Planning - Regular Meeting

We're good? All right.

Welcome, everyone, for the planning commission for the month of August. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and then invocation. Time now is 6.30. Ready?

Begin. I pledge allegiance 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.

Let's pray. Heavenly Father, Lord God, we thank you for this day, Lord. Blessed assurance in you. We thank you, Lord God, for this meeting coming together and that we ask for discernment. As we work through our community, we need your help. And so also, Lord God, we pray for our emergency responders. We pray, Lord God, for their safety and their care, including our soldiers that are fighting abroad. And it's in your holy name we pray. Amen. Roll call.

Commissioner Hodson?

Here.

Commissioner Burke?

Here.

Chair Abreu?

Here.

Commissioner Amin?

Here.

Vice Chair Steno? Here.

Do we have any agenda revisions or announcements?

There are no revisions. However, we did receive two comment letters regarding tonight's public hearing item.

All right. For item number two. Correct. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Public comments. Any person wishing to address the planning commission should complete a white card and hand it to the clerk. Comments are to be limited to three minutes and should concern only those topics within the jurisdiction of the planning commission. Any person who would like to comment upon an agenda item should reserve their comments until the public hearing or public comment period is called for that item. Please remember that the Planning Commission is prohibited from considering or taking any action on any issue not previously noticed in the agenda. We now start, or we begin to open the public comment period. Time now is 6.32. Do we have any white cards for

I have no white cards, Chair.

Thank you so much. That being said, we close the comment period at 6.32. Consent calendar. Consideration of the Planning Commission draft minutes for the meeting on June 11th, 2026. Do we have a motion to approve?

I'll make the motion to approve.

I'll second.

Motion passes 4-0.

Wonderful. Public hearing. Conditional use permit CUP 26-00007. Chair requests staff report from Lonnie Henry.

Oh, excuse me, Chair. I have to recuse myself from this project.

Understood. Thank you, Vice Chair. Thank you. All right, Lalani, if you would be so kind.

Good evening, everyone. Tonight's item includes a conditional use permit to allow for the conversion of an existing single family residence into a priest living quarters, along with the construction of a 4,995 square foot church building. Please note, under the development code, churches are permitted in all zoning designations with approval of a conditional use permit. The subject site is approximately five acres of partially developed land located on the east side of Orchid, sorry, East side of Orchid, approximately 230 feet north from Pepper Avenue. To the south and west are single family homes, and to the north is a vacant site, and to the east is the Mojave Riverbed. As shown on the general plan land use map, the project site and the properties to the south are zone limited agricultural, to the west is rural residential, and to the north is the neighborhood commercial C2 zone. The overall site plan provides a general understanding of the proposed site layout. The existing residence and front yard are highlighted in blue. The drive aisle providing access from Orchid Street is highlighted in green. The proposed church and parking area is shown in red. And the remaining area between the project and the riverbed, which will not be disturbed, is highlighted in purple. Although the development code does not establish specific standards for churches adjacent to residential uses, the proposed project has been designed to ensure capability with the surrounding neighborhood through the placement of the building, site layout, landscaping, circulation, parking, operational characteristics. Additionally, these elements provide an appropriate transition from the surrounding residential area to the proposed church use. As shown on the focus site plan, the project will include landscape buffering around the development along with adequate parking and drive aisles. Additionally, a six foot wall will be constructed along the southern property line adjacent to the existing single family home. This will provide an additional buffering between the residents and the church operations. The proposed church building is designed to be compatible with both the surrounding residential neighborhood and adjacent commercial property. The prefabricated metal building incorporates a traditional gabled roof, residential scaled elements, and commercial style architectural features, including stone veneer, vertical windows, decorative lighting, and color accents. These architectural treatments continue around all elevations to avoid large blank plain walls and provide a cohesive appearance. Overall, the design creates an appropriate transition between the residential and non-residential uses. For CEQA purposes, the project does qualify for an exemption under the infill development exemption. In this case, the site is located within an urbanized area and is already developed with an existing residence. The proposed project is consistent with the city's general plan and zoning requirements, and the project has been designed to comply with all development standards. Based on the city's review, the project meets the required criteria for this exemption and does not present any unusual circumstances that would result in significant impacts. Although the project was determined to be exempt from CEQA, several conditions of approval have been included to address potential impacts. Prior to any ground disturbance, an incidental take permit as well as a burrowing owl survey will be required. The project will also be conditioned to construct the proposed six foot wall that is between the church and the adjacent residential property. Additionally, the church must comply with the city's noise and glare standards at all times. This includes preventing excessive noise at adjacent residential property lines and ensuring that exterior light does not create glare or light overspill onto neighboring properties. Finally, any outdoor activities or events will require the approval of a temporary special event which will be reviewed by city staff. This will ensure continued capability with the surrounding residential neighborhood. In summary, staff finds that the project is consistent with the policies and goals of the city's general plan and complies with all standards of the development code as applicable. The project is compatible with the surrounding land uses and appropriate for the site. As conditioned, the proposed development is not expected to adversely impact the surrounding areas. That is the end of my presentation, and I'm available for any questions or comments.

