronting on Grand Canyon.

Yeah, and so that's where I look at this. So according to what normal rules would state is that these lots would be turned the other way so then they wouldn't be on the major road. But I do understand where you... Yeah, you're actually kind of opposite. Yeah. So that's how it would actually be. And so all the homes on that street and actually the street over are in that same direction.

As well as north of Lone Mountain, you still have a lot of fronting on Grand Canyon too.

The one thing that's going to change though here is this road is going to get more traffic soon because that's where the temple got approved. It's that same road. And so that's where I can understand why you would turn it because there's going to be more traffic on that exact road and people pulling out. Though I don't have a strong, strong opinion. I get where they're supposed to be based the other way. So overall, I'm in support of doing an extension on it to bring everything up to code and everything. But that's something actually I'd like to talk to some of you guys about and kind of get some opinions and talk to some people on it. So I will make a motion to approve the extension of ET-26-40043 for an extension. Thank you, Commissioner Brady.

A motion on the floor, cast your vote. All right, that motion passes, good luck. Thank you.

This is final action unless appealed. Item 18, WS260062, holdover waiver of development standards to eliminate and reduce setbacks in conjunction with an existing single family residence and 0.14 acres in an RS 3.3 residential single-family 3.3 zone, generally located west of Crowley Way and south of Forsyth Drive, within Sunrise Manor.

Thank you, staff. Is there an applicant in the audience for item number 18? All right, seeing no one. So let's hold and notify that. Well, I'll leave it for you, Commissioner Kolarski. You want to hold it and notify the applicants so they can come back to our meeting?

Yeah, I'm just surprised because...

When will we hold it to?

It would be two weeks, and I'll get a hold of them.

All right, two weeks.

How's that going to affect their re-notification? All right. So, yeah, we'll just do the two weeks.

Is that a motion?

Yes. I'm sorry. Move to hold for two weeks on July 7th.

All right. So a motion on the floor. Cast your vote. Sorry, folks. That motion carries.

Vote to hold. Next item. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner. Just real quick. the dates corrected july seventh date it's gonna be three weeks i don't want anybody to come back in two weeks we don't have a meeting so one of those weird ones where it's a three week old july seventh thank you very much staff for the clarification uh... next time on on the agenda item nineteen nineteen w s twenty six zero two four nine waivers of development standards for the following uh... increased height

and to reduce setbacks for a proposed existing accessory building in conjunction with an existing single-family residence on 0.44 acres in RS2 5.2, residential single-family 5.2 zone within the airport environs AE60 overlay, generally located west of Montessori Street and north of Oquendo Road within Spring Valley.

Is there an applicant in the audience for item number 19? Oh yeah, come on down, sir. Show us your plans and name and address for the record. Thank you very much.

Jeff Gates, 5880 Flight Wing Street, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89113.

Keep going? Yeah, yeah. Go ahead and tell us about your application. Thank you.

I'm asking for two variances. One's on the height. Your normal peak is allowed to be 14 feet. We're asking for 17 foot 5, and that's due to wanting a 10 foot garage door, which means you have to have a 12 foot interior height, which pushes the peak to 17 foot 5 inches. And so we can have the same pitch. Valleys and tile roof is the existing house and everything else in the neighborhood. If we kept it at 14 feet, it would be more like a flat roof and a square box looking, which to us is a eyesore. And then the second one is the 10 foot setback because of the Montessori Road. And we're asking for five foot. Four different times we've put paint on the ground, laying this all out. How does it fit? What's best? Just trying to get maximum amount of room of what we have. We're 13 feet away from the edge of the building from our north neighbor. And that's why we're also asking for the five foot. Supposedly you're allowed to be five foot away from your neighbor, but why can't I be five foot away from the back wall just because there's a street? So that's the request.

All right, thank you for that. I'm going to open this application up for a public hearing. Anyone in the audience like to speak on this item? Now's the time to come down. Seeing no one rushing down, we're going to close the public hearing and I'm going to open up to commissioners for comments or questions. I'll just say for the record, I don't have any issue with the application. I think it's going to be a nice building and I appreciate you going through the process. Thank you. A long one. Go ahead, Commissioner Roykman.

