Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2-4-2026 - HEX Decision & Appendix A - Spirit and Truth CUP- LUA-25-0003801 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner RE: In Spirit and Truth Ministries Conditional Use Permit File No. LUA25-000380 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION\ SUMMARY The Applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit for the change of use of an existing building located at 211 Morris Ave S from office to religious use. The application is approved subject to conditions. ORAL TESTIMONY A computer-generated transcript of the hearing has been prepared to provide an overview of the hearing testimony. The transcript is not intended to provide a precisely accurate rendition of testimony but generally identifies the subjects addressed during the hearing. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only as Appendix A. EXHIBITS Exhibits 1-23 presented by the City at the January 20, 2026 hearing were admitted into the record during the hearing FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. Peik Li Pang, 5ft2 Studio Architects. 2625 Northup Way, Suite 100, Bellevue, WA 98004. 2. Hearing. A virtual hearing was held on July 20, 2026, at 11:00 am. Substantive: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3. Project Description. The Applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit for the change of use of an existing building located at 211 Morris Ave S from office to religious use. The project site is composed of an existing one-story 4,666-square-foot office building on a lot approximately 12,284 square feet (0.28 acres) in size. Vehicular access to the site will continue to be gained from an existing curb cut on Morris Ave S. The proposal will not include structural changes or modifications to the building exterior. No trees are proposed for removal 4. Surrounding Uses. Surrounding land uses are composed of multi-family and mixed use development. 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project. A Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued for the proposal on December 16 , 2025. Pertinent impacts are more specifically addressed as follows: A. Critical Areas. : The project site is located within a high seismic hazard area; however, a Geotechnical Report was not provided with the land use application materials as no exterior improvements to the existing building are proposed. The proposed project is limited to a change of use and interior tenant improvements. It is anticipated that the city’s adopted building code and construction standards would adequately mitigate any impacts of the proposed tenant improvements on the project site. B. Public Services. 1) Police and Fire: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development. 2) Storm Water: The site is already served by stormwater facilities since it is already developed. There are no land disturbing activities proposed; therefore, the proposal would not be subject to compliance with the surface water regulations. 3) Water: The existing three-quarter-inch (3/4”) meter can be reused for the existing building if sized appropriately. A backflow prevention device is required for an irrigation meter, if applicable. A DCDA will need to be provided at the time of building permit application if irrigation is proposed. The development is subject to meter installation fees based on the number and size of the meters for domestic uses and for fire sprinkler use if upgrading is required or needed. Fees are assessed at the rate in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4) Sanitary Sewer: A grease interceptor is required for the proposed commercial kitchen. The applicant is required to submit a revised plan showing a grease interceptor at the time of building permit review. C. Traffic. The proposal is not anticipated to result in new transportation impacts to the city’s transportation system. A Traffic Impact Analysis was not required to be submitted with the application materials as the proposal would not generate 20 new AM or PM peak hour trips. The project proposal passed the City’s Transportation Concurrency Test (Exhibit 20). The site has an existing surface parking lot with a pedestrian walkway between the building and parking stalls. City staff determined that the existing parking lot provides safe movement for both vehicles and pedestrians. D. Landscaping. Staff has found the site already contains landscaping consisting of small trees, shrubs, and groundcover. Landscaping is being provided along the street frontage The site is not proposing any site alterations, and the proposal does not meet the cost threshold (improvements equal to or greater than fifty percent [50%] of the assessed property valuation) that would trigger bringing the site into compliance with landscape requirements. It is the property owner’s responsibility to maintain plantings in a healthy, growing condition and to replace any that are dead or dying. E. Tree Retention. No trees are proposed for removal. Therefore, the proposal would retain 100% of all existing trees onsite, which would comply with the tree retention requirements. F. Parking. No new buildings or building additions are proposed; therefore, other than compliance with the Parking Lot Design