Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

good evening. Today is May 7, 2025 at 6 p.m. We will start the planning commission meeting by roll call.

commissioner wolbert? I' m here. commissioner anderson?

here.

commissioner tran?

here.

vice chair bowie?

yes.

chair hamadi?

here.

chair, you want to look warm?

to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

thank you very much.

report.

staff would like to pull the minutes for this meeting and defer them to the next meeting. and written communications were received and placed on the dais for all the commissioners and placed in the lobby for the public.

the sound is not that clear.

our little speakers aren' t working on the dais.

it' s not that clear at all.

it' s hard to hear you. it will probably be hard to hear.

is this better?

no. it' s the little speakers. they' re not on. they aren' t working.

I think the mics are working through the speaker box, but your mic is not coming through the speakers Okay, well maybe they can Just as test is this one working

Is this working now?

No, it's still not working. No? No.

What about this one? Does this one come through? No? thank you.

this is clear?

yes. staff is requesting to pull item 7.1 from tonight' s meeting and written communications were received and placed on the dais and copies were placed in the lobby for the public.

thank you.

Yes, Chair. I did visit the site for item 8.1, and I also received an email from a resident on item 8.1.

Anyone else? I had a chance to visit the site in the 8.1. That's it. I did as well.

Anyone else? Okay, we'll move to number five number six number five. Sorry special presentation. There's none. We'll go to number six Oral communications we have Terry rain speaking Okay, you won't read the Yes

This is the time of the meeting that members of the public may address the Planning Commission on matters of public interest which pertain to the City and are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Members of the public wishing to address public hearing items shall do so at that time of the public hearing. Unless extended by a majority vote of the Planning Commission, comments shall be limited to three minutes per speaker. To address the Planning Commission, please complete a blue request to speak form that is provided at the entrance to the Council Chambers and submit the form to the Planning Commission Clerk. When your name is called, please step to the podium at that time and state your name and city of residence for the record.

We have Terry Rain speaking. Okay, we can open the oral communication. Go ahead.

Hello, item 7.1. I sent an email about the minutes and received no response. The vote tally for 8.3 is wrong. It should be motioned to deny, carried 3-1, not 1-3. Commissioner Hamadi recused himself, believing that he lived within 500 feet of the proposed indoor pickleball site, but he doesn't. I emailed three radius maps to staff and copied Wolbert and Hamadi, showing his house is not within 500 feet of that site. I asked who advised Hamadi and what program was used, but received no response. When a commissioner recuses, they must leave before the item is presented, discussed, or voted on. Hamadi didn't recuse himself until after staff's presentation. 7.2, there should be two separate agenda items because it's too actionable separate resolutions for two separate cases. Pull this and discuss each one separately. I raised concerns at that meeting about denying cases with no findings, but it was ignored. Staff is now trying to CYA by creating retro findings. These findings conflict with staff's original findings, recommendations, and the commission's discussions. City Attorney, I question the legality of backdating the resolutions which say denied and adopted the second day of April 2025. The attestations even wrongly certify that the resolutions were adopted on April 2nd. You can't legally change the record of official commission action even if it was an error. You should not have denied case 2024-220. A liquor license upgrade mainly to sell low-alcohol, ready-to-drink beverages for Jackson's store at the Shell station at 8990 Bolsa. Approval would not increase off-sale licenses in the tract. Store in an average crime area. No alcohol-related calls for service. Four, WPD does not oppose this license upgrade with the recommended conditions of approval. It's not convenient for gas station customers to drive to the supermarket or liquor store at that center to pick up items. Have you been to that center and endured the utter chaos trying to park? That liquor store, like others nearby, operates more like a gambling hall than a liquor store. And why is it okay to sell a 22-ounce single beer but not a 12-, 16-, or 20-ounce beer? Vote no on this denial resolution and reverse your position. I'm neutral on the 7-11 case because the crime area is significantly higher and there have been alcohol-related calls for service, but it doesn't seem fair to allow nearby 7-11s to sell alcohol but not this one. Walbert, Bowie, and Hamadi approved Lavender's liquor license upgrade last year, even with documented violations of law, but not these two? Well, except Hamadi. So wrong. 7.3, vote yes to uphold the denial of this case. Changes to the law should be initiated by the council or commission, period. Section 4, still wrongly states, deny the proposed ordinance as provided in Attachment Exhibit 1. There's no ordinance attached. Plus the same back-dating legal issue I raised for 7.2. Chair Hamadi, per code, you effectively resigned your seat last year due to chronic absenteeism, yet here you sit as chair. Commissioner Tran, you didn't say one word at the last meeting except to carry out your assignment to vote for Alan and Tony. So with all due respect, why are you here? Thank you.