Can you just show me on the map, or can you show me on your site plan where the, okay.

That one better? Yeah, that's better. Yes, sir.

Yeah, thank you. And any conversations with your neighbor to the north? North.

Nobody lives there. Nobody lives there? Right. He lives with his elderly, lives with his neighbor, or excuse me, his daughter. So, no, I don't really have any communication with him.

Any communication with anyone else in the neighborhood?

Only the one that's straight across from us that actually can technically see into our backyard. They don't have a problem with it. supposedly they were going to sign the yellow piece of paper and saying it was okay and send it in. Whether they did or not, I don't know. That's just what we were verbally told.

Okay.

And the way my house is laid out, our other neighbor to the other side really can't see it.

Okay. I'm all right with this. Everyone else good? All right. I'll motion to approve WS260249. Thank you for coming in.

Thank you. Motion on the floor. Cast your vote. I do have one question, because I've never been through this before, so do I get notified by, yeah, everything's okay? Okay.

So there's a motion on the floor, and that motion passes. Good luck.

This is final action unless appealed. Next item on the agenda is items 24 through 28. These are companion items and will be heard together. Item 24 is PA2670017, plan amendment to redesignate the land use category for mid-intensity suburban neighborhood, MN, to compact neighborhood, CN, on 1.44 acres Generally located east of Wallpipe Way and north of Serene Avenue within Enterprise. Item 25, ZC260208. The zone changed to reclassify 1.44 acres from an RS-20 residential single-family 20 zone to an ARM-18 residential multi-family 18 zone, generally located east of Walpi Way and north of Serene Avenue within Enterprise. Item 26, VS-26-0207, vacate and abandon easements of interest to Clark County, located between Walpi Way and Conquistador Street, and Aletta Avenue and Serene Avenue within Enterprise. Item 27, WS260209, amended waivers of development students for the following. One, reduce rear setbacks. Two, eliminate required open space, which is no longer needed. Three, allow attached sidewalks. Four, reduce street intersection offset. Five, reduce curb return radius. And six, reduce driveway separations. It's a design review for a single family attached residential development on 1.44 acres. In an RM18 residential multi-family 18 zone, generally located east of Walpi Way and north of Serene Avenue within Enterprise. And item 28, TM26500053, tentative map consisting of 14 single-family residential lots and common lots on 1.44 acres,

an rm18 residential multi-family 18 zone generally located east of wallpipe way and north of serene avenue within enterprise thank you staff um before we get started on this one i think commissioner this is commissioner mojica's area so i think she wants to address the applicant real quick and so i'll allow that to happen

Hello. I would like to hold this item because I was not contacted at all and I had a lot of questions about it. So it's up to you. You're more than welcome to present or we can hold it and I'd like to talk about it.

Yeah, we'll hold and then we'll have time to present it. Excuse me, we'll hold it and we'll have time to present it for you for the next.

Yeah, so we can hold it for what? Is it two weeks or three weeks? Does that affect the other process or?

So you would be wholly get to the next Planning Commission meeting would be July 7th, and this would go to the August 5th BCC meeting.

Okay, will you be okay with that? Okay.

Okay, but before we do that, is anyone in the audience here for this item to speak on it? I just wanted to ask that question because I was going to allow you to come down and put some comments on the record, but seeing no one coming down, we can go ahead and you can make a motion.

Okay, I'm making a motion to hold items 24 through 27 for three weeks.

There's a motion on the floor. Cast your vote.

Commissioner, I think it's 28, right?

24 through 28?

Is it 28? Yes, 24 through 28.

Correction, 24 through 28.

All right, there's a motion on the floor. Cast your vote. The motion carries for a hold. Thank you.