Standards, the proposed project would be exempt from compliance with the Parking Regulations. A preliminary seating chart shows a total of 100 loose seats for the assembly space (Exhibit 3). Based on this information, the site is required to provide approximately 20 parking stalls to accommodate the use. The proposed site plan would provide a total of 20 parking stalls in the existing parking lot located both on the property and the adjacent property to the south owned by the City of Seattle (Exhibit 2). It appears that the existing parking would be sufficient for the proposed religious institution. G. Noise, Light & Glare. The proposal will not generate noise, light, and glare impacts that would unduly impact the surrounding neighborhood. No excessive noise, lighting, or glare is expected. According to the applicant, programming including music, sermons, and larger gatherings would occur indoors. The existing building is a standalone building that does not have any shared walls with adjacent buildings or uses. Furthermore, no exterior modifications that would increase potential impacts are being proposed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Authority. RMC 4-8-080(G) provides that hearing examiner conditional use permit review and variances are Type III applications. As Type III applications, RMC 4-8-080(G) grants the Examiner with the authority to hold a hearing and issue a final decision, subject to closed record appeal to the City Council. 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The property is zoned Center Downtown (CD); Urban District A. The Comprehensive Plan Commercial Mixed-Use (CMU). 3. Review Criteria. Conditional use criteria are set by RMC 4-9-030. CONDITIONAL USE The Administrator or designee or the Hearing Examiner shall consider, as applicable, the following factors for all applications: RMC 4-9-030(C)(1): Consistency with Plans and Regulations: The proposed use shall be compatible with the general goals, objectives, policies and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning regulations and any other plans, programs, maps or ordinances of the City of Renton. 4. Criterion Met. The criterion is met. The proposal is consistent with the City’s development standards and comprehensive plan for the reasons identified in Sections 16 and 17 of the staff report. RMC 4-9-030(C)(2): Appropriate Location: The proposed location shall not result in the detrimental overconcentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. The proposed location shall be suited for the proposed use. 5. Criterion Met. The criterion is met. Staff has not found any overconcentration of churches in the immediate area. The church also serves to compliment the diversity of uses present in the surrounding mixed use area. RMC 4-9-030(C)(3): Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. 6. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5. RMC 4-9-030(C)(4): Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 7. Criterion Met. The criterion is met. The proposal involves an existing building with no exterior alterations so the proposal will no structural impacts to compatibility with scale and character. The proposal will otherwise not create any compatibility impacts because of its modest size and no significant impact as outlined in Finding of Fact No. 5. RMC 4-9-030(C)(5): Parking: Adequate parking is, or will be made, available. 8. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5.F. RMC 4-9-030(C)(6): Traffic: The use shall ensure safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians and shall mitigate potential effects on the surrounding area. 9. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Findings of Fact No. 5.C. RMC 4-9-030(C)(7): Noise, Light and Glare: Potential noise, light and glare impacts from the proposed use shall be evaluated and mitigated. 10. Criterion Met. The criterion is met As determined in Findings of Fact No. 5.G, the proposal will not create any significant noise, light and glare impacts. RMC 4-9-030(C)(8): Landscaping: Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by buildings, paving, or critical areas. Additional landscaping may be required to buffer adjacent properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use. 11. Criterion Met. The criterion is met as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5.D. DECISION As conditioned below, the proposed Conditional User Permit conforms to all required criteria for approval for the reasons detailed in the Conclusions of Law above. The conditions necessary to assure compliance and required by this Decision are as follows: 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measure issued as part of the Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated December 16, 2025, which is: a. The applicant shall submit an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) prepared by a qualified professional with the civil construction permit for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance. The applicant shall provide notification to Tribes’ cultural committee prior to the start of construction. 