Anyone else?

No.

Close the oral communication. We'll go to the next one, consent calendar. Separately on each item.

We're gonna go to 7.2 Any motion Chair if the Commission so chooses if they want to split up the two resolutions in 7.2 You may do that also Okay, whatever that that's the vote of the Commission because if you want or you can take them all as one or you can take 7.2 as one and vote Okay discussion

No, I'd move approval of item 7.2.

Roll call. I'm sorry, was there a second?

No. I think on a consent calendar, you only need one vote.

No, no, you still have to have it. Even if it was a consent calendar, you still would need a second.

Okay.

Commissioner Anderson, I didn't hear what you said.

yes to vote in favor of case to approve case number 2024 dash 2 0 2 20 and 2024 dash 0 1 7 6.

do second it for clarification Commissioner Anderson are you moving to approve or just to approve the rezos as written yes approve the rezos as written yes chair I have a question on this consent calendar are we voting it on it as one block are you choosing you know unilaterally to split them up normally with a consent calendar it's just one vote on all all items that are item number seven are we you know right unless unless one of the commissioners pull one of those items are you pulling them individually or how is this going to work?

at this point I thought we had I thought there was discussion to pull this as a separate item no? refer to the attorney what was?

So, Chair?

Yes, ma'am.

What was your direction? Was your direction to the commission to take each item separately in full?

I think we should take it separately, each one. Okay.

So you're just voting on 7.2?

Yes, we're going to 7.2 right now.

Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Vice Chair Bui, to approve item 7.2. Commissioner Wolbert?

I'm going to abstain.

Commissioner Anderson?

Yes.

Commissioner Tran?

Abstain.

Vice Chair Bowie?

Yes.

Chair Hamade?

Yes.

Motion carries 3-2.

Okay, we'll go to the next one now.

discussion Yeah, there's a question first this was the one that we had considered at our last meeting can and that this was staff was recommending at that point to talk to make some Changes to allow staff to make certain decisions rather than having them come to the Planning Commission for consideration Correct.

It wasn't the last meeting. It was the first meeting in April, but this was the staff initiation of zoning code amendments and

Right, and at that meeting, it was carried forward on a 3-1, right? It was denied 3-1. Denied 3-1, right, okay.

And so for clarification, it's item 7.3.

Correct. Yes. Chair, can I ask staff a question, please? Why is this on our calendar? Can you explain that? it seems like there' s a lot of confusion why are we voting on this again is this just to approve the wording of the resolution because it was denied?

correct this is a resolution of denial the one you' re taking to the meeting was a resolution of recommendation of approval. You couldn' t actually approve the resolution as written at the last meeting because it was an approval or recommendation of approval we' re bringing back a resolution of denial. so it is the exact same wording it is just reversed to be denied the application so the previous resolution saying it was a denial doesn't wouldn't count you actually need this for record this is some kind of paper the situation correct okay it's it's memorializing the vote as done so that the resolution property reflects how the Commission voted I move approval I make second for

We have a motion by Chair Hamade, seconded by Vice Chair Bowie to approve item 7.3. Commissioner Wolbert?

I'm going to abstain.

Commissioner Anderson?

No.

Commissioner Tran?

I'm going to abstain as well.

Vice Chair Bowie?

No.

Chair Hamade?

Yes.

motion denied one four i mean if we voted at the beginning on denial of this i don't understand why would they reverse it right now i'll vote against it yeah and you cannot reverse this because there's no public hearing so this does not become um this doesn't change so the four votes before it's going to count

Well, it'll it'll move it'll still go to Council because this is only a recommendation from the Commission We'll have to check with the attorney how we'll word that as far as decision of commit of the Commission got it If it goes to Council it may be without a resolution since there wasn't one that was approved Yeah And I think you could we can have the discussion or discussion with the city attorney exactly how to bring it forward if it if that's where it's going and

Okay, I guess we'll close the, we'll go to the next item. Public hearing number eight.

