Planning Commission - Special Meeting

Okay. Good evening everybody. I'm going to call the meeting to order and we will start with the flag salute. You got it? Yeah. I will take care. Please join me to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. Okay. Can we uh take roll call, please? Commissioner Rousar. here.

Commissioner Milis here. Commissioner Sanggha present. Commissioner Tui Touvuki present. Commissioner Rhodess here. All right. Uh we'll move to minutes from previous meetings. Approval. Everybody get a chance to look at them? We'll take a motion to approve. Second. Yeah. No, I need a first. You're the first. Can I have a second? First and second. I'm sorry. I can't do both of them. So, motion to approve the minutes. I'll second. Okay. Follow. Take the vote, please.

Commissioner Tui Touvuki. Yes. Commissioner Milis, yes. Commissioner Rouseller, yes. Commissioner Sanggha, yes. Commissioner Rhodess, yes. Motion passes 5-0. Thank you. All right. Any u actions of requests for continuous or withdrawals? No, chair. No changes for this evening. Thank you.

Okay. Um I'm going to explain the hearing procedures just for those who may not have been here in the in the past or so basically we're going to have a public hearing on the items that is being presented tonight. And there'll be a staff report. Recommendations are presented and then the applicant may provide an oral or written testimony and not to exceed more than 20 minutes. And other project and other project component proponents, those who in favor may then provide testimony. And then we'll have those who are in opposition are allowed to speak. And then the applicant or the representative may then do a rebuttal and then it comes back to the commission which will ask questions of the staff and we will I will then close the hearing and then there'll be further discussion and and then uh we'll take action and right now we're going to move along to uh the public is welcome to address the planning commission on items of interest to to the public that are not listed on the agenda. Comments to the commission are limited to a maximum of five minutes. Would there any anyone here in attendance like to speak to the commission on items not on the agenda? Is there anybody online? Tanya, do you wish to speak? Okay. So, I'm gonna open the public hearing on the item number one.

Hi, I have um associate planner Alisa Gulart here to provide a presentation and then we're available for questions.

Thank you. Good evening. This project is a variance requesting a reduced front yard setback from 0 feet to -3.24 ft for an existing open fence consisting of 3-ft high CMU block topped by 3-ft high rot iron that is located within the county rightway of North Alpine Road. The variance also requests a reduced sideyard setback due to the side fence being located on the adjacent property. Because this is on private property where the county has no jurisdiction, that portion of the request will not be addressed. Oh, sorry. This [snorts] is a site plan submitted by the applicant depicting the entire property. The fence we're discussing tonight is outlined in green. This is a site plan detail submitted by the applicant. The property line is highlighted in green and shows that the fence is located outside of the property line between the road and the property line in the rightway. The project site is located on the east side of North Alpine Road, 15, excuse me, 150 ft south of East Live Oak Road, northeast of the city of Stockton. Surrounding properties on the east side of North Alpine Road are mostly 5 acre parcels with residences. Agriculture is the dominant use on the west side of North Alpine Road. The project site is zone limited agriculture. In this zone, an open fence

up to 8 ft high can be placed on a front property line. A closed fence requires a minimum 10-ft setback from the front property line. And an open fence is defined as having separations allowing views into the interior of the lot at a ratio of 2:1 open to closed. On December 9th, 2021, a code enforcement case was opened for an unpermitted six- foot high solid CMU block fence constructed at the subject property, presumably on the front property line. The property owner then modified the fence to its current style, which qualifies as an open fence that can be placed on the property line. He submitted an application for a building permit. The submitted site plan depicted the fence on the front on the front property line. Based on this information, the building permit was issued and later finalized on May 3rd, 2022. During this time, the Department of Public Works received complaints that the fence was placed too close to the road. Upon investigation, it was discovered that the fence is located in the county ride ofway. The property owner was notified of this finding and subsequent meetings between public works and the property owner were held to discuss a remedy for the violation. On September 3rd, 2024, this variance application was submitted by the applicant. This is the site plan provided and approved with the building permit application showing the fence located on the front property line which can be seen down here. Note the stamp added by the department stating that the applicant shall be responsible for determining location of all property lines and easements, which is a standard stamp that we use to approve any land use application.

