Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Yeah, why don't you guys sit down. Let's go. Thank you.

OK, welcome, everyone. I will call the June 4, 2026 Planning Commission meeting to order. Will everyone please stand? And will Commissioner Rosin lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, please? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Staff, roll call please.

All commissioners are present with the exception of Commissioner Elmore who is excused this evening.

Thank you. Public comments. This is the time we take public comments on items that are not on the agenda tonight but are generally within the purview of the Planning Commission. If you wish to speak, please keep your comments to three minutes or less. Are there any public comments on non-agenda items? Seeing none, thank you. We'll move on to the next item. Requests for continuances. Staff, are there any requests for continuances?

Not tonight.

Thank you. Moving on to consent items. Item number one, the minutes of April 23rd, 2026. This was two hearings ago, and as not enough members who attended the April 23rd, 2026 meeting were present to conduct a vote, staff is requesting to continue this matter to the Planning Commission meeting this evening. Would anyone from the audience like to comment on the minutes from the April 23rd, 2026 Planning Commission meeting? Mr. Mosher?

CHAIR HARRIS AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, MY NAME IS JIM MOSER. I JUST WANTED TO COMMEND THE STAFF ON THE VERY CAREFUL PROOFREADING OF THOSE AMENDMENTS FROM APRIL 23. I READ THEM CAREFULLY AND DID NOT SEE ANYTHING MERITING ANY CORRECTION. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU.

OKAY. CALL FOR, I WAS AT THIS ONE, OKAY, I'LL CALL FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH NO COMMENTS. DO WE GET A SECOND?

I'll second.

The motion carries 4-0 with Commissioner Langford and Celine. Oh, excuse me, Commissioner Rosin and Celine abstaining.

Okay, thank you. Item number two, minutes of May 21st, 2026. Would anyone from the audience like to comment on the minutes from May 21st, 2026 planning commission meeting? No. Okay. Seeing none, I'll call for a motion and a second, please. Nope. I don't think I can motion.

Yeah. Call for motion to approve. No second.

THE MOTION CARRIES 5-0 WITH CHAIR HARRIS ABSTAINING.

THANK YOU. OKAY, PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 3, 1300 DOVE TOWNHOMES. IT'S PA 2026-0170. SITE LOCATION IS 1200 AND 1300 DOVE STREET AND 4041 MCARTHUR BOULEVARD. STAFF, PLEASE PROCEED WITH YOUR PRESENTATION.