Anyone wishing to speak on an open public hearing should complete a blue requested speak form that is provided at the entrance of the council chambers and submit the form to the planning commission clerk. When your name is called, please step to the podium and state your name and city of residence for the record. Each attendee will have three minutes to comment on each public hearing item. The applicant or their designee will have 12 minutes to speak and will also be provided a three-minute rebuttal with exception of the applicant or designee, all attendees may only speak once. The Planning Commission may use its discretion to allow a speaker to exceed the allotted time or may ask a speaker to return to answer additional questions.

It's item 8.1, case number 24-0303. Staff, please.

ASSOCIATE PLANNER ZARFA RANGBAR WILL BE PRESENTING FOR STAFF.

GOOD EVENING, CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, AND COMMISSIONERS. TONIGHT'S PRESENTATION INVOLVES THE PLANNING CASE NUMBER 2024-0303, A REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TYPE 21 AVC LICENSE ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16450 BEACH BOULEVARD. The project is within C2 zoning district general business. And to the south, the site is developed with an elementary school zone, public, semi-public district, and a vacant lot, which is zoned for multi-family residential. To the east, it's developed with single-family homes in R1 zoning district. The project is located within multi-tenant commercial site, Pavilion Place Shopping Center, which is a 7.3 multi-tenant complex, 7.3 acre multi-tenant complex with retail, restaurants, and services. The proposed used H-mart supermarket would occupy the vacant space at this location. The previous tenant, Wong's Market, had operated with a valid conditional use permit for Type 21 ABC license, but the license is expired due to inactivity for more than one year. The applicant is seeking an approval of a conditional use permit for Type 21 off-sale ABC license. Also, ABC requires the city to make public convenience or necessity PCN determination. This is the floor plan for the supermarket. The beer, wine, and distilled spritz will be stored in drink coolers and on shelves within the general sales area, shown in yellow color on the map. And the excess alcoholic beverages will be stored in a lockable storage area that is out of the reach of customers, shown in orange color on the plan. This aerial map shows the overview of the nearest off-sale alcohol licenses. There are 11 other establishments within the census tract currently have active ABC licenses as shown in this map. The proposed supermarket, H-Mart, will be the 12th active off-sale ABC license in the tract if approved. When an alcohol license sells alcoholic beverages in census tracts which are oversaturated, ABC requires the cities to make public convenience or necessity determination. ABC determined that the subject census tract allows two off-sale licenses before becoming oversaturated. As it was shown on previous map, currently there are 11 other establishments within the census tract having active off-sale ABC licenses. This is common in commercial dominated census due to the grouping of retail stores and restaurants. The proposed CUP would serve the public convenience and necessity by providing a one-stop destination for customers, allowing them to purchase groceries and alcoholic drinks in the same trip without having to make multiple stops. Westminster Police Department has responded to 550 incidents in the parking areas of the center, with the majority of those calls related to petty and grand thefts, including vehicle break-ins. Also, to mitigate any crime issues, the shopping center has contracted a private security firm to patrol the parking areas. Westminster Police Department finds the request for a Type 21 license for the proposed supermarket reasonable and has provided conditions of approval to deter potential issues. This project is categorically exempt person to Class 1, Section 15201 of CEQA pertaining to the operation, permitting and licensing of an existing private structure or facility. In conclusion, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve planning case number 2024-0303 and make convenience determination for alcohol license subject to recommended conditions of approval in the draft resolution. This concludes the presentation for case 2024-0303, and I can answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

As I read through the notes, the police department request that we add to the approval to install cameras.

Yeah, correct. That was one of their conditions of approval.

Also, if it's a constant problem, they have to have security also as well. I'm sorry, what was... If it become also, like, the theft of alcohol, they also need to hire... Any condition should be imposed on them to hire a security guard.

So they do have a security guard that will roam the parking lot? No, they're talking about... And H Mart themselves keeps a private security guard inside the market?

Okay.

Discussion?

I have some questions.

Uh... What is the maximum type 21 in a rare area that allow? Do you know? Because right now there's quite a bit more than...

So there is no maximum. What the census tract says is based on population and some other concerns, they allow two. However, this census tract is the majority commercial. So we have more retail stores grouped together, including supermarkets. so there are more licenses in the tract. ABC will let you have, they don't have a cap. They will let you keep issuing licenses as long as the city makes that finding it's a public convenience and necessity. So there is no maximum they can have.