Findings must be made in the affirmative. Staff recommends that none of the variance findings numbers one, two, three, and four can be found in the affirmative. These findings are included in the staff report. Variance finding number one states that because of the special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application deprivives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. The applicant does not provide details that support the finding that the property is deprived of privileges. The project site is located in the limited agricultural zone where open fences can be placed on a front property line provided the fence meets specific design guidelines. The strict application of the rule limits all properties in the same manner. The improper placement of this fence constitutes an error but isn't a special circumstance. Variance finding number two states that the variance will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or the public health, safety or general welfare. The fence is placed in the county rightway positioned 18 feet from the edge of the paved roadway. If properly sighted on the property line, the fence would be located 31 ft from the edge of the paved roadway. its current location increases the risk to passing vehicles. Variance finding number three states that the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges as the development title doesn't allow for the placement of private fences outside of a property boundary. Granting this variance and allowing the fence to remain in place would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations placed on other properties. Although the Department of Public Works is required as a condition

of approval that the property owner names Samwokin County as an additional insured, this insurance requirement is a condition only if the variance is approved and does not establish that approving the variance does not constitute a special privilege. Variance finding number four states the variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise permitted. While fences are permitted in the limited agriculture zone, the development title establishes specific standards regarding fence placement style and height because the existing fence does not comply with the placement requirements. Approval of this variance would effectively authorize a use not otherwise permitted. The community development department received three letters of opposition as well as the submitt of images depicting the location of property lines in relation to this fence. The primary concern raised is safety for vehicles when farm equipment is traveling the road and can no longer move over for the passage of vehicles. Also, it impedes the view of drivers exiting driveways. And lastly, the issue was raised that if the variance is approved, it will legitimize locating walls and fences in the county rightway. There was also a letter from the owner of the adjacent property whose property has been encroached upon by the side fence. As discussed, the county is not able to address the issue between neighbors. This photo was taken from North Alpine Road looking south at the project fence. The fence is in the county rideway and the drainage ditch has been filled without a permit. This photo was taken from the property

adjacent to the north depicting the neighboring fence in comparison to the project fence in the background.

[snorts]

This photo was taken from North Alpine Road looking southeast at the project site at night. The fence electrical installation was installed without benefit of a permit. It is recommended that the planning commission deny the variance based on the inability to make findings for variance numbers 1 2 3 and four. Alternatively, if the planning commission chooses to approve the variance, staff recommends providing variance findings numbers 1, 2, 3, and four made in the affirmative and direct staff to compile applicable conditions of approval. This completes staff's presentation.

Thank you very much. Uh, any administrators have any questions at this time? So the issue is that property line correct and where that fence is built in relation to the property line. So my question is how do we miss this? Was it on the part of the applicant or our part or how was that not caught

because now we're in a position that we have a basically a violation of that fence because of the property line. So through the chair, as we showed on the building permit site plan, they depicted the fence being located on the property line. So when planning [clears throat] reviewed it, we reviewed it as a fence located on the property line and building inspection went out and and uh inspected it and assumed it was on the property line. And so then um public works then went out and realized it was actually into their roadway. But when we process building permits, we use the the site plan provided by the applicant. And that's why we put the um stamp on there that the applicants responsible for easements and property line placement because they should know where their property line and where this fence or house is being placed. So we approved it with the um with the thought and the um approval of the site plan that it was on the property line question. And then so somebody went out from the county to to inspect it, correct? And say what or was it a complaint? And then that's when we went out, the county went out and inspected to see that it was in violation.

So, building inspection went out, inspected it, and final the permit because if it was on the property line, it was structurally sound. Okay. Um, public works may be able to provide additional timelines of when they of how they received word of this fence and what they did, right? Yeah. Yeah. So, we do have public works representation here if you would like to talk to them. Yeah, we would. Yeah, absolutely. Got any other questions?

Yeah. My question is pretty much the same. So he my co-commissioner already asked that. So that's that's a concern because um moving forward we need to know like not to point fingers like what really happened here. So if we have the documentation that the public works did go out and did tell the uh applicant and all this happened after letting him know which it shows all the citations. So um we'll talk after you speak sir.

Yeah. Chair Raller, members of the commission, I'm Cheyen Raymond, engineering services manager with public works. So yes, we received a complaint and went to the property or to the right ofway in front of the property and surveyed [clears throat] and determined that the property the fence was in the rightway, not on the property line. Um then what we did was we provided uh letters to the property owner indicating that the fence was in the right of way and we we sent three letters to the property owner and as presented in the in the presentation uh they called for a meeting. We met and we discussed potential options, but it was uh built into the ride ofway. We've surveyed it. They've surveyed it and confirmed that it's in the right of way and they've been notified by public works that it is an illegal encroachment.