Next items on the agenda are items 29 through 31. These are companion items and will be heard together. PA 2670020, plan amendment to redesignate the existing land use category. from neighborhood commercial MC to entertainment mixed-use EM on 2.16 acres, generally located north of Deserden Road and west of Pawnee Drive within Winchester. Item 30, VS-25-0897, vacate and abandon a portion of right-of-way being Pawnee Drive, located between Desert Inn Road and Sombrero Drive, and a portion of right-of-way being Desert Inn Road between Pawnee Drive and La Canata Street within Winchester. Item 31, UC 250896, use permit for office as a principal use, waivers of development standards for the following. One, reduce setbacks, two, increase building height, and three, alternative driveway geometrics. Design review for proposed mixed use development on 2.16 acres in a CR commercial resort zone, generally located north of Desert Inn Road and West of Pawnee Drive within Winchester.

Thank you, staff. Is anyone in the audience on items 30 through 31? I'm sorry, that's 29? Yeah, 29 through 31? Wow, we're batting 1,000 tonight. So you're not the applicant? Okay, that's fine.

Are you the neighbors?

Is there an applicant in the audience for items 29 through 31? All right, so seeing no applicant, I'm gonna lean on staff for a second. Can I open this up for a public hearing so that the people that are here can speak on it but then also hold it?

Yes. Okay, all right. Mr. Chair, I was just gonna ask if they wanted to speak now or if they wanted to wait until the actual application. And if you'll hold off till the end of the meeting, I'll talk to you guys too because this is my area.

Okay, so I was gonna give them the opportunity to speak if they wanted to, and they can also come back if they want to. All right, fair enough. Okay, so this particular item, 29 through 31, I'm gonna open it up for a public hearing, and anyone in the audience like to come down and speak on this item, you can come down, put your comments on the record. I need name and address for the record, and then give us your comments. That way the record's clear and everybody that listens to the meeting has your comments. Go ahead, sir.

My name's Alfredo Serrano. I live at 1679 Sombrero Drive in Las Vegas, Nevada. So this is basically in my backyard. And I bought the property about 30 years ago, and I watched our property value plummet in the area when we were in the downturn, and my mortgage went upside down. But the neighborhood eventually came back around, and we became actually the historic neighborhood, which took a lot of effort. And we're very proud of our historic neighborhood. This building is right in our backyard. Even the hospital is only like five, six stories high. This is a 15-story building in my backyard. I, when the property values started going down, I thought, you know what, how am I gonna survive in retirement? And I got solar panels on the entire back of my south-facing back of my roof. that it will now be in a big shadow from a 15-story building. So between that and what Nevada Energy is doing with our electricity right now, even with solar panels they're charging us, I'm gonna be, once again, I'm gonna not have any sun on my solar panels. The corner of Pawnee and Desert Inn is right where they're building. That is already a high accident area. We've done traffic studies and we tried to get a light put up there or something. And the development, the changing of the driveways and everything is going to make that corner even more dangerous. We're constantly having accidents on Pawnee. desert in already, and the traffic diverts onto Sombrero and into the back alleyway that is between my house and the new structure. Currently, it's a two-story building. We can kind of, out of my backyard, you can kind of see the roofs of the building. With the 15-story Well, the property owners, number one, I just want to talk about them a little bit. The property has been left abandoned, basically. There's two businesses in the property now. It's the same owners, and they don't upkeep the property. They haven't done anything. There's trash all over the place. They finally, after our complaints, they finally put in a camera. That basically... points right into our backyards. So that was their solution to the homeless people that were living on their properties. Oop, I kind of closed down my thing. So also with the property owners, at our neighborhood meeting that we had with them, we asked them about financing and they don't have any answers for financing right now. So the last thing I want is the historic looking building right now that they have there, which is a beautiful smaller building, for that to be torn down and then no financing come through so we're living with a homeless empty lot in the backyard. They're saying that this is gonna be a mixed use. The mixed use, they tried to go through and have it as a, just they were gonna turn it into long or extended stay type of thing and that didn't go through because of the amount of parking they had or some issue like that so they went to this mixed use thing and then mixed use permit that they're looking for also has an entertainment clause and we're leery of what in it what the entertainment clause is going to have do in our backyard um So that was another one of our concerns. But really the thing is, this is a historic neighborhood. It's a beautiful little neighborhood. There's nothing, the highest building around is the hospital at like five, six stories. And this is gonna be a monstrosity in our backyard. The property value is going up right now because it is a historic neighborhood. This is just gonna turn it back around as far as I'm concerned.