Thank you, Chair Harris. Oscar Orozco here with the Planning Division presenting the 1300 Dove townhomes. Project site's located at 1300 Dove as depicted here in this aerial image. Project site is bound by MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Place Drive, and Dove Street. The existing site is developed with two professional office buildings and one parking structure, as well as a surface parking lot. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE MIXED USE HORIZONTAL GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION AND THE PLAN COMMUNITY NEWPORT PLACE PC 11 WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT. The project is for the demolition of two existing office buildings, which approximate 173,000 square feet, and for the development of 132 units of for sale residential townhomes. The project includes seven affordable units as part of the total 132. The project would be designed as 36 separate detached three and four store buildings, as well as be arranged from 37 to 47 feet tall. These buildings would be two, three and four bedroom units with two car garages for all units. And there would be sufficient space for waste storage within those garages. Here you'll see a site plan of the proposed development. To begin, I'd like to highlight the perimeter units along Newport Boulevard and Dove Street, which are outlined in orange, as well as some of the interior red outlined buildings, which are the two-unit buildings. Secondly, I'd like to highlight the eight-unit buildings, which are along MacArthur Boulevard, as well as the interior portion of the building, here highlighted in yellow and light orange. The project is also proposing two entryways, one along Newport Place Drive, as well as one along Dove Street, depicted here. And the project also includes a total of three residential amenity spaces, 40 on-site guest parking spaces, and one publicly accessible meandering walkway along MacArthur Boulevard, which I will speak to a little bit later as well. Project implementation requires the following approvals, a zoning code amendments, a major site development review, a vesting tentative track map, an affordable housing implementation plan, a development agreements and addendum to the general plan housing implementation program EIR. As mentioned, the site is located within the PC 11 planned community text within its own residential overlay. The project includes a zoning amendment to include this project site within the more recent housing overlay opportunity zoning district. TO BE CLEAR, THE EXISTING ZONING ALLOWS FOR RESIDENTIAL THROUGH THAT OVERLAY. HOWEVER, THE REQUEST IS FOR THE MORE RECENT HOUSING OPPORTUNITY OVERLAY THAT IS DEPICTED HERE IN THIS IMAGE HERE. THERE ARE A TOTAL OF, OR EXCUSE ME, THERE ARE SEVERAL SITES IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE AIRPORT AREA KNOWN AS THE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY H01, AND THIS PROJECT SITE WOULD BE LOCATED WITHIN THAT. So as part of the zoning amendment, staff has analyzed the request, and I'd like to highlight a few points. The first of which is that the proposal does not include any specific changes to the overall allowances within the HO overlay. There's no increase in overall unit count. It's still within the same pool. It's simply identifying the site within that existing overlay. The second is that the site is already included as a residential overlay within the base zoning district. Therefore, there is no introduction of new residential land use that otherwise hasn't been explored before as well as analyzed. The project, as mentioned before, includes a major site development review. So I'm going to highlight a few things throughout the next couple slides just to kind of highlight them at a high level. It'll be the consistency with zoning standards, the scale and compatibility, the design, landscape and amenities, as well as the hazards. The project, as proposed, complies with all zoning requirements of the Housing Opportunity Overlay. Just to highlight a few, the project meets the minimum density requirement. The project meets all setback requirements and also provides additional setback from the rear and along MacArthur side for additional buffers. The project complies with all the height limits. And lastly, the project exceeds almost doubles the minimum required private open space for the development. Here you'll see a rendering, an aerial rendering of the proposed project. The project is designed with scale and bulk in mind. The existing site as mentioned before includes two office buildings that are quite large, as well as the surrounding area is improved with many tall office buildings. this project is designed with a limited bulk and scale in mind to be compatible with the surrounding sites in addition there are other projects in the area that have recently been approved just to highlight one at 1500 quail which is very similar in design and bulk and scale here you'll see a project rendering of the two unit duplex The project is designed as coastal-inspired contemporary with large windows, clean lines, and additional awnings and stone veneer for an increased design. Here you'll see the Apex units, which have similar treatment. Just to quickly go over some of the amenity spaces, the project is required a total of three amenities for the unit camp. Here you'll see courtyards one and two. Courtyard one will be dedicated for outdoor dining areas, an outdoor lounge, picnic tables, while courtyard two will include an open lawn for flex play as well as some additional seating areas. Third amenity, which is located elsewhere on the property between two of the buildings, is intended for an outdoor dining area, some barbecues, a game lawn, cornhole, and additional flex play. The project site is required to provide a minimum 