I see. Thank you.

Question on the census tract. That's served by two police departments, correct? Westminster and Huntington? Correct. Both. Okay. And your numbers and figures for... the incident calls, it was 500 and something for that census tract, something like that. Is that solely Westminster PD or does that include Huntington's numbers as well?

That's only Westminster. We don't reach out to Huntington Beach. And that is because it is a large commercial center with the Target. The memo said most of those calls were related to petty theft, ground theft from Target or from vehicle burglaries in the parking lot.

Gotcha. And there's, correct me if I'm wrong, three total Type 21 licenses in Westminster in that census track?

The rest are in Huntington? Yeah, Huntington and Westminster.

Right. But just in Westminster, there's three. Is that correct? Yes, the H Mart, the Target, and the City Market. And the City Market. Okay. And then last question I had... it seems like there was only two conditions from the westminster police department on the c.u.p. versus the last two that came in front of us had dozens of conditions. Are we just talking to different police, different people within the department that are answering these questions? Why are we getting such variation between different c.u.p.s for the same thing?

so we use the same consultant for all of our cases to go to police. That's Bruce Ram. The difference in this case is because our consultant and Westminster PD, even planning, look at convenience stores different than a full-fledged market. There are greater conditions placed on convenience stores because those are normally the stores we have more issues at. The supermarkets themselves are not normally problematic. So there's, we don't place as many conditions on those for selling alcohol.

Thank you.

anyone else wish to speak on this? We can open the public hearing.

Did the applicant want to come speak? We have Will Neves.

Yes, good evening. Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Will Nieves. Thank you, Commissioners, for allowing me to come before you to speak. I'd also like to thank staff for bringing this project forward to the Planning Commission. As stated, this is a very large-sized specialty market called H-Mart. H-Mart has over 80 supermarket stores throughout the country. in 14 different states. They employ over 5,300 people. This market is actually 69,445 square feet in size, which is a very, very large market. It used to be Vons Pavilion in the past. There was a 21 license on the premise that did expire due to inactivity. The hours of operation that we're proposing are actually less than what the bonds had. We're only proposing hours of operation from 8 AM till 10 PM daily. This will eliminate the late night problems that most markets have with people coming in and purchasing and drinking in the vehicles and so forth. And this is not one of your typical markets that you see that you've been having a lot of problems with. To give you a little bit of information on how census tracts work is that census tracts are based on the residential population in the census tract. And ABC, what they do is they break down the census tract based on the population. And there has to be so many licenses issued based on that residential population. For instance, if there was a census tract that was strictly commercial, then there would be zero licenses allowed because there's no residents in the area. So that's why there's no maximum number of people or number of licenses that can be issued within the census tract because commercial areas are grouped along commercial corridors and in certain regional shopping centers. And there typically aren't a lot of residents within that area. So that's why a lot of these ratios are off when you start looking at how many are allowed and how many exist. It's really, to me, not a fair way of assessing it, but that's the only thing that they have. We did get support from the police department. As mentioned, we do have private security within the supermarket. We have our own security company. The shopping center itself also has roving security on a 24-7 basis that always patrols the property. So there would be no issues. And again, the 10 p.m. closing time really eliminates any problems. I don't have any other things to add. If you have any questions or concerns, I can answer them for you now.

When do you anticipate the store opening?

The store right now is presently undergoing its reconstruction and reconfiguration. They've taken everything out that was there before, and they're putting in everything new, the gondolas and the areas that they're proposing to place their retail vendors in there. I expect it's going to be a couple more months before it's open.

Okay, thank you.

Will you inform us before we're opening? Yes, a couple of months.

Thanks. Anyone else? Any questions? Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other speakers?

We have Terry Raines speaking.