Thank you for your time. Thank you very much for your comments, sir. Anyone else? Name and address for the record, please.

Hello, April Mensch, 1661 Silver Mesa Way. I am one street over off of Sunboro. I also sit on the Winchester Town Advisory Board. I just want to say for the record, this is a very contentious topic at the last meeting that we had. And additionally, within the neighborhood, I admin our... Neighborhood social media group. It's a closed group. A lot of people are very upset about this Personally, I believe this project to be out of compliance with the purpose of title 30 specifically under its general purpose articles 3 11 15 and 16 as was mentioned already the solar resources solar access, new buildings should not cast a shadow. I directly face the back of the existing building. I do also have solar. I'm very aware of how much the sun goes over my yard. I'm constantly checking it. I am fairly confident that this will absolutely kill the solar of any homes in its shadow. I don't know what kind of loans people carry, other people carry on their solar, but killing their solar panels plus leaving them with a debt that they have to pay and having to pay electricity would be a huge financial detriment to people. Additionally, 11, which is protect existing neighborhoods and communities, including historic neighborhoods, and 15, which is provide harmonious development compatible with the surrounding environment. As this gentleman mentioned, we are a historic overlay on both sides of Desert Inn. We are in arguably the most famous residential neighborhood in Las Vegas. We attract attention from tourists interested in architectural history, people interested in film and television, scouts, national publications, all of that. This high-rise building of 15 stories in the middle of a neighborhood that is predominantly single-family ranch-style homes would completely destroy the character of the neighborhood. And finally, 16, prohibit the development of incompatible uses detrimental to safety. This is a very high hazard intersection, the corner of Pawnee and Desert Inn. We see loads of accidents there. At the last meeting, the applicant stated that it is a 55 and up community, so people won't be driving. I'm sure many people in this room are 55 and up, vibrant, drove here today. I think the idea that there will be less traffic because of 55 and up is not only inaccurate, but the absurdity I think brings into question the competence of the applicant to make such a crazy statement. Finally, this was just an aside. The existing building is a really beautiful piece of mid-70s architecture. It's pretty striking if you drive by. I understand that there's been a lot of neglect. Renovations may be out of the question for the building, but it is in the middle of a historic district that people come to because of the beautiful architecture, and I would like that taken into consideration by the applicant. Thank you.

Are you done? I mean, you can continue if you have other things you want to make. No, that was it. Okay.

I know I had three minutes.

No, you got more than three minutes. I wanted to make sure you got everything on the record.

We have three.

Okay. Well, you have three here, but you can continue. We're not going to force you to stop. Okay. All right. Having said that, anyone else want to come down? Okay. All right. So no more comments on the record. So I'm going to close the public comment. And then I'll entertain a motion from Commissioner Kolarski for, I'm sorry, for Commissioner Roitman. I'm sorry, Commissioner Roitman, go ahead.

I won't make a motion because it's not my area, but I will say to those folks that showed up tonight, when this comes back before us, if you're not able to come back for that one, I can assure you that we will remember you guys put your comments on the record this time and, you know, I'm like kind of, this meeting generally, there's been a couple people who haven't shown up for their item. And you know, if we're all showing up and the neighbors are showing up to make sure that happens. And I just, as I sit on this board, I think, you know, holding these things or, you know, you guys take your time to come down here. So this is something I'm certainly gonna take into consideration that, you know, folks should be coming or making sure that we get some advance notice when things are gonna be held so that y'all don't waste your time and waste our time up here. So thank you for coming and we'll be sure to keep this in consideration when it does come in front of us.

Thank you, Commissioner Workman. Commissioner Kolarski?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to say on the record that I'm surprised and I'm a little bit, I'm a lot unhappy because Number one, the applicant did not call, has not made any attempt to get with me, and then doesn't show. Staff, did we get anything today from the applicant?