Thank you very much. Very concise. Questions, commissioners? I have a few, but I wanted you guys to go ahead and kick it off.

Okay. Yeah, I have a couple of questions since I don't see it on the drawing. And it is the fire flow requirements. I don't see anything that shows any water. It talks about connecting to the existing 12-inch line, but it doesn't speak of any fire protection of the facility itself.

Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah, so because it's under 5,000 square feet, I believe that that exempts them from fire sprinklers. As far as the fire flows and the fire pressures, that being at the northeast portion of the city, they have plenty of pressure. But that's really the extent of my knowledge on the subject.

Okay, I understand. Very convenient to be five square feet less. But in regards to that, I would imagine there should at least be a fire hydrant on site, because it's quite a ways off the road. And I know there's, for fire protection itself. So again, I have a concern with not seeing anything that's addressing that. Let's see if I can read this. Yeah, I don't see a fire hydrant anywhere close to that property. I don't know where it is in the curvature of that from where it's at on this property. But again, concern. I think, again, the convenience of not being 5,000 That's okay as far as a sprinkler, but if onsite fire hydrant, or at least something along that line, that's a concern I have. Understood.

When these come in through DRC, fire is presented with a submittal, and they usually comment on that. I don't know if they did in this case. I know that they approved the project, but I don't know if they commented on it.

And as I've voiced my opinion in the past, that fire department, as far as their fire flow requirements and some of their other issues, they have failed to respond to my request anyways on that. how they calculate fire flows. Of course, this is not as relevant as that because of the footage, but still, I have a definite concern on what that would be. Yeah, you're correct in water pressure. There is not an issue at that point. The 12-inch line obviously meets the criteria to provide, but to not see fire hydrant on site, at least, is problematic for me. Is there any questions before? I mean, I have questions of actually staff directly. Before Tom. Do what?

Before we talk to Tom, no offense. I just want to ask some questions of staff specifically. I know you're the guy who knows.

I've got another question that I know it'll come in because it is also part of the comment from one of the items that was provided to us earlier. and that is regarding the traffic issue. That's gonna be quite an issue down there from what I can, my concern is obviously line of sight in a curvature on a downhill curve. Speed and the fact that I saw it's only a half width repair which is gonna provide obviously, I'm guessing, curb, gutter, sidewalk in front of the facility, but it's only a half width, so is there a turn pocket? Is there gonna be right turn only? What is going to be the issue with providing safety offsite for these, obviously for the congregation, being able to turn in and out safely, and for the adjacent neighbors getting in and out of the area? So those are my two concerns that I have pending. Okay.

Mr. Hudson.

Those were pretty much my concerns also. I was looking at it thinking the same thing. I don't know that I can't see the distance from the street to the project. The overall project back where the actual church is looks nice, but I would agree. If it was a single family residence, I think it'd be different. But having, I don't know, 100 and what is it, 125 people on the occupancy load in there at the same time with no fire sprinklers, which I get it. There's no tank or hydrant. And then I think that road right there, Mark, is, I mean, it is pretty steep. What is it, like 12%?

Yes, so two points. We just looked. There is a hydrant across the street. I know it's not on site, but there is one across the street. As far as the traffic, Tom and I were discussing this earlier. The conditions will be revised for the street section. We are not doing curb gutter sidewalk here because it's It's not on the circulation. It's not the street section here. However, we are going to do half width plus a dedicated stacking lane to get the cars off of Orchid.

Going north? Sorry to interrupt.

Yes, going north. We were discussing this earlier about relocating the access to the middle of the site further south so that we can have more line of sight, get them out on a flatter surface. And there will be this will be reviewed by our traffic engineer and there will be signage, striping, traffic mitigation, whatever that will look like during the design to safely get the citizens in and out and the citizens that are using ORCID north and south to get them through that vertical and horizontal curve. Absolutely.

So they'd have another lane if they were pulling out to go north?

Yes, we would do an acceleration taper to get them back up to speed and get them onto ORCID safely, yeah.

yeah so we'll be looking at that very very that's a concerningly yes that's a wild spot right there it is it is yeah so i i mean that's really that's really all i saw otherwise so i wanted to include the the public in some of my because i know the answers but not everyone does so i wanted to kind of walk through with you the staff with these three items

Adjacent to this property is a C2 zone. So if the church didn't go in, what would go in a C2 zone? I know the answer, but I'm asking planning.