3% of the overall site area as publicly accessible open space. As depicted on this map here in red on the right hand side, the project proposes the minimum publicly accessible required open space. This specific area, known as Estrada, is a meandering sidewalk. which includes an increased walkway width, additional enhanced landscaping for pedestrian scale, so for additional shade, as well as some seating areas within that publicly accessible open space. The publicly accessible open space is located on the private property but will be continued to maintain as a publicly accessible amenity for residents as well as other members of the public. The project also includes a landscape buffer depicted in yellow for the remaining perimeter of the site to continue a seamless landscape buffer and provide a separation between the street and the proposed excuse me the proposed dwelling units near the street. WITH REGARDS TO HAZARDS, THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE JOHN WAY AIRPORT NOTIFICATION AREA, MORE SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THE PROJECT INCLUDES A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT REQUEST. IT IS ALSO REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE A-LOOP AS WELL AS GO TO AN AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MEETING FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING CONSISTENCY WITH THE A-LOOP. THIS PROJECT IS SCHEDULED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING LATER THIS MONTH ON JUNE 18TH WITH THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION. The project site is located within Safety Zone 6, which has been determined to be compatible for residential uses, as well as it is partially located within the 60 decibel zone, which is also compliant with residential zoning uses. The applicant has also provided an FAA determination of no hazard to aviation navigation for the project. The project also includes a vesting tentative track map for the purposes of selling the condominiums, or excuse me, for being for sale units. During the process, the infrastructure including sewer and water was found to be sufficient. And as part of the project, there is a requirement to add an additional 48 inch storm drain along Dove Street offsite to support the project. These improvements will comply with the building public works and fire codes. Part of the project, there is also a development agreement that's required for zoning code amendments with the project of more than 50 dwelling units. The project's development agreement includes an initial term of 10 years. And the applicant has agreed to provide a total of 5% of the units as affordable units. So that equates to seven very low income households. In addition to the inclusion of affordability, the applicant has also agreed to pay a total of $3 million in the general public benefit fee. which is subject to CPI, and this is intended to incentivize development sooner rather than later. The project is also required to pay development impact fees, and there is no request to alter that. That's required per code and would be paid at time of permit issuance. And then lastly, the project is also required to pay a parking loo fee, which is approximately a million dollars. The project includes a request to lower this park fee. The code required park fee would be 48, approximately 48,000 per unit per the code. whereas the request through the development agreement is approximately 7,600. And that's due to the affordable housing implementation plan, which I will speak to next. PROJECT INCLUDES, AS MENTIONED, THE SEVEN VERY LOW INCOME UNITS. THESE UNITS WILL BE PROPORTIONALLY DISTRIBUTED AMONGST ALL THE FLOOR PLANS, AND AS PART OF THE PROJECT, THROUGH PROVIDING THE 5% OF AFFORDABLE UNITS, THE PROJECT QUALIFIES UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE FOR DENSITY BONUS LAW FOR ONE INCENTIVE OR CONCESSION, WHICH IN THIS CASE THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO BE THE REDUCED PARK FEE. In addition, the project, through providing the minimum affordable housing, is also qualified for development standard waivers. So in this particular case, while the project meets all the zoning standards, there are additional objective design standards, a total of 52. that the project would need to comply with. The request for the project is to waive three of those 52. In other words, the project complies with 49 of the 52. And through this affordable housing implementation plan, they're requesting to waive those three. Given that it qualifies under state law, there are no findings that need to be made as part of this project for these three items. Lastly, with regards to environmental review, as part of the city's housing elements, there is a housing element implementation program EIR that was adopted at that time. This project includes an addendum to that program EIR, and that was prepared by the applicant's consultant team, which was peer reviewed by the city's consultant team, Kim Lee Horn. As part of that addendum, all CEQA topics were addressed, and the concluding statement is that the project will not result in any significant impacts that were not previously analyzed as part of that programmatic EIR. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I AM AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE AND AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. I JUST WOULD LIKE TO ADD ONE MORE THING. THERE ARE SOME MATERIAL BOARDS LOCATED TOWARDS THE RIGHT THERE THAT YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK AT WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIFIC DESIGN OF THE PROJECT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. ROSCOE. COMMISSIONER, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? Go ahead. Vice Chair? Just a quick question.