Hello, Terry Raines. What program mapped properties within 500 feet of this site for noticing, hopefully not the same one that wrongly found Chair Hamadi's home to be within 500 feet of the recent indoor pickleball project? What's amazing, the CAP only has seven conditions of approval for this new Type 21 license versus 29 to 32 conditions for Type 21 upgrades for two convenience stores this commission just denied. So much for public convenience. The CEP conditions are numbered wrong as they were for Jackson's Food Store CEP. Conditions should be numbered sequentially regardless of source. The PD conditions should just numerically continue after the planning conditions. Why? Because when reviewing or enforcing CEPs, the condition number and text is usually cited. Two condition ones and two condition twos is problematic. Again, these official documents must be formatted consistently across the organization regardless of who prepares them. Before executing the CUP, staff should renumber the PD conditions as numbers 6 and 7. Going forward, please ensure conditions are numbered correctly and consistently. The ABC and the City need to correct the census tract saturation limit calculations. If you take the tract population of 4835, divide it by the allowable 1665 persons per license, the true mathematical result is 2.9. That result should not be truncated. It should be rounded mathematically to three licenses, not two. The saturation limits are generally flawed. This is a large commercial center in a tract with low population, hence the artificially low, well, three with real math, saturation limit, which is not realistic. The city should strive to impose conditions that are consistent for similar businesses and locations. There are 11 active off-sale licenses in this census tract with a saturation limit of two, or three if you use the real math, All but one are Type 21. The Type 20 is the now closed 99-cent store. There are a variety of grocery, specialty, alcohol, liquor, and convenience stores with Type 21 in this tract, including a 7-Eleven. I mention this because this commission just denied another 7-Eleven's Type 21 upgrade for a store just a mile down the road. Police District 42 has a crime rate of 175, 45% higher than average. WPD has responded to 550 incidents in this center, mostly related to thefts and vehicle break-ins. Oversaturation at large commercial centers is common due to the grouping of retail stores and restaurants so close together. WPD finds this request for a Type 21 license reasonable and provided just two conditions of approval accordingly, despite the high crime rate and oversaturation, I agree. So please approve this CUP and PCN finding. A February meeting request email from Interim Director Van Der Dussen stated, with the recent influx of Type 20 to Type 21, planning would like to start a discussion regarding alcohol licenses within the city and the makings of findings for PCNs. I'd really like to know what the real agenda was and the real discussion was during that meeting. Thank you so much.

Any other speakers? There are no other speakers. Okay, we can close the public hearing discussion.

Any motions? I move approval. I make a motion for it.

With the conditions, though. I move approval with the condition of the police department with the cameras being installed.

I do I do have a question I mean I can on the the questions that were just raised regarding numbering the conditions Is that an issue or how does that how's that resolved staff doesn't see it as an issue?

They're clearly labeled as different It would be an issue if it went one two three four five one two with no split But because there's a there's a definite split and you can see that the conditions are from a different body Either way would be correct.

Okay.

Thank you We have emotional on the table

I made the motion with the recommendation with the police department installing of cameras.

Do we have a second?

Yes, I would like to make a second for it.

Can I make a substitute motion? I would actually like to change the resolution and instead of putting WPD standards because they're gonna be approved by the Planning Commission I would like it to just say Standards these are things that they have to keep doesn't really matter what the source was based upon the recommendation of the WPD so I'd actually like to renumber those in the resolution six and seven instead of one and two and Take out that WPD standards condition You can notate in the language install cameras that should just be a condition and it can say based upon the police department but it doesn't need to be delineated like that. I would like to make a substitute motion to renumber those six and seven and get rid of WPD standards.

Was there a second to the first motion?

We have Tony seconded the first motion.

There is.

Any second to Mr. Casey?

Yeah, I'll second that. That's fine. Okay. Roll call.

Just so you know, just for clarification.

We have two on the motion.

So you're going to vote on the substitute motion, Commissioner Wolbert's motion. That's the motion you're voting on, which is approval with the change to the numbering of the conditions and removal of the WPD label of standards. That's what you're voting on.

That's fine now.

Okay. Commissioner Wolbert?

Yes.

Commissioner Anderson?

Yes.

Commissioner Tran?

Yes.

Vice Chair Bowie?

Yes.

Chair Hamadi?

Yes.

Motion carries 5-0.