The C2 zone is neighborhood commercial. It does allow for uses such as restaurants, retail, minor car repair, and personal services.

Would gas stations be included in that?

A gas station could be. That one might be a little bit trickier. I know there's certain things that are required for a gas station, so I don't want to speak incorrectly, but a gas station could be allowed in the C2 zone.

Right. So this might be a nice buffer instead of going straight from residential to neighborhood commercial. Right. And then lighting controls or lighting spilling off and also noise. How does that get regulated across the city if someone? Decides to have their lights pointing at adjacent property and same thing with noise spilling over How does the city handle that if there were to be a nuisance code enforcement?

could be potentially contacted to come out to review how the light is glaring over as well as noise and Then another option would be calling local code and for our local Sheriff's Department for a noise disturbance. I

Right, but at the same time, this is under a conditional use permit, so part of the conditions that these have to be met, and if they're not, then it would come back for review, correct?

That is correct.

Okay, so I know that several of us in this room knew that, but I wanted the whole on record to kind of be conveyed on that. Does anyone have any more questions before I open it up?

i i think i i think for me i i really don't want to get in the middle of it but i'm i guess because of the whole 5 000 square foot deal and coming in just under i mean i understand why that why we do that totally get it i just feel like other locations where the public goes in and out and they're in and out quickly whereas people in a church are sitting there And there's a lot of people in that one building. And maybe this isn't the time, but moving forward, maybe it's something that we need to look at as far as considering the building and what the use is for and keeping people safe. And I wanted to say that now because, you know, God forbid anything happen moving forward with this and it gets done and there is something that happens and we had the opportunity to say something about it. I want to say it now. I don't feel comfortable with that considering the use of the building, I guess. That's all I'm saying. I think it's a great idea. I'd be the first guy to say keep it one square foot under for the cost. I get that. Without having some sort of Nearby, I mean, the fire sprinklers are only designed to allow people to have time to get out there, not to put the building out. That's what that that's what the whole deal is with those. It's not fire suppression for keeping the building from burning down. So.

And I kind of know some code specifics, so Tom does as well, so we could probably talk when it's his time. I know we have public comments that are coming in, but we could kind of push on to the comments for the next period, and then that'll answer some of your questions. I believe Tom has answers.

And part of mine, again, to add on to what we just talked about regarding if the traffic issue out on the roadway, because I read something in there about 300 feet, and I don't know what that really means. represented if it was ingress, egress, access coming in and out, and knowing that the property, since it's residential to the south, access to those to mitigate that ingress, how the impact of that would be. And especially since they're not doing curb gutter and sidewalk stuff on the frontage. Again, understand that, but... So there's other factors there that, since I didn't see it, I have concern about it. And so I'll leave it at that after.

Chair, if I could, I do have one question that's come up now. With the size of the project being slightly below the 5,000 square foot threshold, which would bring in other needs on this type of a project being zoned in a C2, should another project that would be allowed in a C2 area that was bigger than this, a different type of use, would that trigger a traffic study or any other needs that would come up that this is not triggering?

Um, I would say yes, it would based on peak trips and overall traffic volume.

Is that study been done on this project?

No, it has not.

Yeah.

So commissioner, I'm in your, you're referring to as example, the C2 zone, uh, running into, like, if it was a grocery store or neighborhood grocery store or something, having people traffic in and out, back and forth. Is that the kind of question you're asking?

Yeah, if another type of project is, it can be built in this area that would be a little bit larger, we would have to study the traffic impact on it and the usage, but we're not able to do that because of the size of this project. Is that what I'm understanding?

In a roundabout way, yes. It's because... it is so small and it's just not it's not generating those traffic trips um whereas a shopping center um is much greater and a lot of shop trips a lot of trips yeah exactly what's the number though on that i believe it's 50 peak trips

50 peak trips. How's that? Just so I know.

I'm not a traffic engineer. I know just enough to get myself in trouble.

Okay. So, yeah, so it would be more than 125 occupants. Is it based on occupancy? Or like Tim's saying, is it based on use?

I believe it's based on the use, and it has to do with, The International Traffic Guide has different traffic ratings for different uses that kind of lay out what those peak trips are in the a.m. and in the p.m.

Right. So you think of like if it was a small neighborhood grocery store, how many people would be coming in and out of the driveway all day long? And if it was open 24 hours a day, it'd be through the night as well.

So how many services are we having and how many days a week are we having those services? Are we doing Wednesday, Monday, Wednesdays? That will be part of the client part. And I'm sorry, I have one more comment about the fire sprinklers. I want to put this out there as we continue to discuss it. Since it is ag and it's in – it's right next to residential and we know that we build residential houses four thousand five thousand square feet and we run we run those fire sprinklers off of a three-quarter inch badger meter is there a possibility or a consideration maybe that might be something that the client might consider thinking about doing i'll answer once you open the public comment i'll talk to you I just want to put that out there.