2. The applicant shall construct a solid waste enclosure to ensure adequate screening of the weather-proofed containers. A detailed refuse and recycling screening area plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building occupancy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3.The applicant shall supplement their site plan and submit elevation drawings with sufficient detail to ensure design standard compliance with the newly proposed entry. The updated site plan submittal shall also correctly reflect existing and proposed modulation of the primary structure along Morris Ave S. These submittals shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance. 4.The applicant shall submit elevations with the building permit application showing existing and proposed facades to demonstrate conformance with applicable building architectural design regulations. The elevation detail shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance. 5.The applicant shall submit a detailed lighting plan at the time of civil construction permit application that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties. This plan should include details regarding pedestrian-scale lighting around the primary building entrances. The lighting plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager at the time of building permit review. Dated this 4th day of February 2026. ______________________________ Phil Olbrechts, City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III applications subject to judicial appeal to King County Superior Court as governed by the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), Chapter 36.70C RCW. Appeals of this decision must be served and filed within twenty-one (21) calendar days of issuance as required by LUPA. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. This transcript was exported on Feb 05, 2026 - view latest version here. Appendix A -- CUP 1 (Completed 02/04/26) Transcript by Rev.com Page 1 of 8 Appendix A January 20, 2026, Hearing Transcript In Spirit and Truth Ministries CUP File No. – LUA25-000380 Note: This is a computer-generated transcript provided for informational purposes only. The reader should not take this document as 100% accurate or take offense at errors created by the limitations of the programming in transcribing speech. A recording of the hearing is available from the City should anyone need an accurate rendition of the hearing testimony. Speaker 1 (00:01): This meeting is being recorded. Speaker 2 (00:03): Alright, welcome everybody. It's January 20, 20, 26, noon. I'm Phil alb, bris Hearing Examiner for Renton here, holding a hearing today on a conditional use permit application PR 25 dash 0 0 0 0 7 6. An application to change the use of an existing building to a religious use. The hearing format is we'll have a presentation from staff and that will be who's going to be our staff lead on this one? Is that you Mr. Harris? Speaker 3 (00:31): That is me, Brooks. Speaker 2 (00:33): Alright, so Mr. Harris will give us an overview of the project. He prepared the staff report and made the recommendation for approval. After his comments are done, we'll move on to the applicants and applicants. You don't have to say anything, but if you want to, that would be your chance. After that, we'll move on to public comments, if any. And so far, Mr. SROs, we don't have any members of the public, is that right? Speaker 4 (00:54): We do not, but I do have the applicant here and it looks like there's some issues with his Zoom, his app. It does say here that he has an older version, so it does not allow him to speak. So I would suggest that he maybe log out and update his Zoom application and maybe log in. Speaker 2 (01:13): And also when you log in, if you look down at the bottom of the Zoom login screen, it gives you the option of using your browser. And I never use Zoom map, I just use the browser. That seems to work for me pretty well as well. So one of those things should work Mr. Ho, if you want to log out and come back This transcript was exported on Feb 05, 2026 - view latest version here. Appendix A -- CUP 1 (Completed 02/04/26) Transcript by Rev.com Page 2 of 8 in, give 'em a couple minutes to do that, then we'll wait a couple minutes for him, then we'll be back on at 1205. Unless doesn't look like he's logging out though. Maybe he can't hear me. Speaker 4 (01:57): He's left out. Speaker 2 (01:58): Oh, he has? Okay. Alright. Speaker 4 (01:59): Yeah, Speaker 1 (03:13): The recording has stopped. Speaker 4 (03:19): Just pause it. Speaker 1 (03:23): Thanks Speaker 3 (03:23): Jenny. So before I share my screen and present, you'll do the exhibits? Speaker 4 (03:31): Yes. Speaker 3 (03:32): Okay. Speaker 4 (03:33): I also messaged the applicant as well to let her know Yeah. To update Zoom. Speaker 2 (03:45): Yeah, I did notice that Zoom was acting differently today. I don't know if sometimes they update the versions and it creates all sort of havoc. But yeah, I mean we could, well yeah, I'll discuss what we can do once we get back on. Speaker 4 (04:02): Yeah, he hasn't logged in yet. Speaker 2 (04:28): Well, let's get the recorder going Mrs. Roon, just so we can talk about how to move forward here. This transcript was exported on Feb 05, 2026 - view latest version here. Appendix A -- CUP 1 (Completed 02/04/26) Transcript by Rev.com Page 3 of 8 Speaker 1 (04:35): This meeting is being recorded. Speaker 2 (04:37): Okay. So we just took a little break to give the applicant a chance to try to log back in and have his Zoom application work, but he hasn't been able to come back in yet. And is it still the case, Mr. Terris? There are no members of the public? Correct. Because if that's the case, we could probably just hold the hearing without him and then he can review the recording and he can have an opportunity to respond if he wants. That ultimately probably won't be even necessary. But I guess let's give him, do you want to message him and see if there's any way he can get involved? I mean, it seems at worse he could just phone in. That should work. Speaker 4 (05:17): No, I did message him Speaker 2 (05:19): Through Speaker 4 (05:19): Email. Speaker 2 (05:20): Okay. And told him that And still the phone's not working for him either? Speaker 4 (05:24): No, I didn't tell him about the phone. I just told him to please reboot the system. Speaker 2 (05:28): Okay. So maybe he's still working on it. Alright. Okay. We'll give him some more time. We'll just wait I suppose. Speaker 1 (06:25): Okay. Speaker 2 (06:27): Oh, we have him. Speaker 4 (06:30): He's here. I just don't think that it's, oh, there he is. Okay. Speaker 2 (06:36): Okay. This transcript was exported on Feb 05, 2026 - view latest version here. Appendix A -- CUP 1 (Completed 02/04/26) Transcript by Rev.com Page 4 of 8 Speaker 4 (06:36): Alright. Speaker 2 (06:38): Alright, Mr. Pang, glad to see you were able to join us. Looks like so far we don't have any members of the public, so this should be pretty brief actually. So we'll get you in and out here really fast. Just my name is Bergs, I'm hearing Examiner for Renton. As I mentioned before, we've got a conditional use permit application on file number. Let's see here. I don't have that file number memorized, but PR 25 dash 76, which is conditional use permit to change the use of an existing building. So Speaker 4 (07:10): This three 80, actually Mr. Brooks, it's LUA 2 5 0 0 0 3 oh. Speaker 2 (07:16): I was using the PR number, project file number. Speaker 4 (07:20): That is a project file number, but our LUA is our actual identifier for the project as Speaker 2 (07:25): Well. Oh, okay. Okay. The oh seven six is correct for the project file, right? Speaker 4 (07:31): Correct. Speaker 2 (07:31): Okay, good, good. Alright. Alright. So anyway, so the record today is going to be based on the staff report and the exhibits. That's the only information I've had access to. I don't get to talk to the staff or applicant or anybody about the project. Ms. Cisneros is showing us the exhibits, the documents used to support the staff recommendation for approval. We've got a few there. 16 on this particular list, we're going to be looking at two or three lists total, but we've got the environmental review committee report, which evaluates environmental impacts, the site plan building four plans, traffic analysis, comments from the tribe, and comments from Department of Architecture. And I always forget what D- H-A-H-P stands for. It's a state agency dealing with cultural resources and a transportation review, conditional use justification and an appraisal. And Mr. Escaro, you've got some other exhibit lists for us, right? Speaker 2 (08:28): Yeah. Okay. And staff report to me as well as the decision of the environmental review committee, which was to not require an environmental impact, but to issue a termination of nons significance. We have traffic review and some engineering notes. Then the final exhibit list gives us the staff PowerPoints that he rent and core maps, which includes aerials and zoning and critical area maps, that kind of thing. And then Google, which is aerial map. So we've got a total of 23 documents. Mr. Pang, do you have any objections over entry of those documents? If you do, just click on the raise hand button at the bottom of This transcript was exported on Feb 05, 2026 - view latest version here. Appendix A -- CUP 1 (Completed 02/04/26) Transcript by Rev.com Page 5 of 8 your screen. Okay. Not seeing any objections. So we'll get those exhibits in. And Mr. Harris let you swear in, just raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding? Okay, great. You're muted. You're on mute. Yeah. So you have to unmute yourself. You're Speaker 4 (09:20): On mute, Speaker 3 (09:22): I swear. Yes. Speaker 2 (09:23): Okay, great. Go ahead. Speaker 3 (09:26): Okay, I will share my screen and get this into presentation mode. Okay. Examiner, are you seeing that all right? Speaker 2 (09:39): Yeah, yeah, it's still, oh, there you go. It's presentation mode. Speaker 3 (09:43): Perfect. Alright, I'll kind of just run through the summary of this project and then if you have any questions, please stop me and I'll just turn it back over to you. Speaker 2 (09:50): Okay. Speaker 3 (09:51): So just a brief description about this project and the site. The applicant, Eckley, who represents the church owner, is here representing this project today. They're requesting a hearing examiner conditional use permit to convert an existing office building in downtown Renton, kind of near the high school property into a religious institution. The exact location of this property is at 2 1 1 Morris Avenue South. And I'll just note you might