Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

historically, the sort of extensions of the conditional use permit was given in ten year increments. I was just wondering what is the norm typically for unlimited terms, how unusual is it that those unlimited terms are granted? Just wondering since historically they had only been requesting the ten year extensions. So Commissioner Ayala yes. Can historically conditional use permits have been approved for a certain time period, but each permit is looked at on a case by case basis. It's really dependent on. Compatibility with the site and what they're proposing. We all the planning planning division has also been tasked currently by the Board of Supervisors to look at getting rid of the time frames for SIPs. So we discussed that with the applicant. The applicant did propose a certain time frame and then revise that. And then we said, you know, since the board has been tasked to do this, we would you consider an unlimited term? It is important to note that a similar another camp in Ojai camp that you might remember that was brought to the commission last year did get an unlimited term as well. Okay. Thank you very much. I will now open the public hearing with the applicant. Like to make a presentation on this item. Well, good morning. And I just want to say at the outset, we are super grateful for planning. They have been gracious in walking us through this process. If you're not familiar with land use and zoning, it's a whole new world. So thank you for helping get us

to this point. Very thankful. I don't think there's a need to go through every slide. As Christina mentioned, so much of what's already on there. But I would like to just if this clicker will. There we go. Just look here. It gives us from our perspective. The view we're here to seek stability, compliance and continuing a community benefit. And the ask is an unlimited term conditional use permit. The reality is that there is no physical expansion. There's no ground disturbance, there's no grading. There will be. There will be no tree removal, although there will be one tree house that is amazing, but apparently was not originally authorized that we will mitigate. However, the arborist tells us best to do that. And then the benefit that we do provide the community is payroll of roughly 800 zero zero $0. It's anywhere between 35 and 50 jobs, depending on the season. And that's really all we're hoping to do is just keep operating. And that's basically it. If I go through all the slides, I'll be burning time and just saying more of what Christina already said better than I could say it. So that's all I have. Thank you sir. Sounds good. Secretary Lewis, do we have any public comments? Chair Sandlin, we did not receive any public comments besides the the applicants presentations and comments. Thank you. Okay. With staff like to present any closing remarks? Staff does not have

any closing remarks, and I will now close the public hearing. Is there any discussion or emotion from the Commission? I have one question, Charles. Yes. Commissioner Cushman, you said the tree house is being removed, and what's the reason it's going to be removed, I guess because you said he said no. He said it's going to be removed. Right. So we had an arborist out there, not for the tree house, but for another issue, and asked him about it. And let me first just say, we'll follow whatever we're told to follow to mitigate the situation. But what was communicated was that the tree and the tree house, it has grown together and they were concerned about removing the tree house. It would actually harm the tree. It's very old. And so what they had talked about was basically putting a fence around it so the kids could no longer play on it because it could damage apparently the tree. But whatever the right outcome is, we're more than happy to do that. So the tree house would remain, but you'll put a fence around so the kids can just look at it. If that's what it takes to be in compliance. We're glad to do that. Is there any way to improve that, that tree house for the kids to be able to be in compliance and, and make it available for the kids to use? We would love to see that. I think we just are looking for guidance from an arborist to tell us how best to do it. But if that's an option, we would love that to be an option. I think that could be part of our motion is to support planning. Any comment on that? Yes, chair. Sorry, Commissioner Cushing. So the project is it has a discretionary tree permit element that basically is our tree protection plan and our tree monitoring. The arborist, the qualified arborist must go

out and assess the the safety of the tree and the tree house and to determine if it's going to be removed or if it can stay, if it's going to stay, there's going to be a tree protection protocols such as fencing is usually a pretty standard one to see if that's going to be adequate. So the the way that the conditions are written is that the tree protection plan is provided to county staff, county staff reviews it, and if it's approved, then they will go out and do whatever the tree permit, whatever the arborist has recommended. And then there's monitoring for a two year time frame. So it's really the arborist who is qualified to assess the safety of the tree and the safety of the tree house to determine if it's going to stay or not. But the safety is to the tree or the safety to the to the the children using the tree, safety to the children. I'm sorry. What? To both. To both. Safety to the tree. It is a protected tree. It's a rather large tree. So it's a protected tree under our our tree ordinance, but also to the safety of the children. But is it possible that they could do improvements to the tree house without harming the tree? And it can still be used? It's possible, but that would have to be evaluated and assessed by the arborist and then reviewed by planning staff. Yeah. I would request your arborist to see what you can do to improve that tree house, to make it still so the kids could play in it. We would love that. Oh, that would be our recommendation. My recommendation? Yeah. Commissioner Kesley, if I'm not if I'm understanding correctly, it appears that there's concern about the tree itself. That was my understanding and that if the tree house is allowed to continue and the kids are playing on it, if the tree is harmed and damaged, it could potentially become a safety