No, ma'am, we didn't.

Okay. I'm going to hold it, and I'm only going to hold it once. So if the applicant does not show next time, then I'll just go ahead and take any type of comments that the public makes. If you can make it, please do. If you can't, April back there's got my phone, or she's got my card. She can give you my info. Okay. And with that, I'm going to hold this until July 7th.

So there's a motion on the floor to hold items 29 through 31. Yep, 29 through 31. Motion on the floor. Cast your vote. Motion carries. Thank you.

So this item will be held to the July 7th, 2026 PC and also the August 5th, 2026 BCC meeting. The next items on the agenda are companion items and will be heard together. Item 44, PA 2670025, plan amendment to redesignate the existing land use category for neighborhood commercial NC to compact neighborhood on 4.51 acres, generally located north of Blue Diamond Road and west of Montessori Street alignment within Enterprise. Item 45, zone change to reclassify 4.51 acres from CG commercial general zone to an RM18 residential multifamily 18 zone, generally located north of Blue Diamond Road and west of Montessori Street, alignment with an enterprise. Item 46, VS-260272, vacate and abandon easements of interest to Clark County located between Agate Avenue and Blue Diamond Road and Belcastro Street and Montessori Street alignment within Enterprise. Item 47, WS 260273, waivers and development standards for the following, reduce setback, two, reduce lot size, three, increase retaining wall height, four, eliminate parking area landscaping, five, reduce street landscaping, and six allow modified driveway geometrics, design review for a proposed single-family attached residential development on 4.51 acres in an RM18 residential multi-family 18 zone generally located north of Blue Diamond Road and west of Montessori Street alignment within Enterprise. Item 48, TM26-500070, tentative map consisting of 52 single-family residential lots and common lots on 4.51 acres in an RM18 residential multifamily 18 zone, generally located north of Blue Diamond Road and west of Montessori Street alignment within Enterprise.

Thank you. Name and address for the record. Tell us about your application.

Good evening, planning commissioners. My name is Susan Florian from Taney Engineering, 6030 South Jones Boulevard, here on behalf of the applicant. What we have here is a 52-lot subdivision on 4.1 acres. We are proposing a zone change from commercial general to RM18 and a land use from neighborhood commercial to compact neighborhood. We do have six waivers. We are eliminating waiver number four. That one's to eliminate parking lot landscaping where required per section 30-04-01D. I know that staff recommended approval on numbers two, three, five, and six. The first one is to reduce the rear setback 10 feet where 15 is required. The townhomes are not in a straight line. The ones in the middle do have a little bit more space than 10 feet. The ones on the side are the ones that are encroaching 10 feet. With that, I conclude my presentation. I'm here to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you very much. I'm going to open this application up for a public hearing. Anyone in the audience like to speak on this item? Now's the time to come down. Thank you, sir. Name and address for the record, and give us your comments, please.

Honorable members of the Clark County Planning Commission, my name is Jeffrey Peters, 7325 West Agate Avenue, Las Vegas, 89113. I am here tonight representing the Concerned Citizens for Responsible Development, the CCRD. We had forwarded our formal community report to staff earlier. I have an extra copy if we need it. I'd like to make sure that gets entered into the record. There are more than a few issues we have with this proposed development. I'll try to hit the highlights. Build what you bought. That's one of our mottos. This area was recently, as 2024, had already been approved for a small or a commercial storage unit, which next to the apartments being built at that intersection would actually be a good match. That conforms to the neighborhood, commercial neighborhood standard, and that had already been approved. Follow the plan. Quite frankly, personally, I think it's kind of an affront to the hard work that staff does with long-term planning and zone use only to have those ideas changed or modified that creates incongruency throughout these communities. It's simply way too dense. This is an issue of taking too much stuff and cramming it into too small of a place. There's not enough parking. It provides maybe a handful of visitor parking spaces for the dozens of homes. more traffic. There's only one in and out via West Agate. This is a rural standard two-lane road that is not designed or equipped to handle that kind of throughput. I understand that this area is growing by leaps and bounds. The CCRD is a pro-development group. We want development, but what we need is reasonable commercial development in that area. We have very large projects adjacent to this application already. I urge, our group strongly urges you to deny this application. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the audience want to speak on this item? Okay, all right, seeing no one else coming down, I'm going to close the public hearing, and then I'll open up to commissioners for comments and questions.