Something not quite relevant, I guess, but the property, the C2 property to the north, is that still owned by the city?

I would not have the knowledge as to who the owner is at the moment.

Okay, because I understood in the past that that was a designated property by the city for a future sewer facility. back in the day, so you should find some information on that. That's just an FYI if I'm correct or not, but I know that's where they were going to build a package plant that was going to run from clear back into silverwood down and then dump it back over across into the high-grade material sewer system from past events. So just FYI.

All right, so all that we've discussed with staff, I'd like to open up for public comment period, and then after public comment period, then we'll, so, okay. There we go, applicant first. Okay, got it. So, okay, the commission, so we open up the public comment period now at 6.56. Public hearing, chair?

Yes. Public hearing?

Public hearing. Thank you for the public hearing. So a chair opens it up for the public hearing. Time now is, what was it, 6.56, and invites the applicant and their representative to comment. Because I didn't want to speak for you, Tom. I knew some of the answers, but I'd rather come from you.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, commissioners, staff. It's very nice to be here tonight. Thank you for having us. We look forward to explaining everything about this project to you so you understand what we're doing on the project. Mr. Hudson, if I may, on the exiting of this building and the amount of people and the 4,995 square footage, there's five exits on this building. It's a 5,000 square foot building. It's a very small little structure. It's broken down into different compartments. We have the chapel, we have a couple little offices, youth type area. There's doors on all sides of this building. When it comes to fire protection, before a fire could even begin, you'd be out one of those exits. To answer your question about could I put like a residential sprinkler type system in, I couldn't do it. It'd have to be the full-blown double-check detector valve, four-inch riser, and it'd be close to $100,000 system to fire protect that building. So we know the code, we use the code, On our behalf on this issue there will be a fire hydrant on this site I'd have to have it within 300 feet hose lay on that site So there will be a fire hydrant at the end of that first finger on that north side right there So it'll be covered by the fire department Due to their with their code for hose lay so we have that I feel I pretty well under control. We have the issue, it'll be a monitored system, all the sensors on it, so fire protection is still on this building, whether it's sprinkler or not, it'll be a monitored fire protection system. So I want to answer that. So something came up this evening. Actually, you know, we I talked to Mark a few times. We communicated back and forth because we saw that condition about the road, you know, and and so Mark had, you know, he said he has a concern because that driveway is right at that rise of the road right there. So Mark said, would the clients be too concerned about moving that driveway? And I have not yet spoke to them about it. So they're hearing it right now for the first time. And by the way, this is probably half of the congregation right here for this building here. So everybody, Planning Commission. Planning Commission. Welcome. Everybody. So I think it was a great idea, Mark, to get that driveway away from that rise right there. It does give me a better sight line right there. And I do have the issue with the neighboring property. If I do any kind of taper right there heading north, I'll be on private property. Our property line was dedicated, moved back. That property to the north sticks way out. I couldn't get a proper taper on it without moving that driveway away from that northerly property line. So... I think it was a great idea. I think we can work that out. I already kind of did a layout on that, and I want to talk to your traffic engineer at the city. I widened it, I tapered it, and I'm sure we can work something out on that. Thanks for working with me on that. It was concerning to see a condition I didn't know. We talked about street improvements. We talked about no street improvements, so I didn't know what we had to do with the street on this, so I think we can work that out. And I appreciate that. Lalani, you did a great job on this. I appreciate what you've done as well. You're very thorough on it. And you put us through the paces like you always do. But it's very thorough. And I think the rest of the conditions, are fairly straightforward. We're fine with all the conditions. Just that road issue is our latest one we're talking about. Lighting, noise, there's not a noise issue. We have the block wall right there. Everything will be happening inside that structure. It's an insulated structure. It'll be a nice. It'll be a proper structure on the inside I did all I can on a Simple rectangular building like that with my colors my windows my lighting you know to Give it some look I pitched the roof up a little taller on that we have a little stone in the front Landscape all sides we have adequate parking so You know, we have a lot of storefront. We have our primary entrance right there in the center, you know, and we did a stone pop-out surrounded. We have the storefront to the left, which is east side, and that's in the community room right there. The vertical windows over to the right there, that's in the main chapel hall, if you will. On the south side right there, we have a couple little classrooms, a couple small little... Not bathroom, just additional glass windows and some small sound rooms. Kitchen window to the right there. But I think it's a simple structure. I think it's effective with the landscaping at the base. And of course that east one right there, that storefront has a door in it as well. That's facing east and that's the view over the river right there.

