Environmental Review Board - Regular Meeting

minutes. Just give her maybe like another minute or two. Thank you everybody for being here. I know it's close to uh the holidays, so thank you everybody for attending this ERB meeting. We really appreciate it. Yes. Yeah. Probably one of the last meetings of the year for the city. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, that's right. Because planning commission was last night. And is there a city council for There's two city council meetings tonight.

Oh, tonight. Okay. Okay. So, Okay. So, we're like second wrapping up. Yeah.

Yeah. Okay, cool. Okay. I see Noah is here. Okay. So, it looks like everybody's here, so we're going to get going. Um hello everybody. Uh welcome to the city of Malibu environmental review board. Um I would like to call to order uh the Malibu environment environmental review board meeting of December 17th, 2025. This meeting is being held by teleconference. Boards and city staff are participating from remote locations. Members of the public can participate in the meeting via Zoom. meetings. Oh, members of the public wishing to speak during the meeting must click the raise hand button at the bottom of the screen to indicate a desire to speak after the item has been announced by the chair and must be present in the teleconference when called upon to be recognized. Once called upon, please lower your hand in the Zoom meeting. Board members, if you have comments to make during this meeting, please raise your hand using the raise hand link at the bottom of your screen and I will call on you in turn so we can make our discussion clear for the record and for the public. Um, so today we have um item one, written and oral communications from staff and the board. Rebecca, I know you're standing in for Gail, so I'm seeing none. Is that the case?

Correct. Correct. Okay. Okay. Old business. I'm seeing none. I'm assuming that's still the case. Yes. So, we will move on to new business um for CDP 23-073 at 32832 PCH. I will let senior uh planner take it over Patrick um and he will give a presentation and then we will open up the discussion.

Thank you. Thank you and good morning environmental review uh review view board Patrick Ais with the planning division. This item is coastal development permit 2373 and related approvals for 32832 Pacific Coast Highway. The recommended action for the ERB is to review the proposed project and provide recommendations for the planning commission to consider. Erb review is required in this case because the product site is within 100 ft of a map stream um environmentally sensitive habitat area or ESHA and the required fuel mod zones extend into the 100t ISA buffer and into a small portion of the stream channel. The RB's role here is to evaluate the biological implications of that fuel modification activity and recommend any conditions or mitigation measures designed to avoid or minimize impacts to Asher resources for the planning commission to consider when they review the project. A little bit about the site and project itself. It's seeking a few entitlements including a coastal development permit, a site plan review for height, a minor modification to um project into the front yard setback, and a variance for the encroachment into the Asha buffer. The site is approximately 1 acre. It's located on the south side of Pacific Coast Highway in western Malibu. The slight uh the parcel slopes down from PCH and the stream crosses the southern tip of the property and continues onto Parkland, which we'll see in a moment. The staff report does describe some um previous disturbance on the site, includes some past grading that created a building pad and access off PCH. And the site was previously improved with an occupied motor home, a travel trailer, fences, and landscaping. And that's according to a prior planning um rather coastal commission staff report. The proposed development is clustered on the upper previously disturbed pad near PCH. Um the pro the proposed project is a a 5,873 square foot two-story single family

residence um with a subterranean garage and basement plus associated pools and decks hardscape landscaping driveway a parking area and also a new on-site wastewater treatment system also known as OWTS as shown on the city approved fuel modification plan and confirmed by the biological consultants supplemental memo that envelope necessarily extends into the 100t stream buffer and crosses a small portion of the stream channel and because the uh vegetation modification is within the ESHA buffer it constitutes development and a variance is required and kind of taking a look at the fuel modification zones um you'll see that the ISHA stream is indicated in green um and fuel mod zone C is the yellow outer ring followed by B orange and then red is zone A and that um immediately encompasses the proposed project. Um so you'll see downs slope the scope is intentionally limited. Um the field modification zones A, B and C extend up to 200 ft downs slope from the proposed structures and um the STO does indicate that no grading, trenching or structural development is proposed within the stream channel itself. the lower portion of the parcel and the adjacent parkway will be affected only by vegetation modification for the fuel mod and the continued use and maintenance of the driveway and existing um stairway. So for ERB purposes, the downslope issue is uh vegetation modification within fuel mod. So there's no construction in the channel itself. Biological resources are documented in a biological assessment prepared by forward biological consultants um with a supplemental memo. Um and the assessment identifies a natural stream at the southern tip of the property that meets the city's um definition. Um the also notes that the main development area is