Do we know why this was excluded as an opportunity site to be given?

Yeah, so at the time, we were going through the housing element update process. We did have a committee that identified potential housing opportunities. They looked at the condition of the existing buildings, how much parking lot space there was, and then they just went through and kind of categorized which sites were viable and which ones they thought were less feasible. I think in this case, they just thought that the buildings were in good shape and it wasn't a viable site. REQUESTED PROPERTY OWNERS TO SUBMIT LETTERS INDICATING THEIR INTEREST IN BEING AS PART OF THE HOUSING OVERLAY, AND I THINK AT THE TIME WE JUST DIDN'T RECEIVE A LETTER ON THIS SITE.

THANK YOU.

On the program EIR, I saw there's a project at our next meeting in July at 1300 Dove Street. So is that for the entire airport area? So it included all of the projects that are planned in the area?

That's correct. So the program EIR is identified through all of the different sites that are within the housing overlay. So for example, the project that you referenced across the street falls into that. However, this project, through the addendum, analyzes all of the previous analyzed topics.

Thank you, Chair. Mr. Orozco, the strata, the seating, I didn't notice the seating called out in the site plan. Are there any other details about the seating? Does it need to go back to the planning director for sign-off once the design is done, or how does that end up working?

Thank you, Commissioner. So the plan showed on screen is zoomed in a little here. It's quite a zoomed out image, so it's a little difficult to see. However, there are several locations where there are seating areas throughout the strata. I recall there being at least five or six throughout the entire area. There's also conditions of approval requiring that the publicly accessible open space comply with the site plan, as well as maintain the minimum required per the code.

OK.

Thank you.

Yeah, I didn't see it there. It's hiding in plain sight. Appreciate it. The park in lieu fee, I was curious how that discount was calculated, if that was something common that the city does, if it's case by case basis on all of our development agreements, or if there's something you can share with us on how that came about.

Thank you, Commissioner Langford. Liz Westmoreland, Deputy Community Development Director. In this instance, that particular item was negotiated through the development agreement, and it is consistent with prior development agreements that have occurred in the airport area.

OK. Well, thank you. And the general public benefit fee, is that a standard fee for all projects or just projects with development agreements? It's above and beyond what code requires?

That is correct. So in this particular instance, because it was not included within the overlay, they have to ask for the zoning amendment, which then triggers the development agreement. So if it were within the overlay, the city would not have the ability to require that general public benefit. But in this instance, the city has negotiated that fee.

Very good. Thank you.

Commissioner? Two questions. On the park and loop fee, was that negotiated discount primarily because of the affordability set aside?

That is correct. The affordability is the key component of the development agreement in this case.

OK. And then am I interpreting on page two, recommendation two, that once this makes it through the planning commission, it needs to be, needs to go to the city council for approval?

That's correct. So the recommendation would be a recommendation for the council to approve. OK. Thank you.

Any other comments? OK. Okay. Commissioners, please report any ex parte communication.

None. I shared some emails with the applicant's representative. I spoke with the applicant's representative.

Emailed with the applicant's representative.

None. I emailed with the applicant's representative.

Okay. I will open the public hearing. Does the applicant want to make a presentation or comment tonight?

Good evening, Chair Harris, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Park Miller. I'm with Lincoln Property Company. I'll keep this super duper brief because I think staff did a phenomenal job with the presentation and all the details. And I'd like to say thank you to all of you guys for working with us so closely through this process to make this happen. I speak on behalf of a really great team. We've assembled a bunch of them are here and can answer any other specific questions you guys have about the project. But you know as a big owner and management company of properties in this area and broader newport beach we're really thrilled and honored to be a part of a changing landscape and being able to put thoughtful developments like this together especially in this case getting the affordable piece you know worked in we're really proud to be associated with that so we're again happy to take any of your questions thank you to the staff and open to any comments or feedback as well

Thanks for being here. Before we move into questions from the commission, would you please confirm you agree with all the conditions of approval?

Yes, we do.

Thank you.

Any commissioners, any questions for the applicant?

All set? Thank you.

Okay.

Does anyone from the audience want to comment on this item?

Chair Harris, members of the commission, my name again is Jim Mosher. First of all, merely a technical observation. In the resolution as presented to you for adoption, the affordable housing implementation plan is out of sequence, which is the reason for my comment yesterday. When I looked through this very briefly electronically, it comes before the exhibit page instead of after. I think your resolution should put it in the correct sequence if it is to be approved. As to that affordable housing plan, I would again, as I have for other projects that you've approved, point out that this is not furthering our compliance with our RENA requirement. The applicant is offering something like 5% of the units or 5 or 6% to be affordable in getting our housing element certified by HCD, we told them we expected our new housing development, the 8,000 or so units we had available for approval to be approved with affordable housing at 40%. And to meet our affordable housing requirement, they would have to be 33% of all of those 8,000 and some units. affordable and each project that we approve with less than that is requiring the remaining ones to have still higher and higher and higher percentage of affordable, which I don't think is realistic. A second comment about the development agreement. which I think is most of the purview of the city council rather than planning commission, especially as to the dollar amount. I thought the public benefit fee was lower than we have seen in past projects. And if I saw the slide correctly, the concession is greater than the public benefit being offered. So that might weigh on the council's decision as to whether this should actually be added as overlay unit or rely on the ones that we have now. And what I really wanted to comment about is noise, which is addressed on handwritten pages 21 and 22. And I would point out that the staff is only addressing noise from the airport. And when I look at this site plan, I see that the six units, the ones that were identified as eight plexes, are extremely close to MacArthur Boulevard, which is a very noisy street. The staff only analyzes compliance with the airport, but we have citywide noise policies about when you want to situate residential sensitive uses next to a high noise source like MacArthur Boulevard. I don't think we're complying with those. I haven't seen the studies that would apply to that. And I would point out that there is a great discrepancy between the housing element EIR, which they're tearing off of, and their own claims about what the roadway noise is there. So they're taking the traffic count from that EIR, but they're projecting much, much less noise. And the EIR itself, the one that they're tearing off of said that the 65 decibel contour would extend 170 decibel contour would would extend 139 feet which would be all of those units and the 69 65 decibel over kind of half of the project so I think that really needs to be analyzed better why they're claiming that noise is much less and the only point they actually measured was far outside the project, nowhere near MacArthur where the noise source is. Thank you. Thank you. Any other speakers?