issue for the children if they're on the tree. And I do agree with my colleagues, if there is a way that the arborist can find to make sure that the tree health is consistent and able to sustain itself with the tree house use, I would be for that. I agree. I think we got a majority. And Commissioner, how do we put that into motion to be able to support both the tree house and the tree and. To allow improvements to that tree house, to be able to continue the use in a safe way for the children? Thank you, Chair Sandlin, before getting to tha since since now the commission is kind of gauging, engaging in a little bit more deliberation. I would just recommend that we close the public hearing again since we heard from the applicant. But in terms of of what your commission could consider, I in looking at the conditions of approval, it looks like condition of approval. Number 24 is the condition that addresses the tree protection plan. And so it may be helpful for your commission to take a look at that, that condition and consider whether revisions there could be made to as I read it now, it looks like it directs removal of the tree house prior to issuance of the zoning clearance for use inauguration. But your commission could consider. Can we put that option to that condition? You know, removal of the tree if if recommended by the arborist and and and to retain the tree house if if feasible. So I'd kind of defer to staff to see if maybe we could look at that condition together. And your, your commission can see which revisions would be acceptable. Yeah. If we could get that on

the screen, that would be great. Commission condition 24. You guys have access to putting that on the screen for us. Do this. Hi, commissioners. One of the things we can do, we can do two options. If you want to take a quick five minute break, we can huddle and work it out just amongst ourselves to see what we can propose. That might be give you a little break and then we can do our deliberation. Come back to you. Sounds good. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Take a five minute break, okay. All right. You've got a copy of it, right? Let's go ahead and let's go. Do you have. Oh, she's going to come over here. Okay. We have to make sure.

Because.

Okay, staff is ready to present the item 24, condition 24. Commissioner chair Sandlin, Christina is going to go ahead and screen share this item. And we have crafted in consultation with county counsel, and the applicant has reviewed it and concurred with the contents that will be presented. Great. What you guys got? I don't have access to the screen share. So Chair Sandlin staff has updated conditions one and 24. The applicant has reviewed the conditions and concurs with them and the updated language for condition one is included in track changes, and it's a discretionary tree permit section. If you'd like me to read it, I can do that. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Just just to go through the highlights. So the updated changes are for the discretionary tree permit. The proposed project includes the removal or retention of the tree house constructed within a protected oak tree, as recommended by a qualified by arborist. I see the retention word, and I, and I like that. But what about if it requires improvements to retain to to be able to keep it retention. Because retention would be like, okay, if the arborist says, hey, we can keep it and just keep it going, but there may be some improvements that may be required to be able to. And we would, we would I would support that. Chair Sandlin yeah, sorry, just to to briefly comment here. Right now, we're showing staff

is showing the proposed revisions to condition number one, which provides kind of the basic project description. But some of that might be covered in the condition number 24. That goes into more detail about the tree protection plan. And so staff is proposing some revisions that would allow some flexibility. And so perhaps it makes sense to look at that language now and consider additional revisions as needed. Removed, improved or retained or improved as recommended by our town's think improvement should be an option in there. You go ahead and read what you have. Okay, so Chair Sandlin for competition 24, which is the tree protection plan. The changes are to the requirement portion of the condition. So it reads as the tree house constructed under and within the oak woodland adjacent to the pool shall be removed or retained as recommended by the arborist prior to the issuance of the zoning clearance for use inauguration in accordance with a Tree protection plan, removal or retention of the tree house shall be avoided. Shall avoid impacting protected trees to the extent feasible, and shall offset or mitigate any damage to the protected trees or associated impacts from the from the damage. And then the last portion of that requirement section says. The cost, the cost of planting and maintaining the offset tree. The. The last sentence in that paragraph is talking about the tree protection plan shall evaluate and balance tree protection and public safety. And then for the documentation portion, the updated language