Tom, could I ask you a question? Because I don't have where I can... see it visibly really quick and it may not be in content by looking at the exterior renderings i know that there are elevations that are noted but due to the printing and rasterization of the actual exterior elevations the notes are blurred so i can't actually read them and i'm sure it's just a copy from one document to another that they got blurred so it's just an you know, how it was brought in as the exhibit. But is this an exterior, is this an ex-steel building?

Yes. Okay, so non-combustible.

It's not like it's T111. There's not, is the roof also steel?

It's all type three non-combustible.

Is it too early to say that? Because typically commercial buildings are also steel framed.

Not all of them, some of them. I think the one you just finished is wood-framed. So we still do a lot of wood-framed structures. Okay. But this one will be all steel.

Right. So that adds to the fire element as far as protection. Right. I mean, contents, I mean, no one could predict that, but the actual building is non-combustible ideally. It's not per se completely per code, but...

Correct. So is there any questions for me?

No. Not for me. Good dialogue though.

You guys have very valid questions. I must hand it to you. So good job and all that. It's a great little project. It's tucked behind that existing house. We drop in elevation. We're down probably five to seven feet by the time we get to that east end of the site right there. So it'll barely be visible from the street in front looking straight east at it. But I think the improvements on this site are going to be, you'll be happy with them.

It's proper improvements. Because it's lower, it'll help with the lighting and noise.

The lighting, the landscape, the proper curb gutter on site, retention, everything.

Okay.

And I'm sure everybody back here would be very happy to see a yes vote on our project tonight. So we request an approval tonight. All right, perfect. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. All right.

All right, the chair invites those members of the public to comment upon this item to address the commission. And we have white cards. So I only have one white card currently. and then I have some emails, and I guess is that, how do we do the emails, the white card first?

Yes, Chair.

Okay. All right, so we have, the only white card we have so far on this agenda is Candace, I'm gonna botch this. It's Crittenden. Crittenden, thank you so much for the clarification. You'd be so kind to come up to the podium.

Good evening, everyone. I currently live across the street from where this church and home conversion is going to be, not directly across the street, but four houses down across. Traffic is a major concern. Six months after I moved there, I've been there for 16 years, six months after I moved there, someone came from the Carib area and hit my son turning into our driveway, which we could not see because of that hill. And that hill is supposed to be 25 miles going down, 35 miles coming up. He hit my son going 60 miles an hour. That is the traffic on this road, single lane each way. We have a bus stop right there where the caution sign is. That backs up traffic, which, I mean, we have kids in the area, that's fine. But if we're gonna have a church there and we're going to have people coming in and out, even if you have that secondary lane that you say you're going to merge into, that is very, very dangerous. Very dangerous. I don't know if you guys are familiar with it, but come sit in my yard. I have a 12-foot swing sitting out in my yard. You can watch the traffic fly by at 50, 60, 70 miles an hour, even at that 25-mile curve. Sunday mornings. It's very bad because people are, they're crazy around here. I'm sorry, I've lived here my entire life, but they drive very crazy. And because it's just the single lane each way, there's no cops on that road. They won't pull anyone over because there's no side on the road to pull over. So that area does not get monitored. I would strongly suggest that you guys do some type of traffic control there or testing to figure this out because I've already lost one son to an accident. I almost lost my second one to that accident. I don't want to see these little kids and everything and we have a lot in that area. and it's not up there anymore, but if you're coming from Jacaranda on Carib, you go down that little gully before you get to the property, that floods out every single time it rains. I can't even drive my car when it rains because it's flood, there's mud built up, there's debris coming down because it comes all the way down from the Peach, I-Peach, all of those areas, and floods down in that area. So I would strongly suggest that you guys do some type of traffic, not traffic control, but some type of study to truly see the congestion on that road, the dangerousness on that road. I don't mind that there's gonna be a church there. I'm very concerned about what it's going to do with the traffic because it's already chaotic. We've had multiple accidents. All right, the flooding, I've already noted that on here. Do we know how many days that they're going to be in service and how many services they're going to have per day so that we know what type of traffic is coming in and out?

I do not believe we know that at this time.

Will we know that before there's a yes on this?

I believe the applicant is here tonight to answer that question after the public comment.

So we can invite him back up after this public comment period, correct? Correct. Thank you, Robert. I was looking straight at you, but boss is over there too, so.

Okay, and did I hear this right, that there's not going to be a left-hand turn-in where they're gonna cross over the road if they're coming from back around it? It's all gonna be coming down Orchid to be a right-hand turn-in?

We'll answer that one as well. We don't have the answer to that yet. It was part of a discussion, that's all I've heard.

Okay, because all of that is right on the incline coming up to the top of the hill at Pepper and going down.

And Chair, again, this may be something the applicant can come back up to answer. I discourage the commission from engaging in conversation. Correct.

Understood.

Okay.

So we'll bring them back up.