not be able to make it out. The lines are fairly thin, but the project site includes both the subject property that's owned by the owner of the church and then also a portion of that diagonal running property to the south that is owned by the city of Seattle. One of the exhibits in a staff report was a parking agreement that that property has with the city of Seattle to use a portion of that diagonal property towards their parking lot. Speaker 3 (10:51): So the project site kind of encompasses one whole property and then a smaller portion of the property to the south. The site area for the property that's owned by the church is just over 12,000 square feet, just over a quarter of an acre. Again, the existing development on the property is an existing office building that's just under 5,000 square feet with about 20 surface parking stalls. The access to the property is by a curb cut from Morris Avenue South. There are no trees on site, but there are two street This transcript was exported on Feb 05, 2026 - view latest version here. Appendix A -- CUP 1 (Completed 02/04/26) Transcript by Rev.com Page 6 of 8 trees on the public right of way that you can see in that street view image there. And then the environmental features on the property, they're also known as critical areas are high seismic hazard area, which covers most of downtown as well as the downtown wellhead protection area zone one. That also covers a large chunk of downtown as well. Speaker 3 (11:42): This is a screenshot of our zoning map with some street names overlaid so you can get the context for where this is located. You can really see that city of Seattle water utility property kind of cutting across the rest of the blocks there. The zoning of the property is centered downtown zone, which covers most of our downtown area. That zoning is also bordering the property to the north, south, east, west. And then the commercial arterial zoning is two blocks to the west as you get closer to I believe Rainier Avenue. Some of the overlays that cover the site are Urban Design District, our downtown business district overlay, and then city center sign regulation area. The one that's most applicable to this project would be our Urban Design District A. And the staff report featured a pretty lengthy analysis of the project as it conforms to those requirements in Urban Design District A, the use that's being proposed for this property would be classified as a religious institution, which is permitted in the CD zone with hearing examiner conditional use approval, which I believe is the same as it is for all of their zones in the city. Speaker 3 (12:49): So that's fairly boilerplate there. Just a quick summary of the environmental review process that this project has gone through. The city of Renton, of course, acted as lead seat by each agency on this project. The meeting was held to discuss this project and analyze it. On December 16th, the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Renton issued a determination of non-significant mitigated decision on that same day that mitigation measure approved required the applicant to submit an inadvertent discovery plan, which addressed some of the comments and concerns raised by the Duwamish tribe and the Washington State Department of Archeology and historical preservation prior to building permit issuance to address any potential uncover of archeological deposits during construction work, which is unlikely given the scope of work here, but good to have the plan in just in case. And then the 14 day comment period began on that same day, December 16th, and it ended on December 30th, and we received no additional comments after that meeting in that 14 day period. Speaker 3 (13:57): So the project proposal, to get a little bit more into it, the activities that are proposed here as part of the religious institution use would be Sunday worship services, minor weekday meetings and weekday admin office hours. There are no changes proposed to the exterior that are major. No structural modifications either. No landscaping changes, no grading changes, no drainage pattern changes, and no vehicle access changes. So the site is proposed basically to remain as is. There are changes proposed to the interior, namely the removal of an existing central open space and the repurposing of that space for worship services, which would includes loose seating for about a hundred congregants and then a reconfiguration of the bathrooms for a compliance. They're also proposing to add pedestrian access from Morris Avenue South, mostly to accommodate a congregants to construct a French door to allow wheelchairs to pass through. Speaker 3 (14:56): This transcript was exported on Feb 05, 2026 - view latest version here. Appendix A -- CUP 1 (Completed 02/04/26) Transcript by Rev.com Page 7 of 8 I'm guessing, but the applicant can speak more on that if you have questions about that. But I believe that's the only major exterior modification that's being proposed in this project. On the outside of the building on the right, you see the proposed floor plan of the project. You can see the congregation area in the middle there, and then the a toilet to the bottom right, as well as some modifications where that door off Morris Avenue South is proposed