is. Prior to the removal of the tree house in accordance with the arborist recommendations. I'd just like to mention I noticed that we have the word or prior to removal or. So I'm recommending that Christina. Remove that and if the applicant is fine with that. I think that was just an oversight. I still think we need the word improve where it says removed or, and or improved or, or retained because retained is just like, you know, it's something like retention. It's, it's to keep, but, but it may require improvements to keep for the kids to be able to use safely and the tree to remain safely. Does that make sense? Commissioner? Chair Sandlin, if your commission is is interested in providing more guidance as to retention of the tree and allowing, you know, some improvements to be made with that, I think that, you know, your your commission could consider additional language in the text of the requirement section, perhaps at the end, to state something along the lines of to the extent improvements may be. May be made to to the tree house to allow retention of the tree house, such such improvements may be allowed if they're protective of tree health and public safety. Something along those lines. Sounds good. I want something there for the children to be able to utilize it safely too as well. Like improved to retain because you could retain it and still put a fence around it and have the

tree there, you know, and that could be the requirement of staff. And that's still that doesn't get what we're trying to say. I think as a commission, we'd like to be able to have the camp, keep the tree house, keep the tree, make the improvements to make it safe so the kids can still play in that tree house for the unlimited term they have. Does that does that make sense? I wouldn't want to box them into or yeah, they can keep this tree house, but now they got a fence around it so nobody can use it. You know, that's it retains it. But then, you know, still nobody could use it because they're not allowed to improve it. That's what I'd like to give them some authorization to be able to improve that tree house to where it's safe. And usually the kids can utilize it. So any language that we could add to do that, any recommendation? Maggie, do you have a I was just going to say, would it be feasible to say the tree protection plan shall evaluate if improvements can be made to allow for use of the tree house and then balance tree protection and public safety? That's a great that's exactly what we're trying to do. That sounds really good. We may have to do some live edits here with. We all. So Christina was writing in council statement. So I think we might need to capture Commissioner Kessler's concept there. So what we'll do is we'll go ahead once Christina writes this in. Let's have you all look at what we have and let's refine it down to what your commission feels is an agreeable revision. Great. Okay, so you want to read that TPP. Do we need to take another break or do you think you guys got it? I think I think we got it. So Chair Sandlin for condition 24 under the requirement, the last sentence in that paragraph has been

updated to say the TPP shall evaluate and balance tree protection to the extent improvements may be made to the tree house such as these, such that these improvements are done for public health and safety to allow retention of the tree house. Retention and use. Yeah. Okay. And use something for the children or for the participants. An adult might want to go up there too, and hang out. Would you like me to read it one more time? There you go. That sounds good. I think I see the use in their use of the tree house. If if I may suggest some minor revisions to that. I think perhaps it could be revised to state the tree protection plan. The TPP shall evaluate whether improvements may be made to the tree house. And then delete the following text. Except let's see, maybe made to the tree house such that these improvements are such. To allow retention and use of the tree house. And then I think the the remaining text can be deleted. Does that capture the Commission's intent? I see the evaluation, but does that still give them the authorization or will staff still need some kind of authorization from commission to be able to allow

them to approve that tree house, or can we give that authorization now with this language? I think that the condition is flexible enough to to allow and is showing the, the, the strong desire and intent to retain the tree house if possible. But it's ultimately the arborist who's making the recommendation based on tree health and also public safety. Yeah. Got to find the right arborist. And, and, and maybe refer to the minutes of this meeting that we prefer that it's retained for the children and improved for the safety of everybody, including the tree. We'd like to do one final read through for to help you with the motion. So if that's helpful once you get there. But I just wanted to state that. Okay, so for condition 24 and the requirement, the last sentence now reads the TPP shall evaluate whether improvements may be made to the tree house to allow retention and use of the tree house, such that these improvements are done for public health and safety. And then I think we can take out the last part of that to allow for attention and use of the tree house. There you go. That is great. Great. Okay. Sounds good. Anybody would like to make a motion? Yeah. I'd like to make a motion to approve the applicants PL 21-0019 with the revisions to conditions one and 24. I'd like to second that. Have a second. We have a motion from Commissioner Cushing, and we have a second from Commissioner Ayala. Loose. Will you take roll call, please? Yes,