But if you guys would do some type of traffic... observation and come look at it in the morning time, in the evening time, in the night time. You're gonna see, it's like I-15. I didn't know that when I bought it, but I found out within six months. Okay, but it is very good.

We have 20 seconds or less for your public comment. I'm sorry, we only limited to five minutes.

That's fine, honey, that's fine.

Thank you so much. So we have a couple emails. We're not gonna read these, obviously, correct? This was just for our information.

That is correct. So those were provided to staff about an hour before the meeting. Correct. But we just wanted to acknowledge that we did provide it to the Planning Commission. Wonderful.

Okay. And we read them. All right. We're going to go ahead and invite the applicant back up to answer those questions, if that's okay. Regarding the traffic study. What's that? It was regarding the traffic study. Yes.

Well, we had talked about that with Mark and myself, all of us a little bit ago, that we're going to work with the city traffic engineer on this to get that road figured out. So that is what we will be doing. We're going to widen that road. We're going to provide tapers to it. We'll do proper signage and striping to it. I don't think necessarily a traffic study is necessary because there's no intersections to scope out. We know what the situation is at that road. We got a steep incline, we're moving that driveway over to accommodate that, and then we're widening the road. Sign it and stripe it. Right, okay.

for me i don't i don't know because i without even seeing any of that we don't know you know i mean it we could without seeing it we don't know how it's like you said like what when do we do a traffic study when is it required to do one does anybody know

So if I could help answer that. The traffic study is required when there's more than 50 peak hour trips at key intersections. In this case, the project wouldn't generate more than 50 peak hour trips at a single intersection. The traffic is going to be distributed a number of different ways before it gets to the first intersection. People are going to go left or right out and go multiple different ways. So there isn't a traffic study that would analyze intersection improvements such as changing from a stop sign to a signal, for instance. If I can make one recommendation, there are line-of-sight studies that can be done that analyze safe distances for line-of-sight and the view of oncoming traffic. That would recommend the optimal location of a driveway approach, but I would imagine it's going to be to the center of the site or south of that, but a line-of-sight study would determine that.

So the intersections that we're talking about, how far away do they need to be? If you're going north, you hit what road? Where you go right to the college? What road is that?

That's Jacaranda and Carib. And then you have this small street. And then Pepper is the one just to the south. So that's your two intersections. Pepper's closer because it's just right adjacent to where we're talking. And then... orchid turns into carob when you make the turn. And then you do have a T intersection just east of Jacaranda. I don't remember the name of that street. Which one? The one on Jacaranda would be Sycamore. Yeah, so there's a little thing in there, but then you got the low flow at the very bottom issue that is always a chronic problem in the rains, always has been. So, but...

And I really don't want to hold anybody up. I honestly don't. But I also feel like when it comes to everyone's safety, I feel like we have a duty to look at it.

I think the line of sight study might help with this. I mean, ideally the property doesn't go on forever, so they would just look for the optimal location for the drive approval.

Well, I think it was written in, and that's where I was referring when I was making my first comment, That under page 24, the top of it says Orchid Avenue. It says, and this is why I'm reading like the half width of what I saw. That was the designation of what was going to be done. So that was my concern. because it talks about developer shall design to construct half-width asphalt pavement on Orchid across the project frontage based on city's 60-foot local roadway standard. And that's when we found out there's no curb, gutter, sidewalk. The design shall be based upon acceptable centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project's boundaries when or where applicable. these improvements shall consist of, and there's an E, signage striping, if that's what I'm looking at, signage and striping. So there's elements to that, but line of sight is obviously the issue in both directions, and speed control on top of what we've already just discussed. So that's my concern. It's very vague in the presentation of what it's saying here, and that's my concern I have. I'm not comfortable. With that, the project itself, everything else, other than the fire hydrant, I don't have a problem with. But that's, the conveyance of the traffic is my problem.

How many services, because I had asked that earlier, before you came up, how many services, like how many days? How many days in services are we running?

How many services? Yeah, like are we Monday, Wednesday, Saturday, Sunday? one on Sunday, and there's three other ones. You have a Bible study and a youth group and one other type of youth group. So there's four events throughout the week, but one church event on Sunday and a Bible study and a youth group. The size of the congregation, 60, like I'm saying, that's probably half of the congregation right there, as a matter of fact.

Yeah, but I mean, we got a pre-plan for them growing. I would hope that they do.

But that's their schedule.

Yeah, so four days a week. Yeah. And then we're basing it solely off of 60 right now, but potential for hopefully many.

But the whole road issue by moving that drive away from that ridge, which Mark duly pointed out, and then widening that road right there, and then the proper striping and the proper signage, we're going to make that location much safer than it is today.