Okay, does the applicant, do you need to respond to anything? Are you okay? Thank you. Okay, staff, any comments for the record?

Yes, thank you, Chair Harris. Just a few items to comment. Mr. Mosher is correct. The AHIP was included with... Apologies, within the draft resolution, however, the cover sheet was misplaced, so that's something that we can easily fix in the next version. Additionally, in terms of the comments regarding the no net loss, this project does include affordable units, which will help us meet our obligations. Additionally, we report to the state yearly regarding this provision in our annual report to the Housing and Community Development Department at the state level, and they have accepted our report, and we will continue to monitor that as time goes on. ADDITIONALLY THERE ARE STANDARD CONDITIONS INCLUDED WITHIN THE DRAFT RESOLUTION THAT ADDRESS NOISE. SO THE APPLICANT DURING THE PLAN CHECK PROCESS WILL BE REQUIRED TO PREPARE AN ACOUSTIC REPORT AND IT WILL REQUIRE ATTENUATION OF NOISE REGARDLESS OF ITS SOURCE. IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ADDENDUM I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT HAS A REPRESENTATIVE HERE. THANK YOU.

OK, is there any sort of like I guess one question on that on the noise like I think in other times we've had where they just had to acknowledge it that they understand they're in the area. I think it might have been a condition I missed, but I know the parking was.

That is correct. We have a condition that requires that.

Thank you. OK, I'll close public hearing. Bring this to the Commission for discussion and action. Any comments or thoughts on anyone? Motion. Mr. Langford.

Yes, and Ms. Westmoreland, if it isn't too much trouble, there's a few conditions that reference the development agreement and the standard language being seven years, but unless it's different in the development agreement, it'd be nice to just say the 10 years so there's no ambiguity in the future and people don't have to reference multiple documents. That would be my one comment for that, that we can make a change. Other than that, Lincoln Properties has done a great job in the airport area. I was happy to see their application come in and follow it along the way. I'm glad they're here today. I think it's going to be a great project, and I'm inclined to support. Any comments?

MY FEELINGS ARE MUTUAL. I THINK THE STAFF DID A GOOD JOB WITH THE EXCEPTION FOR GETTING SOME LOW INCOME AND IT'S VERY LOW INCOME WHICH I KNOW IS NOT BEING CONSIDERED BY A LOT OF PROJECTS ESPECIALLY IN OUR TOWN WHERE IT DOESN'T JUSTIFY. kind of commit everyone for working together on that um i think it was a fair deal um and trade for the city so i would um i'll make a motion to approve with uh commissioner langford's uh change um i don't know if we need to address uh mr mosier's comment on the order i think we're okay on that are we okay um so i'll make that as my motion to approve or to move on i agree and i will second that motion

The motion carries unanimously.

OK. Congratulations. Moving on to the next item. Item number four, motions for reconsideration. Are there any motions for reconsideration? I don't think so. I'll give them a minute. Item number four, motions for reconsideration. Are you on the way to say? OK.