Commissioner. Commissioner. Yes. Yes. Commissioner. Ayala. Yes. Vice chair. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Just. What'd you say? Yeah. For the less technical questions. Thank you. Don't touch anything. Some concepts, some concepts and designs. All right. The motion passes 4 to 0. Let's see here. All right. Item number seven which is discussion. We'll now move to item number seven. A case planner PL250035. The applicants the County of Ventura to receive and file a report to provide input from the county of Ventura's proposed application for the State of California Pro Housing Designation program. The project location is all unincorporated areas of Ventura County, and I'd like to punt the staff to update us. Thank you, Mister Chair, and good morning, commissioners. I'm Rob Moline, the director of the Resource Management Agency. So in Dave's absence today, I wanted to just say some introductory remarks to this item. It's nice to see the commission. I'm not here every every time I think I'll be here more often going forward. But I wanted to just just emphasize the importance of this pro housing designation. This was an action that was supported by the Board of Supervisors just last week, when they authorized the application or submitting the application to the state for this designation. And the designation allows the county to be much more competitive to and even developers to obtain funding for affordable housing

projects in the county. So it's something that many counties and cities are really trying to obtain, and we're pleased that we had the board support to submit the application as part of the the process. There's a necessary public engagement process after the board's authorization to submit the the application. And that's why we're here before the board. So it's a little bit unusual to come to go to the board and then come back to the Planning Commission on something that they've already provided guidance on. But that's what we're doing today as part of this public outreach process, that Joy Woerner will be talking in more detail. So I just I just wanted to have the opportunity to say hello to the commission and to introduce the item. So Joy will be giving the should probably say some of the, some of the cover, some of the topics I've already covered are introduced. And then I also want to acknowledge that Jennifer Butler is one of our former planners, is now with the County Executive Office, Community Development Division, and she's also here in the audience. But the presentation will be will be given by Joy. But it was developed in coordination with the Community Development Division. So thank you very much. And I'll turn it over to Joy. Thank you. It's an honor to have you here. Welcome. Good morning, chair. Commissioners and members of the public. Unfortunately, my co presenter, Tracy McCauley from the Community Development Division was unable to join me today. My name is Joy Werner. I'm an assistant planner with the planning Division and the project manager for the county's Pro Housing Designation application case

number PL25-0035. There we go. The Pro Housing designation is a state program administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. It recognizes jurisdictions that go beyond minimum state housing requirements to accelerate housing production and remove barriers to development. This effort is part of Housing Element Program h e, a implementation which directs the county to apply for and strive to receive and maintain the Pro housing designation. Receiving the Pro Housing designation provides exclusive access to the Pro Housing Incentive Program Grant, which is a competitive grant program only available to jurisdictions that have received the Pro Housing designation. In addition, it would. In addition, the county would receive priority scoring for affordable housing subsidies through HCD, including but not limited to the affordable housing and Sustainable Communities and Infill Infrastructure grant programs. The immediate significance of the county is that we anticipate that the next round of Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention Program funding, or Hap funding, will require that jurisdictions have this designation in order to be eligible. HCD has established a specific application process for the Pro Housing designation. Since March of 2025, the county has been working with HCD through technical assistance calls to develop a draft application. This is a lengthy and coordinated process that has involved collaboration between the Planning Division and the

Community Development Division. On April 28th, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution authorizing the county to apply for and participate in the Pro Housing Designation Program. Unlike most applications, this program requires a public review period to occur after board authorization, as the adopted resolution is required in order to release a complete draft application to the public for review. Today's presentation is part of step three. In this process, the 30 day diligent Public Participation period, which includes informing the public about this effort and providing opportunities for public comment and commission input. Following the close of the public outreach period, we will consolidate and respond to comments received and make any necessary revisions to the application prior to submitting the application to the state for review. The application itself is fairly extensive. It includes a minimum minimum threshold requirements, including having a compliant housing element and submitting annual progress reports on time. The application also includes seven required appendices. Appendix three is the core of the application. This is where the county identifies both its enacted and proposed Pro-housing policies and demonstrates how they exceed state criteria. Policies are awarded points, and we can also receive additional points when using enhancement factor arguments. The county is currently anticipating receiving a total of 93 points, and the minimum points required to receive the designation is 30 points. A higher point count also means that we are more eligible or competitive.