Commissioner Kolarski, your light's on. Thank you.

Staff,

Why are you asking for a PUD? Not staff, I'm sorry. PUDs are the worst thing. What benefits are you giving to the county?

We are not asking for a PUD.

You're not asking for the PUD anymore?

No, we weren't going to do a PUD because the reason that we can't do a PUD, I will clarify, this land right here is undeveloped. If it was developed right now, we would be able to do a PUD. However, this is also not five acres, so we cannot do a PUD on the parcel.

When I see that, that just... I don't see, and staff knows this, everybody knows this, that PUDs to me just do not offer benefits for the residents. And so I don't normally approve PUDs. But I got to tell you, I don't really like your project. So I'm not really in support of it. I've got to follow Enterprise on this one.

If I may answer some of the concerns of the neighbor that showed up and if you would allow me to, I don't know if that's okay.

I have to leave that up to the chair.

For sure. Please, please, you can absolutely answer some of the questions that were raised by the concerned citizen, and then we'll give the commission a little time to give us some rebuttal. Please, go ahead.

Yeah, well, I understand that commercial is important so that the residents have their needs are met. I do understand that we are also experiencing a house affordability and the housing supply crisis. I know that right now, I believe that homeowners are having trouble trying to afford houses due to the rising costs. I do know that, well, one of the neighbors mentioned that build with what you want, and then it was approved for a storage unit. I know that he wants us to follow the plan. Staff did recommend approval, and we are asking for RM18 where we could have 18 units, but we are doing 11 units per acre. For the parking spaces, we do have garages. And for the traffic that he mentioned on the street, we will have to do a traffic study before this gets approved. And then the owner across the street is the same owner as this one. He is constructing a commercial general right now. With that, I conclude to answering the questions that you may have.

Thank you very much. Commissioner Raikman, go ahead.

Yeah, I noticed that, of course, that staff has approved this almost entire application other than waiver one, which is the setback. And as I look on kind of Google Maps with the overlay, if you go on the other side of Buffalo, there is kind of this transition from the ranch estate into this compact neighborhood And I think it does kind of match as a buffer in between that and some of the commercials. So, you know, I'm interested in hearing what the rest of the commission has to say, but I don't have a problem with this. As stated, I could approve.

Thank you, Commissioner Roigman. I would agree. I don't. I mean, I would say I don't love the project, but I appreciate staff's hard work in giving their opinions, and I can respect their approval, and I definitely can, I understand the concerns from the community as well. I can support the application, and we'll see where the next comments are. Commissioner Brady?

Just really quick, I'm never a huge fan of putting residential back up to, uh interstate line for freeways big wider roads and all of that that's where i don't love how it is i always do kind of agree with gentlemen that it should be reserved more for a little bit more commercial um though what commissioner reutemann said also is it does kind of match down the line when you go down the road so um i'm not in love with it but it semi-conforms

Any other questions, comments? All right, Commissioner Mohica, ready?

okay um so you address the the density um it's you could put 18 units and you're not you're putting 11 and a half almost um you did address the parking so they're gonna have their own parking how many parkings um so right now um their parking required is two um so we have 115 spaces

115, and how many units? We have 52 units. How much? 52. 52 units? Yes, we also have on-street parking. Sorry, I didn't mention that, but we do have on-street parking.

So you have 52 units and 115 parking spaces, right? Correct. That's what you're showing the plan. Yes. Well, that's what she's showing on the plan, 52 units and 115 parking spaces. And no, we do not need more storage on the Blue Diamond area. We have enough storage units, I will say that. Okay, I'm ready to make a motion. I motion to approve Plan Amendment 2670025. Motion on the floor, cast your vote.