dominated by non-native and ornamental vegetation. Um no protected trees are present or immediately adjacent to the property and special status species are not expected on this already disturbed site. uh for um construction period sensitivity, non-native trees and and shrubs could support nesting birds and the city biologist conditions the project to require preconstruction um bird nesting surveys if work occurs during the nesting season. Um finally, the biological assessment's impact conclusion is that the project will not directly alter the stream channel, wetlands, um native plant communities, protected trees, or special status species. Um once again the biological effects are just limited to the vegetation modification for fuel mod and the potential um bird nesting effects if that work occurs during the breeding season because there are um unavoidable ESHA and buffer impacts associated um with the project. Staff applies LIP section 4.8.1 which requires full mitigation for all unavoidable impacts to ESHA or ESHA buffers including those resulting from fuel modication and brush clearance. Um to comply, the project will can be uh conditioned to implement prior to plan check final. Um one or more of the following um including habitat restoration of suitable stream or um riparian habitat. Uh permanent conservation of comparable habitat through recorded easements or payment of an inloo fee to the Santa Monica Mountain Conservancy habitat um impact mitigation fund. Um the staff further specifies that the mitigation program must fully offset the 0.044 acres of extra impact and approximately 1.4 acre of uh buffer disturbance and including uh monitoring uh performance standards and annual reporting. Um as an added protection if future fire review requires fuel mod beyond the property boundary, the biological consultant recommends a 20 foot um no disturbance zone on either side of the stream and staff anticipates incorporating that um recommendation as a condition of approval.

The project has been reviewed by all relevant city, county, and state agencies. The city biologist, um geotechnical reviewers, environmental health and public works all conditionally approved the project as have um the LA County Fire and Waterworks District 29. Um importantly, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or CDFW reviewed the proposed fuel modification and brush clearance activities and determined that a lake or stream bed alteration agreement is not required. and and that's because there is no grading or channel modification as part of the project. From a cultural resources standpoint, um a phase one archaeological study found no resources on site and um a standard invertent discovery conditions will apply um in the event that um resources are recovered. Under SQL, staff has analyzed the project and determines it qualifies for exemptions. Um the development is clustered on the um upper portion of the previously disturbed pad. Biological impacts are limited and fully mitigated under the LCP or local coastal program and staff finds that none of the exceptions under section 15300.2 apply. Um in closing, all structural development is located outside the 100 foot um is stream buffer on a previously disturbed pad near PCH. Unavoidable biological impacts are limited to required fuel modification, vegetation management and existing access within the buffer um with a small quantified overlap into the stream ESHA. That encroachment is driven by mandatory fire safety standards, not discretionary project design. Um and the project does include a minor modification to help push the um structure itself more um northward um away from the buffer. The project is also conditioned to provide full mitigation for both uh the ESHA and buffer impacts consistent with LIP section 4.8.1 and staff's recommendation for the board is to review the project and provide any recommendations to the planning commission particularly regarding the

fuel modification practices or the mitigation implementation. Um I'm of course happy to answer any questions. We also are joined by the applicant and the biological consultant. Thank you so much. Wonderful. Thank you so much Patrick. Um, that was a great presentation. Um, Gail, um, I'm seeing, uh, Stephanie Honer, the applicant within the meeting. I believe that we give them some time to make a presentation, correct? Yes, they have 15 minutes. Okay, great. Um, Stephanie, did you have a presentation to uh to give? Hello. Good morning. Hi, Stephanie.

Hi. Let's see if I can get my video to work here. No, I guess it'll be dark. Oh, sorry. Did you send

No, I don't have I don't have No, I don't have a presentation to share. I wanted to say thank you very much, Patrick, for the presentation. It was very complete and thorough. I appreciate that. Um, probably the only thing of note is I just wanted to mention is that we are in a in a developed area. All of the properties around us have already been developed. it is a clustered site with respect to all the other houses and that there is a a substantial amount of overlapping fuel mod of zone C as well as B with the other surrounding properties and that uh we designed this project very cognizantly uh aware of the stream and stream buffer. We pushed the house as far as possible towards Pacific Coast Highway and towards the shared driveway easement that is on the east. So, we uh made all of the site accommodations possible and uh maintained the 10,000 foot pad development area to minimize impact further. Thank you.

Thank you, Stephanie. Really appreciate it. Um okay, so at this time we will open it up to our ERP members, um Clark, Noah, and Patrick. Um so if anyone of you has Oh, sorry, Gail. Yes. I just want to make it clear there are no members of the public to speak.