Competitive for state funding. Appendix three is organized into four categories, with category one focused on favorable zoning and land use. This category highlights policies that expand housing capacity and flexibility through zoning and land use regulations. Here are a few examples of policies that we plan to use to receive points under this category. First, the county exceeds state aid requirements. The county allows for larger and attached ADUs with a ministerial zoning clearance in all residential zones, including the agricultural exclusive and open space zones. Second, the county eliminates or reduces parking requirements for projects utilizing state housing laws, including Adu density bonus and supportive housing, for example, the Rancho Sierra Senior Apartments qualified for reduced parking because it is supportive housing within a half mile of public transit. Lastly, the county recently updated its regulations for the residential high density, or RHD zone to include an inclusionary housing provision. While this currently applies only to RHD zoned parcels, the county's implementing an inclusionary Housing and housing impact mitigation fee assessment to evaluate the feasibility of a potential countywide inclusionary housing policy. This will be included in the application as a proposed policy with a commitment of bringing the feasibility study to the board for direction within two years of application submittal. Category two focuses on the acceleration of housing production time frames. This category highlights actions that shorten permitting review

and approval timelines to help speed up housing production. The county has established several ministerial pathways to reduce review times and facilitate housing production. For example, multiple housing types may be approved through a zoning clearance, and the county has developed streamlined ministerial applications for certain multifamily projects. A key highlight is that during the six cycle housing element period, 537 units, or 63% of total units that received planning permit approval were approved without a public hearing. This reflects the county's ongoing use of streamlined processes to accelerate housing production. Category three is focused on the reduction of construction and development costs. This category highlights fee waivers, streamlined processes, and other cost saving measures that lower financial barriers to housing development. In this Housing Element cycle, the county completed a project that waives the concept project review fee, formerly known as the Development Review Committee, for 100% affordable housing projects. The county has also worked to reduce regulatory barriers for lower income housing. For example, the residential high density zone allows for ministerial approval of multifamily development through a zoning clearance. Finally, the county allows self-contained agricultural worker trailers as temporary housing with a zoning clearance in agricultural and open space zones. And an example of a project that utilized the fee waiver was the home Key plus Lewes Road

Supportive Housing Project, and this helped reduce upfront costs and help the project receive early feasibility feedback. Category four focuses on financial subsidies. This category highlights programs and provides financial support and funding to facilitate affordable housing development. The county has made significant investments of local, state and federal funding to support the development and operation of affordable housing, which is a key component of achieving the Pro housing designation. Affordable homes shown. Affordable housing development shown on the map with a circle icon have received a reservation of financial support from the county, totaling more than 600 affordable homes. Receiving the Pro Housing designation will not only support the county in continuing this work, but will also provide priority consideration for developers who are looking to build projects within the unincorporated area. So these are just a few examples of the policies that we plan to use to demonstrate that the county meets the requirements of this application. We are also proposing the Countywide Farm Worker Housing Study, which is a collaborative effort to assess farm worker housing needs across all jurisdictions and identify coordinated strategies to expand housing options for this essential workforce. Before we move into appendix two, I want to acknowledge that the county meets most of the requirements with policies and programs that are already currently in place. The proposed policies that are referenced in appendix three are outlined in appendix two. These programs must be completed within two years from the date that the application is submitted. The County is proposing three programs that are all assigned to the

Planning Division were included in the board approved 2026 to 2029 Work Plan and are anticipated to be completed by June of 2028. The board has advanced key initiatives to address encampments, positioning the county to respond in alignment with state priorities, which is a requirement for the Pro Housing designation. This coordinated and comprehensive approach both addresses immediate basic needs and creates clear pathways to housing and supportive services through collaboration among backpack medicine, behavioral health, public health, and the Sheriff's Liaison Unit and community based organizations. The county delivers a strong cross-sector response. Additional detail on how the county meets each principle, along with supporting documentation, is included in appendix five of the application. To meet the requirements of appendix six, the county must conduct a diligent public participation process. Prior to the board hearing, we conducted a stakeholder informational informational session in February and noticed the hearing and provided opportunities for public comment through our County Pro Housing Designation web page. We also publish legal notices in both English and Spanish, and issued a press release. Following the board hearing, we initiated the 30 day public participation process on April 30th, 2026, and this will run through May 29th, 2026. We have updated the Pro Housing Designation webpage to post the draft application and allow for direct public comment. We are here today seeking Planning Commission input and will be presenting at a Continuum of Care virtual meeting and will also be hosting a public informational webinar. In addition, we are conducting broader outreach through fliers,