Okay. And also about the electrical lights. So, there was no permit on that. That's what's stated in there. So, I'll let CD speak to the through the chair. Um we do have a open code enforcement case for the illegal electrical that's not permitted. Um, but right now we were just going to address the fence. We weren't going to move to step two of the electrical. We're just addressing the placement of the fence. Got it. Yeah. Thank you.

Are there any other questions? Thank you, by the way. Um, then we're going to open this and we'll have the proponents or the representative come now and speak. [snorts] Please give us your name and your address. [clears throat]

I am Paul C. Coslo, attorney at law. My address is 7540 Shoreline Drive, Sweet G, Stockton, California, 95219. Well, we're here tonight not uh not that we really wanted to go with the variance. As you can see in the staff report, we had a meeting with county officials in January of 2024 trying to come up with a solution. It's unfortunate the wall was placed fence was placed inside the rideway. Um, and to move the wall is not a simple task. It's a very expensive task to move it and the applicant uh we were trying to find out a a solution that would satisfy the county. um where the wall sits now, traffic is not impeded. Uh the the the worry of agriculture equipment can still pass by the roadway. There's been no complaints. This wall has been there for a number few years now. And there have been no complaints by anyone about not being able to get the agriculture equipment up Alpine Road or down Alpine Road. So we don't feel that is a is a valid concern. the the real concern would ultimately be if the county ever needs to widen Alpine Road for its purposes. It's clear that the wall would have to be moved and and the applicant knows that he would agree that if that event ever to happen, the owner, if he's no longer the owner, would be required to remove move the wall fence wall back off off the rideway back onto the property line. Um, like I would say initially when Mr. Shurgle, he had a surveyor come out to, you know, point out the property lines before he built the wall. It was an expensive project. He wanted to make sure he was placing the wall in the proper location. Unfortunately, the man who did this

survey didn't do it right. He he he put the property line and so this and the site plan was d drawn up with the property line not where it is but the where the wall sits and that's unfortunate. Um and so it it was a surprise to Mr. Shurgle that he found out that his wall was in the rightway because he he never would have intended to do that. In fact, he has improved the there's a drainage ditch in front of the wall in the rightway that he's gotten a permit encroachment permit to to improve the drainage ditch with and so so right now the the wall is again is not imp impinging upon any any use any other owners. They're their properties are not damaged. The only people who have a concern, a valid concern is the county if they ever need access to their rightway. We don't dispute the county. It's their rightway and and they have they are the ones who have the rights to to determine where anything could be on their property. and and going through the the staff report, I did notice that in June of this year, public works uh mentioned that an encroachment permit with conditions could be a solution. And that's that would be great. I mean, in terms of that's the first that goes back to our our initial meetings with the county in January of 2024, we proposed some type of an agreement with the county with insurance to the county and and a requirement that if the county ever needs the rightway, the the the wall or fence would have to be removed off the rightway. So, uh, we went the variance application because we were

told that was the that we were we were stuck. We had to do something to get to get the the wheels of the county to to be here and and like I said, if we can't if we we always have the right to go to the board of supervisors, but we couldn't do that unless we go through the variance process. So, not that we want to do that, but we just want we want to come up with a solution that's acceptable to the county and to the property owner. And and so, um, again, we're not we're not disputing that the countyy's wrong and there we know this the wall is in the wrong spot. There's no doubt about that. But we just have to come up with a reasonable solution short of requiring the owner to move the wall. and entertain any questions by any of the commissioners.

Any questions? Okay. So, just so you admit that it's in the wrong spot, the fact Oh, yeah. There's no question about it. So, unfortunate it's it's an unfortunate occurrence. There's no Okay. So, but is and it sounds like it you admit that there was the responsibility of the property owner to make sure that it was surveyed in the correct spot. Oh, yeah. We can't deny that. I mean, it's a property owner's responsibility and and he made a he made a mistake. He relied on he thought the propert the the properties were marked and so he had his contractor when he got the permit the building permit to build a wall

where he he in his good faith believed was the property line. And it's not because he did note that there was an old fence on the property from the previous owner that was essentially also in the rightway and he did and that sort of led him I guess to believe that the property line was correct because there was a fence already there

and again that fence was in the was also in the rightway. But so the findings of for the variance to be approved, you have to have all the findings in the affirmative which can't be made on this particular variance. So how do you suggest the commission approves something like this?