There are none.

Sorry. Thought they were sticking around. Sorry, I was trying to keep a better audience, guys. Come on. OK, item number four, a motion for reconsideration. Are there any motions for reconsideration? Seeing none, OK. Item number five, report by the community development director or request for matters which a planning commissioner member would like placed on a future agenda. Director Muriel?

Chair, Jaime Muriel, Community Development Director. I just wanted to introduce Joshua McDonald. He's sitting here in the audience. He's our new principal engineer, part of our Transportation and Development Services team within Public Works. So he'll be attending future Planning Commission meetings in place of Kevin Reilly. And then I will turn over an update regarding the upcoming Planning Commission schedule to our new Deputy Director, Liz Westmoreland.

THANK YOU. TONIGHT I HAVE THE HONOR OF PROVIDING THE REPORT ON BEHALF OF THE DIRECTOR. I'D LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT A FEW UPCOMING ITEMS AS WE GO INTO THE SUMMER HERE. WE DO HAVE SOME ITEMS SCHEDULED FOR UPCOMING AGENDAS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. NOTABLY ON JUNE 18TH, WE HAVE ONE ITEM AT THIS TIME. THIS IS THE WEST CLIFF AT DOVER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 1501 16TH STREET AND NOTABLY THIS IS LOCATED NEXT TO THE ENC. I'D ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT WE HAVE TWO AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE UPCOMING JULY 9TH MEETING, AND THE FIRST BEING THE 1301 DOVE STREET RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOMES. THAT'S A 139 TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT AND A VARIANCE FOR A SETBACK ENCROACHMENT IN CORONA DEL MAR. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY AGENDA ITEMS SCHEDULED FOR JULY 23rd, SO WE MAY SEEK TO CANCEL THAT MEETING UNLESS WE DO HAVE ITEMS THAT ARE CONTINUED FROM A PRIOR MEETING. THANK YOU.

Does anyone from the audience want to comment? Oh, excuse me? You had a question? Oh, sure. Oh, sorry about that. No, I'm sorry.

Thank you, Chair. This project we just approved brought up an interesting question that I would love to see if we could look into. The idea of all this tandem parking was a concern to me. I didn't want to bring it up necessarily on this particular deal. But is there any statistics that say, you know, if it's a two-car garage, it's parked at, 1.8 cars or whatever versus a tandem is parked at a different number. And if that is the case, I would think that if there's a lot of tandem parking proposed that we perhaps should adjust our parking requirements for similar projects moving forward to address it. Because when I look at a tandem garage, the juggling of cars would say to me that people are gonna park outside. They're just not gonna go, they're not gonna do it. And so I think we oughta maybe take a look at you know, again, adjusting the parking standards when there's a lot of tandem parking. If it's one, if it's, you know, this is half the plans. And so I think that's a concern. I know, again, our code doesn't necessarily take that into account, so I didn't want to bring it up for this particular one. But I think it's something we might want to look into.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Yep. Commissioner Gazzano, or should I wait for any comments or?

We can certainly bring that back to the body so that we give some thoughtful consideration to the provisions of the code and then see if the path forward is to actually make the code amendment.

Thank you. hi commissioner gazzano yeah i was hoping to get um an overview of that airport area one projects that have already been approved maybe applications that have started just we can have a comprehensive look at all the different projects happening there and then also an update because i believe there was supposed to be a specific plan for that area and just kind of so an update on where we're at with the specific plan, what has been approved already in the airport area and what might be coming just to kind of have a better look of everything that's happening in that area.

That's good. Okay. Does anyone from the audience want to comment on these items?

Okay.

Item number six, request for excused absences. Commissioners?

Okay. We're on the 23rd of July, which I think it may be canceled, so I will be out of town for that one.

And then just a quick notice of congratulations to our new deputy director, Liz Westmoreland. We're excited for you.

Thank you so much. It's an honor.

Absolutely. We'll get to see you more often, I think. And then also Ben Zavita, you know, I think assistant city manager, is that correct?

Deputy city manager.

Deputy city manager, excuse me. So we're really excited for him too. And just please send our best. Thank you.

Okay.

Adjourned.