social media and listserv notifications and will consolidate all written comments received as part of our final application submittal. This brings me to the recommended actions. Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission receive and file a report on the county's Pro Housing Designation application to the State of California Pro Housing Designation Program, and provide input on the proposed Pro Housing Designation application. Thank you for your time today. Any questions of staff by the Commission? I just had one question on the ready Done plans. How is this? How is the county getting that out to potential people that want to develop housing for the like, the like the ad user that were already pre-approved plans? So if I'm a homeowner and I want to do an Adu, am I going to if I just go to my friend, the architect to start plans and I don't know that the county already has them in place. How is that going to get out to the public? I know that through our building and safety department, they have pre-approved plans. I know for different types of housing units, but I think what we'd need to do is, is are you saying just any pre-approved plans for the county? Because we do have those on our website through what's available with the building and safety department. Okay. And these will be on there too. That is what. Yeah. We'll have to coordinate on that. Any anything that we have that's public facing that would be pre-approved. We can we can coordinate with our county family to put it on the, the most appropriate website for those finders. And we can also

we can do duplicate references. So that's something we can also put on this web page to direct folks to actually download the plans. If we want to just maintain them in one location. So we'll definitely work on that. And we can always report back to you how we we organize that option once those are developed. Correct. Because I think having these plans is fantastic. You know, if I'm going to do an Adu and if I'm going to save me a whole lot of money and a lot of time. So I just hopefully we can get that out to the to the general public that, and I'm not sure I don't know how to do that, but one of the things we do is we do have a very robust public inquiry program with the planning division, we get about ten 000 customer inquiries a year just for planning. So we have planners who rotate and provide responses to emails and phone calls so we can, as a division, make sure that as the plans are launched and posted, we give our advisories to our internal staff to make sure that as they're getting Adu questions, which are. We get a lot of those. They they go ahead and reiterate where someone could find those plans if they're interested. So we'll wrap that around to our, our customer service profile. Sounds great. And a question from Commissioner Kesley. In your presentation, you mentioned there's still time for public outreach and participation. And there is a place that the public is being directed to actually be able to read and review what's being proposed. Is it possible that that can link can be sent to us as well, so that I can maybe dig in a little bit deeper and just see if there's any concerns or questions I want to be able to present. Yes, it's in the staff report, and we can follow up right after this meeting with in an email or whatever the correct protocol is for getting that information to you all. We'll have Lucia go ahead and provide you with that

follow up. Thank you so much. Chair. If I may, I believe there was some mention of public outreach, especially surrounding, you know, both English and Spanish language materials that were distributed throughout the community. I was wondering, because the Mixteco population in southeast Oxnard is predominantly, I would say, most affected by needing some of this affordable housing. So I was just wondering if any outreach was done. I know there's no like written material that can be distributed in Mexico, but at least videos or something, some sort of content that could have been posted online. I was just wondering if that happened to have happened. As of now, we don't have we didn't provide opportunities for that. Right now, our materials are in English and Spanish. However, this public participation process only began April 30th, which was last Thursday, so there's still opportunity to be able to reach out to those communities as well and make sure that they get this information. Yeah, that would be great. And then one follow up question, just wanting to understand. So this pro housing designation would allow the opportunity for or essentially open up opportunity for funding for the county. And would that be funding that would be directly to the county for housing development, or would that be like passed through funding to go to developers to make those housing developments? So this designation provides access to the Pro Housing Incentive Program grant, which is a grant that our Community Development Division could apply for. In addition to the Homeless Housing and Assistance Program grant, which is funding that they consistently apply for a year to year. In terms of the benefits to developers, similar to how the county will receive priority benefits. Having this designation when trying to access state funding, developers who are looking to build within unincorporated

area, they will also receive priority consideration when applying to these state funded state funding programs as well, even without being in collaboration with the county. It's the fact that this jurisdiction will have the designation that provides that priority access. Great. Thank you. All right. Any questions for either by the staff of, of or of the staff by the Commission. Seeing none, we will now proceed with item seven B, a report from Assistant Planning Director Curtis on board actions and other matters. Thank you. As you know, we reported out on the board action of the board hearing this item. The only other two items to share with you. One is your next item for your Planning Commission hearing. On May 21st, you're going to be hearing the energy and Military Land Use Compatibility Roadmap that's going to be presented by our policy staff. The other item I'd like to announce is that Christina Borrero has been promoted to our program planning program section manager, and that section covers our mobile home rent review program, our cultural Heritage program, our film permitting program, and our condition compliance program. And so we're really thrilled that she's joining our management team. And you're still going to see her just in a different role. So that is awesome. Congratulations. Well deserved. All right. Are there any items the commissioners wish to discuss or introduce? Seeing none, I will now adjourn. There we go. All right.