Well, [clears throat] I mean I I realize you probably don't have the authority because you have to stay within the guide guidelines of the variance requirements. So again, if we can't get relief here, we we'll have to go to the board of supervisors and see what relief they can do. Again, it's not the avenue we want to do, but again, if something short of going that route with an encroachment permit and conditions that the applicant could live with, we would do that in a heartbeat. Gotcha. But, you know, yeah, we're stuck and and we we we all have a a situation where it's unfortunate that it happened that a mistake was made and [clears throat] to undo the mistake is costly.

Sure. Bottom line. Yep. Totally get it.

May I uh it's a shame that your uh contractor didn't bring this to light. Hopefully, you used a licensed contractor because when I was looking at this, I cannot believe a contractor would move forward because they would know. Uh, but I like the chair said, the planning commission must make a finding and this is the easiest can't find make a finding that I've seen and and I've been a planning commissioner in other areas for years. I would not under any circumstances be able to vote for a variance. Um, yes, the board of supervisor has the authority. Maybe they do. I'm not even sure if they can. The reason being is county is a big county and these these these uh uh these regulations are in place for many reasons. And and the biggest one for me is the safety. And I I saw three letters in the package and one arrived today of people that have identified that not only because of the fence, but because of some uh I guess greenery or shrubbery or whatever, it's difficult for them to see. So, uh I'm so sorry this happened. Uh but I personally would never be able to make a finding on this because it's clear you can't make it. [clears throat] any I I can't I'm I'm again right

I can't undo you know I can't can't say no you're off so I mean yeah you got anything else can't change can't change the existence of where it's located right do would the uh proponent the property owner like to speak as well Harry do you want to say anything no he's fine okay [clears throat] he Mr's got two broken ankles So he's recovering from that. So we will make accommodations for that, sir, if you want to speak. He's okay. Okay. And I wish you a speedy recovery. Um, anything else? No.

Okay. Well, then we're going to see. Are there any other proponents who would like to speak at this time? All right. We'll hear from the opponents of this project. Thank you very much, sir. Okay. Would someone like to Is there anyone in opposition to this this uh item on the agenda? This is the time to come and speak. Sir, remember your name and come to the podium. Give us your name and your address, please. [clears throat] Yes, sir. So, put some glasses on. I provided some exhibits. Um Yes. And I'm going to talk about those name. your name and address.

I'm going to go there. Okay.

My name is Thomas Krauss. I live at 11512 North Alpine Road, next door to Mr. Sher at 11500 North Alpine Road. That's in Stockton 95212. So, um, not I start off not long ago, Mr. wasn't that long ago, Mr. Sugar bought that property and he it wasn't that long after that he tore down an existing building with no demolition permit. I didn't know nothing about it that that he had applied or not, but he soon built a much larger building where that structure had been. I did notice that. And long after it was completed, the county found out that no permit was attained prior to the construction of that building. So, no inspections were carried out during the construction. in SJ Sanw King County uh discovered disability only after our complaint was filed with code enforcement about the new block wall fence that was being built 4 feet onto our property to the north and 13 ft into the public rideway along Alpine Road again without a permit. This variance is required since so many building codes were absolutely ignored. Permits were applied for only after the county discovered these completed con construction projects. Sam King County also discovered that the county maintained drainage ditch in the county rideway had been filled in and that a 330 foot long 24-in pipe along Alpine Road was installed. And also note that five heritage oaks were cut down along Alpine Road, which I think requires a permit. again, construction completed without obtaining

a permit for that or getting permission from public works. I found out somewhat recently that a USA digging permit was not obtained for digging before installing the pipe or fence foundations. The new fence intersects AT&T's buried fiber optics cable six times at two end walls and four entry walls inside the rideway. Mr. Shurgle never even knew his workers almost hit these cables which would have caused a huge and very expensive problem, probably more than his whole fence costs. And I provided pictures number one and two of the um markers that are um nearby that fence. And you can see they go under his fence. And do you see a pattern here? Only after being caught and construction already completed applications filled out. No inspections or permissions were granted before or during construction. Then forgiveness was asked for after being caught. Also, the county assessor was only informed of all this new construction after it was discovered by the county. There are many different and flagrant major violations committed by Mr. Shurgle and for my part how I got involved. When I returned home from work um from working for the federal government where I was still employed, I was shocked by the trenching for the new wall being dug about 4 feet onto my driveway which is now part of this variance request. You you recall four feet to the north. I approached Mr. Shall who came running over and he told