Thank you so much. I'm sorry. Forgot. Um, okay. So, now we will open it up to ERB members. Um, Patrick, Noah, or Clark, if anyone of you have specific comments or would like to open up the discussion. Um, if not, I can pick on one of you can just raise your hand. Ah, Noah. Okay, perfect. Yes, Noah. Hello. Hi.

Hi. Um, so I just wanted to say that this project is very well considered and thought out and potential impacts have been considered in the planning of this project. So, I just wanted to appreciate that. um well-designed. Uh the site itself, the parcel is situated up away from the creek and the um the riparian vegetation within the ESHA. And so any fuel modification or other treatments to the ESHA area would have to be done in consultation with the neighboring properties. Um, so I I wanted to ask my first question is um what uh what conversations or collaborations have there been with the neighboring properties? I know the the property just to the east of the parcel in question uh I believe is currently undeveloped. Is that correct? And then there's another property um just to the south across the stream from um the parcel in question um that is fully developed and um has a fuel modification zone that extends into the stream. So uh my question is what are the existing modifications that are already done um by those two parcels? That's the first first question. Thank you.

Um, was that uh directed to me as the applicant or is it a question for Patrick or and or if Andy's on the call? Oh, anyone who could answer. Right. Well, I could say so. Okay, I'll let Andy answer.

Hey, yeah, this is Andy. The last time M was down at that site, it does not appear that the fire department or at least that owner is actually doing any fuel modification in that area at all. Hey Andy, can you specify which owner you're talking about then? Sorry.

I'm just assuming that whatever whatever the existing single family residenc is there, there's one that's really close to the um edge of the slope that goes down to the stream. And that entire slope to me doesn't look as if it's at least been fuel modified in a long time. It's quite dense with vegetation.

Okay. I'm assuming that he's talking about 32804. That's my assumption. Um because they're they're pretty close to the stream. Um uh Stephanie, did you have anything to add to that? if you guys have had any conversations um with that neighbor um in regards to the stream or fuel modification. So, I can say that the um the current owner has been in conversations with the neighbor to the south because they have a shared driveway access and there's conversations going on with respect to the project. So, I know they that conversations can will and happen. And then they do have a good relationship with the neighbor to the west. Um, as you can see, they're currently under construction. It's a fire rebuild. So, as soon as the house is rebuilt, their fuel mod will go into place. And they've been very cooperative neighbors in terms of the fact that they've been able to share the the disturbed area of the property for the construction staging for the current development that's ongoing. So right now if I'm like for example and if I was able to share the screen I can try but I can say that for respect to the neighboring property at 32826 that their zone C already extends over the entirety of our parcel and extends into the stream and buffer area to the west. So the new zone C area that we would have extends only really to the south and to the north. Um on the south we're less than the zone C is less than 100 ft from existing development to the southeast. Um probably. And so really if we were to show the overlapping fuel mod

for all of the properties to the south, we would probably show that those areas are already being thinned for the existing development.

Noah, does that help with your question?

Yes, it does. Um thank you. I appreciate that. Okay. So um my recommendation would be um it first of all so the the project it describes the um the flora that is on the parcel that's in question which um I believe and please correct me if I'm wrong here but I believe that the biological description does not extend down into the fuel modification area. um that may change when the parcel to the west um develops um and has a field modification zone of their own. Um but my recommendation would be to um consider what native vegetation is um in that area between the parcel and the stream um in this plan because it's not described um and it looks to me like there is um considerable amount of native vegetation um and with Andrew's uh point that um probably no thinning has been done by the neighboring properties. Um so there will be a modification obviously of that vegetation. So it'd be important to understand what's there now. Um what invasive species are there that should be removed as part of that um fuel modification. Um and within the zone B um how should that modification be managed? So I think it's important to have a clear plan um which is not described in the documents. Yeah, I would highly recommend that you include as a condition that the for any fuel modification you focus on. Primary focus is on the removal of the non-native species. And I can't remember off the top of my head what they are.

Right. And then also any native species, specifically any native trees, um even if they're um not at a mature um dimension yet, uh should be protected because those native trees can be protective ember catches and actually can um you know can increase the um resistance uh for the structure. Okay.