Go now to staff report number 9 regular business. Chair Hamadi first. So the Commission's action on this item shall become effective 15 days after the decision date identified in the notice of decision. The applicant and or any other interested party may file an appeal of the Commission's action to the City Council. The appeal must be in writing and filed with the City Clerk within the previously mentioned 15 day period. thank you.

we have number nine regular business.

thank you. staff is bringing before you a request to initiate a zoning code amendment to amend section 17.230 industrial zoning districts of the west minister municipal code with respect to the permitted and conditionally permitted uses. We don' t have a presentation for this one this one should be pretty straight forward we' the permitted and conditional uses allowed in the m1 light industrial and m2 medium industrial zones we' ve recently had some requests wondering if certain uses are permitted or conditionally permitted in the area that use of the zoning code. We don' t think they' re good for the city or they' re uses that we can' t necessarily allow that we believe would be good for the city but the zoning code doesn' t allow them. Staff is just asking for permission to redo the uses while we' re in there we' ll make sure there' s no other grammatical errors things we need to clean up make sure everything conforms to state law but we' ll mainly be question before like what We're looking we've had a few manufacturing requests that we can't necessarily allow based on our code because the code is very specific to what kind of Manufacturing it allows so if it's outside of those it gets a little tricky for us We also right now permit by right we have to move forward with making sure we' re clear on those and seeing what else if there' s any other uses we need to clear up and this would come back to the planning commission for recommendation of approval before it went to council. can you speak to the kennedy commission one Yeah, we did receive that that would not apply in this place. We are in this case We are not looking to add residential uses. We're simply looking to clean up the industrial uses Westminster has a very limited industrial base We want to protect that and make sure that the uses that go in are fitting for the city and benefit the city So in this case, we have plenty of zones that are already zoned for residential. We don't see the need to add residential in our industrial zones

Are you going to allow mixed use with in the zone? I'm one and two zone.

We're not looking for any residentials We're not looking to add residential. We're just looking to clean up the uses for industrial, okay?

Can the attachment that you have Table it's the tables showing what's currently permitted and how it's permitted and what's not permitted Yes, that's attached now if this is approved by the Planning Commission and City Council when it comes back to the Commission will also show that Existing and what's proposed to be changed so there would be items would be lined out if it's going to be deleted and it would be Highlighted in a different color if it was being added so we can see what the changes would be correct. Okay. Thank you And then one have any more questions Okay, I'd move approval I second I'm sorry who seconded that Casey

We have a motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Wolbert, to approve case number 2024-0303, a CUP to approve an off-sale general license, ABC Type 21 license, including a public convenience or necessity determination for a new... No, that's not... Sorry about that. We have a motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Wolbert. Recommending the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 2025-011, a resolution of intention of the Planning Commission of the City of Westminster, California, initiating a zoning code amendment to amend Chapter 17.230, Industrial Zoning District. I will call roll. Commissioner Wolbert?

Yes.

Commissioner Anderson?

Yes.

Commissioner Tran?

Yes.

Vice Chair Bowie?

Yes.

Chair Hamade?

Yes.

5-0, motion carries.

Number 10, reports as none. Number 11, matter from staff?

Staff has nothing at this time.

Okay, thank you. Matter from the Planning Commission, including AB 1234, reports weren't required. Anything? Anything?

A question for staff. Our next regular planning commission meeting, are there items agendized at this time or going to be coming to us for our next regular meeting? Do you know?

the next regular meeting will be the first meeting in june we will be canceling the second meeting in may. We don' t have items for that one. We are currently looking to bring one of the zoning code amendments back in june. We are still working out with lawyers exactly which one we will have ready but we will have one ready. There are a few other projects that we are looking to bring including a warehouse building. for the first meeting in June.

Do we have a backlog of the hearing from the people? I heard many people complain that they submit things and it takes really more than six months to get the CUP or get the hearing. What is the backlog of our city?

The planning department is running quite a few cases. We don't have a backlog of CUPs. The two that we brought in April and this one, those are the CUPs we have at this time. We do have some development projects. Those by nature take longer because we're working with architects to clean up designs and site plans. It's not something they can fix instantly. But as far as CUPs, we do not have a backlog at this time.

Thank you.

Anyone else? Just one quick comment. All the items under agenda item seven for the consent calendar, I think it might be beneficial for the commission if it's explained exactly what the process and procedure is for those if they come up again. This is the first time in the last two and a half years we've ever had any kind of consent calendar items. And I think there was probably some confusion that it could have been much, much cleared up before we even got here tonight, whether that was individual calls to commissioners or emails going out, just explaining what these items were so that we could understand them a little bit better and be able to make better decisions on those. Because I think there was some pretty good confusion at the beginning of the meeting. All right.

That's noted, and we will take that into account. We don't anticipate consent calendar becoming a regular thing. It was just with the resolutions we wanted to push those to you.

Okay. Adjourned at 643. Thank you.