me I was wrong and he showed me his county map, one of the exhibits 18151 and a plot plan he had and I provided uh several maps there along with some surveys. I showed him on his own county map. He showed me that it said fence online meaning the existing fence line. I showed him that the existing fence line was almost 4 feet from where they were trenching, but he insisted he was correct and I was wrong and he wouldn't stop the work. My neighbor took a picture number seven there and it shows the old existing fence and the newly dug trench for his new block wall fence. I took a survey measuring wheel to check the county map measurements. 729.4 feet from the existing monument pin. I later showed him on the plot plan and a county map the 30-foot rideway along Alpine Road. The wall is longer by 13 ft as has been brought out and that is shown on his own plot plan. Mr. Shurgle and his worker workers didn't follow the dimension on his own plot plan which I provided to you uh gentlemen and women uh and the county maps that were in his possession at that time. This proves this was deliberate and no mere accident. No l no licensed contractor I've been around a lot of them would have ever made such obvious mistakes as proceeding on major projects with no permits than not following dimensions on legal maps and the drawings made specifically for that job. Dylan and Murphy Engineering surveyed this prince for us and like Mr.

Sugar's own surveyor, Wong Engineering, verifying the wall was built outside his property lines on two sides, verifying the uh the county maps. Mr. Shle had nearby neighbors told me that if you approve this variance, they will also apply for the 13 ft in front of their properties. Please note this block wall also obstructs the vision when entering Alpine Road from our driveway looking south since it is now so much closer to the road. It's a hazard. Mr. Sugar has also planted new trees and bushes in front of uh in the rideway in front of the wall taking even more room out making it difficult to see fastmoving traffic coming down Alpine Road. I provided a picture picture eight there. If this variance is approved, you have notice if there is ever an accident due to this wall blocking normal vision of traffic, Samuel King County would also be liable for approving this variance and um to variance to standard building practices and longstanding policies. I said a lot. There's there's

Yep. And you went over five minutes and I let you do that. I'm so sorry. No, that's quite all right. Uh but there was a lot to say and to tell you the truth, I wrote it and I took so much out. We also have a lawsuit pending um against Mr. Shurgle. uh but which would not have mentioned on this variance and that's what made it I understand you have a lawsuit but that has nothing to do with us making a decision tonight. So thank you for the Thank you Mr. Krauss.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? Okay, I don't see anybody. You had somebody online. Do they want to speak? No.

Okay. So, we could have rebuttal from the applicant or the representative at this time. Uh, and a couple things um in terms of that there's um plantings inside the rightway in front of the wall. I don't believe that's accurate. the there's pavement. Now, the there's a the the area uh of the driveway there's if there is any planting in the rightway in in front of the wall, Mr. Shugle would would remove that if they that was deemed a potential hazard for for vision for potential drivers. But again, North Alpine Road is a very quiet, not heavily trafficked road at this time. And I can't imagine in the near future it will change greatly because it's a very um remote part of the county. Um the vision is safe. I mean it it you can see traffic. It's a straight line. Uh I don't I don't believe that's a a fair characterization that it's a hazard for people getting out. Mr. Krauss getting out of his his his property. Um it's uh and he has his is litigation on the where his where the wall sits. Let the courts resolve that. And that's not here before. We're not here. We're just trying to figure out a solution to allow the wall to remain without having to remove it uh at a extreme expense to Mr. Sher. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. I'm going to close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission to ask further questions, clarifications. I have a question. Yes. The attorney, their attorney brought up this encroachment permit. What does that entail? Is that applicable to this situation? Um, I'll defer to my friends at public works. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Uh so if the variance is approved, then we've prepared conditions of approval that would um require the applicant to obtain an encroachment permit uh which is effectively doing work in the rightway. So we would review those plans and ensure that they were safe and the issues that we've discussed today would be resolved not by moving the wall but keeping the wall in place but the issues of drainage and other other encroachments would be handled. Uh as well as um other terms where they would purchase insurance and naming the county as co-insured and also agreeing that it would be a revocable encroachment permit. so that if they didn't follow the terms that we've agreed to um or in the future when the roadway is widened at their expense the wall would be moved. So for clarification, if we go ahead with the variance and say, "Okay, we're going to approve the variance, right, is what you're saying, or and then it would then it would be an encroaching permit process."

Yes, we would issue an encroachment permit for the wall with specific terms. Interesting. Can I have a quick Have Have you done a this type of encroachment before type of anybody else come before the commission? Uh I have a seasoned staff member. Yes, we could speak to that better than I.