Um, yeah. Uh, finally, I wanted to make a quick point about the, um, the state park parcel to the north of the property, which is within zone C. Um, it's a very small section of the state park that's actually covered under zone C of uh, for this parcel, for this structure. Um and state parks policy um would allow permitted fuel modification up to 130 ft from the structure. Um so uh any clearance on state park land for this structure would most likely not be allowed unless it fell under the um the zone B of a adjacent structure. And so there could be a community permit available but a individual permit would not be provided.

Okay that thank you.

Thank you. Um and finally uh just wanted to um point out that there are uh overwintering monarch habitats, three of them within a mile of the site. Um and so I have not seen in any of the documents what the plans are for um the landscaping for the property. Um but uh my recommendation would be to consider um over uh winter nectar species as I have previously provided to this board um for monarch butterflies and uh minimization of any non-native species. I'd say that's easy enough to do. Yeah.

Thank you. Okay. No, I have all of your comments. Um, so thank you for that. Really appreciate that. Um, Clark, I see your hand raised and it has been for a while. Sorry.

Oh, no. I just put it up and, you know, so that I'm I'm in line. Um so, um yeah, I um first of all, see if I can get my screen going so say good morning. Good morning everyone. Um if if we could mostly what I'm going to say I think is is ditto. Um to uh to Noah uh you know that the it's it's actually a clustered site. the the structure and development is located where you'd want it to be as as sensitively as it can be cited on this small lot. But I' I'd like to if someone could pull up the um the landscape plan that was in the packet that shows the the fuel mods with the topography and and it does list some plant species if if that's possible to pull that up. Um I've got it on a screen if if you need me to share but because what I the these comments are related to okay so there will be mitigation required and that can you know according to um the coastal plan can be done in a number of ways. I I'd like to see this owner get some value ad from the mitigation on site. And it relates to Noah's comment that in the um in the outer edges of zone B um there's not a lot of description that I could see. I may have missed it on that the steep slope. So, one of the ways to be good to the stream um it's not just about meduca uh vegetation modification. um echoing that non-native species definitely should be removed uh and replaced. I'd like to say replaced because that's a that's a steep slope. It's got a south exposure and it's it's

a bit of a challenge for um for restoration and beautifification. But the upside is is that you know there might be the possibility of reducing sediments into the stream and therefore into the ocean that isn't far away. uh and and love to see an opportunity to add more more cover, more shade there working with LA County. I'm not sure who worked with you on the approved plan. Um but I would recommend the applicant when they develop that additional specificity and particularly if there's a way that restoration credit can be given so that some of that required mitigation rather than going to a fee somewhere else they could you could get in your in your backyard possibly your front yard I guess you could think of it. Um, so that would involve getting into the specifics of that slope and and adding some vegetation with appropriate canopy. I don't know and I'm not going to recommend particular species or spacing, but in general, um, we really like to push, as Noah pointed out, um, start with what's there that's native and protect it in whatever you do. Um, so that it can grow to maturity and it's already got established root and and vegetative cover. and then look at that slope from the stream up to the top of bank as um a restoration project uh and see if you can't get some credit for that. This is where it goes outside of my my specific knowledge of the you know of of the metrics on that the quantitative benefits of doing things on site but would love to see

basically the stream bank become that whole slope. Um you know right now there it looks like the tree canopies largely on one side. Um, but yeah, I'd like to I'd like to see more more un I have a better understanding of that that uh that south facing south trending slope. Patrick's going to give me a picture. So, great. I was wondering if Patrick was going to do it. I thought I had it. I think the best one is the land the the more detailed landscape plan.

That one. Yeah, the one that has the and I recognize it has a county of LA Fire Department's stamp on it. So, I I'm not I'm not asking you to open up a new can of worms, but I will say if you just zoom in on the on the plan above. Um there's a there's a bit of an issue in that the topo shows the stream a bit closer to the structure than the blue line that may have come from city mapping which is really not that critical because I think it's still 100 ft from any developed zone. Um you can see the stream is actually in that in size. It has a little bottomland in it and then a very steep slope which is probably a fill slope. A lot of that upper third is probably from a cut fill when the pad was made over many decades ago. So that slope right where the ES the ESHA 100 foot buffer label is is it's a great opportunity to avoid erosion um invasive further invasive removal. And I I just uh my recommendation is that the the owner work with the landscape architect and in an informal way with either um Rob Walton is a good resource there to stay within those recommendations but kind of over the counter say what could we do here to add habitat value within that 100. We're just so used to saying, you know, once you get beyond your um into zone C C here and Malibu always forget it's not a 1 123, it's an ABC. Um the tendency is that we shouldn't have anything there, right? That that people have this impression and I think growing something back that is an ember catchment that breaks up wind flow,

right? laminated wind flow so that embers dissipate before they get to the structure would be a great opportunity here and maybe you could get some credit and not have to pay so much to the MRCA. So, I see Andrew's got his hand up to comment. I'd like to hear.