That motion passes. Next one.

And then motion to approve item 45ZZ260271, item 46VS260272, item 47WS260273, and item 48TM2650070.

Thank you very much. There's a motion on the floor. Cast your vote. Our motion passes. Good luck.

Thank you so much, Planning Commissioners.

Next item.

Items 44 through 48 will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for final action on July 22nd, 2026 at 9 a.m. unless otherwise announced. Last item on the agenda is item 49, ORD 26900423, review and ordinance to amend Title 30 regulations as previously directed by the Board of County Commissioners to modify Title 30 fee schedule, a revised plans procedure, amend language for court reporter, correct typographical errors within defined terms, and make corrections and clarifications as appropriate in providing for other matters properly related thereto.

Thank you, staff, and just to appease my senior moment, and just for the audience record, this particular item, we don't need to open it up for public hearing, it's just that we're gonna forward it to the Board of County Commissioners for their approval?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay, all right. So, item number 49 is ordinance ORD 26900423. Any comments from the commissioners on this item? All right, seeing none, then I'll move for a motion to move this forward for the county commissioner.

Yeah, a motion is not even required.

Okay, all right, no motion is required, so we'll skip that part. All right, next item. Public comments. All right, so last part of our meeting is public comments. It's a part of the meeting by NRS that public is allowed to come down, make comments on the record. The commissioner cannot vote or act on any of those comments, but now is the time to do so. Sure, you come on down. I'm sorry, just so the record's clear, I apologize. Got to have you come down. All right, so those items were held at the beginning of the meeting. Yes, staff read it in. So those items were held into the July 7th Planning Commission meeting. And what I would say is if this is a time of the meeting, if you still wanted to put your comments on the record, you can do so now or you can come back on July 7th or do both. Okay. Yes, sir. All right. So anyone else, public comments? Yes, sir. Name and address for the record. Give us your comments.

Fernando Padilla, P-A-D-I-L-L-A, 3457 Greenwood Springs Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89122. And this is not a comment, but rather a question, because I am here for items 35 through 38. And when will this be brought up?

Sure, I'll be happy to tell you. So those were also held into the July 7th Planning Commission meeting. So they'll be back in here on July 7th. And again, you're welcome to put any comments you have on that application on the record and come back if you like.

I shall come back.

Thank you. Okay. Yes, sir. Thank you. Anyone else? Public comments? Come on down, sir.

Excuse me, Mr. Chair. If I can just tell this gentleman that just spoke, Mr. This is going to be going back to town board, okay, on the 2nd of July. So if you want to go to town board 2, go to town board and then you can come back over here on the 7th. And, you know, that's at Hollywood.

Name an address for the record. Go ahead and put your comments on the record.

Carlos de Santiago, 5509 Palisades Quad Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89122. Is it safe to assume that items 39 to 43 also got moved?

Yeah, 39 to 43 were held.

That's what I was here for. I wasn't really happy with the impact on air quality that the demolition had with the area. I just came to see what they were going to do with that space next, but I guess I'll be back.

For sure. Thank you. So we got it on the record. Air quality is an issue for you. If you come back, fine. If not, we have it on record. Thank you, sir. Anyone else want to speak on the record? Come on. Got to come down. Come down so the record's clear, please. So name and address for the record.

Yes.

Eloy Garcia. And I'm from Alto and Nellis. Item 7. I'm being called, and I don't know if it's going to... All right, we don't have an address to last there. Alto and Nellis, item seven, all stay free.

Oh, so are you the applicant?

Yes.

Yeah, yeah, so that was at the beginning of the meeting, and the routine action items, those were approved under one vote, so you're already approved, number seven.

Oh, okay, so that's why we're here.

No, we appreciate you hanging out with us.

Well, thank you, so it was approved.

You're welcome. I'm sorry we weren't clear. You guys, good luck. All right, so anyone else? So we will see no one else. We will close the public hearing and adjourn the meeting. Thank you, staff. Thank you, commission.