Uh good evening. Uh uh through the chair, Alex Chetley, deputy director of public works. question as I understood it was have we ever issued a permit for had legal encroachment to uh yeah and in I've been with the department 17 years department's been around for much longer than that uh one time I'm I'm aware that we I I can't give you the details but I think we've done this one time I I remember it was special circumstances that I can't recall but it was a unique situation Okay. So, you said it was a special circumstance. So, it I don't want to go too deep into the the weeds on this. It's happened once in a long time. We don't really know why. Um it was a special circumstance. In this instance, not one of the variance findings was made in the affirmative. So, I don't know if an encroachment should be even discussed at this point. I think we still have to bring it back and try to decide are we going to grant the variance or not. So

procedurally correct chair I just wanted just clarification what an encroachment [clears throat] meant.

Yeah. If I may, because there are four items here uh in terms of and actually would it be possible to bring them up again because I just addressed the one in terms of of it would it would cause some sort of a detriment uh to people, but there's three others and and one of the biggest one for me is that if we were to approve, which I I personally, from what I understand, stand as my role as a planning commissioner is I can't really move forward with a finding that I simply cannot make even with uh if they did the encroachment piece only because of the fact that that would open up for special circumstances for everybody else in Sanwaqin County to ask for one. Uh so we would definitely be opening uh uh a Pandora's box that could be in the long term uh very hazardous to our citizens. But there's four of them. The fact that I couldn't even make I mean it was easy to say no. I just can't make the f and I am so sorry. I I do know that this I can imagine what the cost is and I feel really bad for you because of the fact that uh uh a contractor, an engineer, everybody should have been there telling you no, you cannot move forward with this. You know, I mean, I wouldn't know where my, you know, where my property technically ends, but I would I would expect that others that have that expertise would guide me in that process. Uh, I wish there was a way that I could say, "Yeah, I can kind of," but I wouldn't even be in favor if if you put in the biggest insurance policy in the world because then what do we do with everybody else? Uh, and I I drive, you know, uh, uh, roads like that all

the time. And let me tell you, maybe there's one car, but uh, that's all it takes is one car if you cannot see it when you're coming out. But that's but I only spoke about one of the four. I couldn't make any of the other findings either. Anybody else? Okay. Well, the chair will entertain a motion to either

and I'll make it that I, you know, I feel really bad in making it, but uh I I move that we move forward with a recommendation of staff to deny deny the variance based on the inability to make findings for variance number one, two, three, and four. And uh I'm even going to call them out. Uh could not find anything on special circumstances. uh could not say that there would not be a detriment. And then if you can put uh there is no special privileges because nobody else is allowed to do this. And then the last one uh use authorized uh the soding is what determines what goes into place. So So that one I could to be really honest with you, I couldn't even understand that one. But uh again I'm so sorry but I do make the motion.

Okay. So just know note this is for variance number PA240035 zero. Uh and we are voting to accept the recommendation to deny the variance based on the inability to make the findings for variance one two three and four. Do I have a second? Second. Moved and seconded. I'll call for the vote. Commissioner Sanga. Yes. Yes. Commissioner Rhodess. Yes. Commissioner Tui Tabuki. Yes. Commissioner Roostaller. Yes. Commissioner Milis.

Yes. Motion passes 5 to Z.

Okay. So just so for the applicant pursuant to government code section 650009B2, you can challenge the proposed project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the Sam King Planning Commission or prior to the public hearing. You can also appeal this in the to the supervisors. The appeal period of this for this agenda item expires on December 1st uh 2025 at 5:00 p.m. and there's an appeal fee of $1,027.30. That's it. Thank you. Okay, we'll move on to other business.

Thank you, chair. Jennifer Jolly, director of community development. Um, just wanted to bring to your attention the flyer that you were given tonight. So, you are invited to go to the open house of the board of supervisors, um, which will be occurring, I believe, on December 11th. I don't have a flyer in front of me, but I think it was December 11th. So, um, want to welcome you guys to attend that and wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving. We don't have any other major announcements and also our meetings in December do not currently have anything scheduled. Uh, the first meeting in January is also canceled because it is on New Year's Day. So, pending any last minute changes, we will see you uh later in January.

Thank you. Gotcha. Planning Commissioners, any comments? I'll start with saying happy Thanksgiving and since we won't be seeing each other till next year, merry Christmas, happy new year. Thank you. Yeah. I second that one. Me, too. [laughter] Yeah. Ditto. Yeah. So, I guess I fifth that. There you go. All right. I wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving, merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah, everything and a happy new year. This meeting is adjourned. Happy happy