Yeah, I I absolutely agree with that. Um the only major issue that we have is what then would be accepted as mitigation considering some of this is going to fall within a fuel modification zone. Um typically, um nobody really wants to count that. You get a half mitigation credit for it. Um I'm a firm believer at least when it comes to and I presented today LA County before um in actually type converting um coastal sage crop and chapper where it falls within fuel modification zones to you know type converting it to woodlands one because it stops the flow the fire flows and I believe it creates better habitat than you know this fuel modified chapper especially when you're lollipoping the the the woodier shrubs you So, I just think as much habitat.

That's why I mentioned Rob Rob Walton, uh, Andrew and and or Chief Durban. um because they they understand and um and I think you could I think you could get some sort of over-the-counter advice there without I mean I see that allimp important stamp and you know everything else is right is cited but it's just a missed opportunity there and if there's a way to incentivize good stewardship and restoration in there within the Malibu rules from a fire science perspective, it's perfectly appropriate to add massing vegetated. You know, not continuous, right? You need discontinuity in that flow. But if you started by just simply tagging all the good large shrubs you've got and and then think about what you know there's likely to be when maybe you know what's there but there's likely to be um at the very least fine flashy fuels that aren't great, right? You know it's yes it's it's lower fuel volume but every single ember starts a fire that lands on that stuff. So if you can if you can work in there and get a really nice south slope, you know, coastal sage type mix. Um I see toy honor being used further up in the in the added plan. Um you know, whatever is appropriate on that slope. Would love to see more of it between the stream and the top of slope to um to shade that surface, slow down any fire that moves on the ground up there. Um, and you know, be conscious about lading, right? To the extent that there is canopy, you don't want any coastal sage or anything that's reaching from the

ground up. And yeah, you can't really you can't do the 1/3 2/3 thing on on coastal sage species. They that's don't that doesn't work, right? There isn't a lollipop plant. That may be why toyons are selected here. So anyway, it just this is a a general topic that we're seeing because it's not like it magically goes to not dangerous at 100 ft or it suddenly becomes dangerous at 30 ft from the house, right? It's it's a it's a it's a sliding scale of risk from the surface of the structure itself out to 100 ft. And I will just say it on the record, statistically years of studies, Keelian Ciphert beyond 100 ft doesn't make a difference to structure survivability. So, and I do know and I'm well aware that the county says up to 200 is is modification. I'm also aware that Malibu just says 200 without a whole lot of qualification for mitigation. But anyway, that's uh um an opportunity to just, you know, soapbox a little bit for natural vegetation and habitat value within zone C.

Great. Clark, I have Yeah, Tyler, I saw you unmute yourself, so do you have Yeah, I was just going to say, Clark, that is that's totally fair recommendation. the LCP actually supports on-site mitigation as the first method before off-site or in loo fees and so that's definitely a fair recommendation that we can have the applicant explore uh as part of the mitigation measure so that's to glad to hear it I didn't know how they were ranked so it's good to hear that's first and then can I add the applicant that we would appreciate the opportunity to be able to do that if it could be a condition of in the conditions of approval if it could open it up as an option that we could do that we would definitely would like to explore that. Thank you.

I think that Julie, I've worked with her a lot and she avoided the ESHA buffer because she knows that the only thing allowed within that ESHA buffer would be planting of a rehabilitative nature. And so I think she didn't want to do that until Stephanie was or that, you know, the applicant was ready to, you know, do restoration on site. Yeah. It's it's also smart that way, you know, you're not showing something that you can't get credit for later. So

yeah, I just that's why it's not shown here. I just wanted to speak up for for Julia and the applicant a little bit just because I I've worked with her before and she knows that that's what we allow. So um but Clark, yeah, great uh recommendations and I have noted them and we will um make sure that they make it.