Yeah, I mean, that would be the hope. It's hard for me because we're supposed to be reviewing it, but we don't have that to review as part of the... I don't know. I don't know.

I'm not sure about... The road's 20 feet wide right now.

Yeah, I know. Pavement. I know. Whatever we're going to do is going to be better than it is, but it still doesn't take out that it drops off. I mean, I drive that. You know, I'm here, and I go in and out of there. I use that road quite often in it. Every time I go down through there, I'm like, man, these people, this is terrible. Then I believe, I think, I'm not a mathematician, but I think it's somewhere around 12% right there.

Oh, it's steep.

Yeah.

Yeah. So moving that driveway out in the near proximity is...

I think that's going to help. Correct. i just i'm still wondering what it's going to look like in a year or two or five years did we do do we do the right thing in not creating something you know going the distance and creating something built to last or just to get approved and get the building built so well if you look at those conditions you know we had to provide you know the soils report and let's provide the proper base and and

and construct that road to current standards, not what's currently there.

Yeah, right.

Yeah.

No, and I understand that. I'm good with that. Like I, and I'm not even, I'm not even saying, you know, curb gutter and sidewalk. I don't, I'm not.

Just the section, that road section is going to be 10 times of what it currently is there today.

That piece is probably still old desert mix.

It'll be the best part of that road.

Yeah, it's probably old desert mix for sure. Um, Yeah, I don't know what else to say about it.

Was there any attempt to contact or request any kind of conditions? If anything else was built in this C2 block to the north, this is going to be an issue, right? I don't think that understanding and hearing the comments about the dangers of this curve and the condition of the road penalizing any applicant coming into this area because of that, the issues of people not following the law and driving the proper speed and taking the proper precautions, penalizing any applicant coming in here for individuals who are making things unsafe. Was there any work to try to see about getting more of that corner so that you could tie that drive in and utilize that corner of the C2 zone? Any variants that they could use to improve the greater road condition for this area? As Earl said, for the future of any development that comes in here.

The corner you referred to.

Coming out onto... Orchid there, heading north right there? Yep.

Well, by moving my driveway away from that, I don't have to deal with that neighbor's property. At the design that I currently have, that driveway being all the way at the northern property, it leaves me no room to put a taper on that road. but moving that driveway further away, I can put the frontage and then get a proper 10 to one taper going out.

Okay, thank you.

So we're being asked to possibly approve something that is going to actually be redesigned. Are we going to get to look at it again?

The redesign and the relocation of the driveway approach would be done through the grading plan check process. If there were a line of sight study, as I mentioned, that would be analyzed. Otherwise, the driveway location, you could add a condition that the driveway location be relocated to the further south, and that would be determined at the grading plan stage during plan check.

What's the thought on no left-hand turn coming out of there? Is that something that would have to be done in the line of sight study or just in the consideration of... I mean, Tom's right. Like there's no way that he could have done this with the driveway where it's at now because he would have to go to the landowner to the north and ask for some of his frontage, right?

Correct.

Correct.

And there's a substantial gray difference. That site is lifted up and it dips off. So it's physically impossible and there's not dedicated right away. What I can say is when this design comes in for plan review, we're going to take the signing and the striping and we're gonna send that to our traffic engineer. And our traffic engineer is gonna have, I'm sure, a laundry list of comments and concerns that they're gonna wanna see before they approve it because of the curve, the horizontal and the vertical curve. I don't want to speak for the traffic engineer, but it's very likely or possible that they may say that they have to protect that. So there's no left turn in or left turn out. I don't know. But that's certainly a possibility. If the traffic engineer says, listen, this has to you have to do protected. rights or right in right out only um we won't know until they review it and give us back the comments but um it it's going to be substantially more than just putting a centerline stripe and a couple signs i'm sure i don't know the extent of it but i'm sure even tom would agree that it's there's going to be substantial mitigation signage whatever that looks like striping Lots of warning, yeah.

Could that also include a potential three-way stop at Pepper?

I mean, could it potentially be a comment? Absolutely it could. I don't know if it will. And then once we get those comments back, obviously they'll go back to the engineers and the architects and we'll have those conversations and we'll, say yes or we'll say no or we'll come up with a solution we'll come up with a solution but yeah it's not it's not going to be um you know an edge stripe and a couple of arrows it's going to be there's going to be a lot of signage there's going to be a lot of mitigation warning um and to your point could there be a recommendation for a three-way stop there certainly could be i don't know i don't want to speak for the traffic engineer But the obligation and the responsibility is to make that as safe as possible, obviously.

One other question I had, Chair, is I overheard maybe a little bit in your explanation of the project. Is there an element of a school incorporated into this project?

Well, the congregation has their own little class, like a Bible study.

Okay.

That's all.