to be proposed to be constructed. We found during our review that the proposal was consistent with relevant comprehensive plan land use policies. It was also compliant with all relevant zoning regulations if all conditions of approval are complied with, and I have a slide to kind of run through those later. The proposal is also compliant with the CUP decision criteria if all the conditions approval are, again, complied with the CUP decision criteria addresses consistency with plans and regulations, the appropriate location of the proposed use, the effect on adjacent properties, compatibility with the site, parking, traffic, noise, light glare, and landscaping. Speaker 3 (16:08): Other departments in the city of Brenton also completed a review to determine the availability of public services for the site. It's already developed, so there wasn't anything that really struck out as a major concern. Police and fire prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources existed to furnish their services to the proposed development. Water and sewer service are both provided by the city of Renton. There are no land disturbing activities proposed, so the proposal would not be subject to any adopted surface water regulations because it's already built out the project site fronts on Morris Avenue South. And interior remodels not involving any building additions are except from street frontage improvements on Morris Avenue South. So our recommendation is to approve in Spirit and in truth ministries as depicted in Exhibits two and three, which I believe are the site and the floor plan subject to five conditions of approval. Speaker 3 (17:05): I won't read them off verbatim unless you would like me to, but essentially it addresses the mitigation measures recommended by the Environmental Review Committee requires the applicant to construct a solid waste enclosure to ensure adequate screening to show conformance with our standards. There requires the applicant to supplement their site plan and submit elevation drawings with enough detail to ensure that the newly proposed entry on Morris Avenue South is compliant with our city code standards. The fourth condition there is kind of repeating that a little bit, just requiring the applicant to submit elevations with the building permitt application, showing the existing and proposed facades to demonstrate conformance with architectural design regulations. And then the fifth condition, the last one is for the applicant to submit a detailed lighting plan at the time of civil construction permit application. I think this is my last slide, so I will hand it back over to you examiner, unless you have any questions for me. Speaker 2 (18:08): Well, it is kind of interesting. So no exterior modifications at all. And then there's some interior ones. I mean, does that involve any ground disturbance? I'm just a little surprised that the TRIBE and DHAP had any comments about or concerns about this, or maybe they didn't after they found out that no ground disturbance is occurring. What was happening there? Speaker 3 (18:28): I think that the site is pretty sensitive and has a lot of cultural artifacts, and so it may have just been a standard procedure for them to recommend an IEP just in case anything pops out that they don't catch This transcript was exported on Feb 05, 2026 - view latest version here. Appendix A -- CUP 1 (Completed 02/04/26) Transcript by Rev.com Page 8 of 8 or that they miss. But yeah, the project proposal was pretty clear that there would be no ground disturbing activities, but they may just wanted to cover their bases. Speaker 2 (18:51): Okay. And so the IDP, is that being required as part of the MDNS then? Speaker 3 (18:56): Yes. Speaker 2 (18:56): Okay. Speaker 3 (18:57): DNS. Speaker 2 (18:57): Perfect. Okay. Sounds good. All right. Thank you Mr. Harris. Alright, let's move on to the applicant. Mr. Pang, did you want to say, like I said, you didn't have to say anything, Mr. Pang, but if you want to, now's your chance. Speaker 1 (19:09): Yeah, I don't have any questions. I'll probably follow up with Ian how to, like the building permits and the conditions aspect to review everything. Speaker 2 (19:23): Yeah, if you just have questions, you can ask Mr. Harris anytime about 'em. Right now it's just the time. If you have any concern about the conditions that staff wants imposed or you just wouldn't make nothing. Okay. Yeah, that's perfectly fine. Yeah, it's a very straightforward project, so thanks Ms. Pang. Alright. So let's see. And Mr. Ros, do we have any members of the public? Speaker 4 (19:43): We do not. Speaker 2 (19:44): Okay. I can go ahead and close a hearing then. Yeah, usually these changes in use of a building are pretty straightforward, especially for a religious use because the traffic impact is pretty nominal because of course the major traffic peaks are on the weekends, which is offset by traffic of other uses during the peak hours during the week. So should be an easy approval. Ms. Pang, I'll get you that decision approving your conditional use permit application within the next couple of weeks. So thanks Mr. Harris for your good work and we're adjourned for the afternoon. Have a great day everybody. Speaker 1 (20:19): The recording has stopped.