And then and then a question on that front because it was noted by the applicant or the representative that you know other PE or Noah mentioned it. It's like, do you have to cooperate? What what if your neighbor who says, "Hey, wait a minute. I don't want to see anything planted there." What are the rights of the deed surface owner relative to somebody else's fuel mod? If if it's approved, I imagine that the offsite I mean, it'd be nice to educate them and have them understand if you're working through this process that it's actually a a windfire appropriate mitigation. I like to use windfire now and not wildfire because the windfire is the one we got it designed for. Um that a windfire appropriate native landscape is is good, right? It'll it'll it'll help everyone in the neighborhood, but do they even have any rights to comment on their fuel mod on someone else's property if it's gone through a city process?

Tyler Patrick, I'm not sure. I don't know that that the question was does someone else have the rights on someone else's property to do fuel modification?

Well, I guess they could show up at this meeting, right, and say, I don't like this restoration plan because I believe it's adding fuel in my zone C buffer or my, you know, or whatever they might say. I guess they could do that. But but I I it just something in the prior conversation suggested that cooperation was necessary with the neighbors. And I think that's great to educate everybody, but if you've got a neighbor who believes that, you know, the only native habitat that the good neighbor native habitat is the one that got erased, um which is a what we see a lot at the RCD. We see that a lot. people just feel like I'm safer if I have 300 feet of clearing than if I have 100. And and clearing is a word we don't even like to use. But yeah, so anyway, I it it's it's up to the applicant and the regulatory approval agencies to decide what the fuel mod looks like. Right.

Right. Yeah. And typically it's the it's the you know parcel owner who's responsible for the fuel modification on their parcel. And then in the case where you know fuel mods might overlap uh whoever's fuel mod in this case the this parcel owner has a more let's say their zone B is in someone's zone C well the zone B would override the zone C in in that instance. So yeah I gota that makes sense. Yeah.

Thank you. Yeah, I I just want to interject here really quickly and say that um according to the regulations um you cannot perform fuel modification on someone else's property for the protection of your own property without their permission. Right? So even though um this parcel zone B reaches out into the neighboring property, they cannot enter that property and perform that fuel modification without that neighbor's permission. Similarly, any planting or restoration on the neighboring property cannot be done without that property's permission. Even if it's, you know, even if it's recommended by this board or if it's recommended in um in the permit, right? The the owner of this parcel does not control the neighboring parcel in any way. And so nothing can be done without buyin from that neighboring parcel.

Wonderful. Thank you, Noah. Thank you for that addition and more information. Thank you guys. Um, okay. So, Clark, I don't want to cut you off, but I'm assuming that you're good with your Yeah. Yeah, that covers it. Okay. Okay, great. So, then we'll move on to Patrick if he's ready.

Yeah, sure. The quiet caboose today. Um, yeah, I don't have a whole lot to add beyond what Noah and Clark have already said. Um, I did notice one thing in the public works conditions that I just was looking for more information on. It says that um no additional pollutant loading can be uh added to the outfall and that no new outfalls are allowed and the project must connect to the existing storm train outfalls. So I was just curious how that coni condition was being met. And yeah, what was going on with that? I don't know if that's something Andrew can really answer. Stephanie, I don't know if you know. It may be a question for the project civil engineer, but um considering we're discharging right into ESHA, I was just curious um how that was being met.

Let's see. Stephanie, if you do have a response, I'm trying to pull up. Yeah, it's right there at the top of this page. Oh, it's

so I know Courtney, like we did talk about that because um we did look to address the existing drainage devices that were already installed as part of the prior subdivision and the grading of the three parcels. So, we did include that on the plan to show that was already existing. Uh and then these are the conditions um to be applied and implemented during plan check. So if there's any um the grading plan and the civil engineer and public works will be having these discussions to comply with their conditions during plan check and if any so that would be um that would be my response but the new drainage facilities we know we cannot uh extend them into a

okay yeah that's all I had and that makes sense that the condition will be addressed during plan check. Did you have a particular recommendation, Patrick, in regards to that or was it simply a question? No, because Yeah, I it would be redundant because it is a condition of the approval. So, I don't want to make a formal recommendation for that. Okay, understood. Yeah.

Okay. Um Okay. So, no other comments from any other ERB members? I'm going to take that as a no unless I see a hand raised. Okay. All right. Well, again, I I just wanted to thank everybody for their comments and for their time, especially this close to the holidays. Um I will be sending these recommendations to um Patrick and and uh we will work with the um with the applicant to implement these prior to planning commission. So, um, again, thank you everybody for this time and and that concludes the ERB meeting for December 17th, 2025. Thank you. Thanks everyone.

Happy holidays. Thank you and happy holidays. Thank you.