All right, anyone else before we move to the next step? Thank you, Tom. Good? All right, thank you. Good discussion tonight. All right, thank you very much. All right, so we're gonna go ahead and close public comment period at 7.24. And we have no further white cards and public comments. Commission, discussion. Do we want to have any more discussion, or do we want to move forward to motion?

Chair, I would recommend closing the public hearing before moving on to the next. I just did. 724. Oh, I heard public comment. Sorry about that. Yeah, thank you for clarifying.

You are correct.

Sorry.

It's one and the other, but they're all public. Thank you. Public hearing. That's the part I keep missing. Yes. I'm going to get it down eventually. All right. So do we want to move to motion or discussion?

Discussion.

Discussion? Go ahead, Tim.

Just going back to my thought process, you know, it is an unsafe curve. It is a tricky undertaking for them to get this done. I think if it was anything else zoned on the corner of the C2, it would be a lot more impact. We'd have a major study and major improvements and all that going on, but the intermittent use with a small congregation and growing congregation is going to put some risk in here that we don't get to really see, you know, the engineered efforts that are going to go into protecting that. I do sympathize with people that are good in nature, applicants that are, you know, kind of, having the consideration of the people not following the law be the risk factor that we're taking into consideration. I wish there was a way we could, you know, do something to reduce the speed or visibility here, but we really can't look at those plans. So, yeah, I understand both sides of this.

Well, because they're missing. I think for me, my hang-up is that that information for us to review is missing. And I don't know if that's... I mean, is that... Is that at this stage in the game? In the submittal process? Is that? I don't know. I don't know. Because this is more of a commercial. This is a commercial. This is a commercial submittal, correct?

I don't believe it is.

No? No. Oh, it's not. It's not. See, and that's why I was considering the residential style fire sprinkler because there is going to, I mean, I don't want to like keep going back and forth and beat a dead horse.

Right, because churches are allowed in all zones except for industrial. Is that correct?

Yeah, and just for clarity, the zoning will remain as agricultural, which is a residential zoning. There's no change of zone tonight. It allows for a single family residential and then churches are allowed in any zone. The commercial property is to the north, but this is not a commercial property.

I think it's a good idea to make it out of metal. That makes it safer, but it's insulated. I know for a fact that it's not fireproof. It does burn. I've seen it firsthand. I'm sure there's going to be divided rooms in here that are going to be framed and insulated, possibly insulated. I don't know if those are out of steel studs or wood studs. And then again, there's not something to look at on the traffic. So I don't know what they're going to do. And then our hope is that whoever beyond us touches on every aspect of the safety of that.

Right. So I want to throw this out there that I trust our, I trust our city staff to review the line of sight, our engineers, that traffic study that is going to that knows more than I do about. You know, traffic to probably and so. trusting our staff the fact that we have a part of document that is void and told to approve um i i think what uh uh ryan was proposing could be added to where we're already talking about relocating the driveway we're already talking about it um the intent is is to make it safer THE DRIVEWAY BEING RELOCATED TO IS CONFINED TO ONLY THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY. THERE'S NOT MORE PROPERTY TO MOVE IT FURTHER FROM THAT AREA. SO IT'S THE BEST POSSIBLE SOLUTION BEING PROPOSED. SO I THINK AS WE ADD THAT TO PART OF AS WE APPROVE IT FOR THE RELOCATION, THAT IS THE BEST WE CAN DO AS PART OF THIS APPROVAL. BUT TRUSTING OUR STAFF, TRUSTING THE traffic engineer, because ideally, at the end of the day, no one wants to see more accidents, and I could agree with that. I mean, everyone in this room doesn't want to see more, and I really like what Commissioner Ahman was talking about, penalizing folks for, including our applicant, for people just not following the law, and it's, unfortunately, it's a part of living life, but it is a thing that we contend with, doing the best we can to kind of buffer for lawbreakers but there is no perfect solution to it all it's just a rough condition but i personally like the location of this because it does buffer it softens from the neighborhood to the church to what you know 20 years from now going to be shopping centers and whatever else dress barn whatever we don't know that but um so i think it's a good transition as far as this use i think it's a good transition um and the building's simple but it does look good That's my opinion. That's always my opinion.

Yeah, the building looks great. Tom always, he always does a great job on the buildings. That's not the question. Anyone else before we do motion?

Yeah, I don't want to beat a dead horse here. So I think the conversation, you know, again, I think the project itself, as far as the building, what's going on there, I didn't, I forgot to mention the Wasn't sure about the septic system. I know that was addressed briefly in some of the information because that's still being down there close to the river bottom. What the possible intent there would be on usage, the effluent. all that other stuff, if that's a factor for the design criteria for where the location, I see they have the system to the south side of the building. So just a concern there, what that entails if they don't get approved, if it's gonna be a collection type facility where they have to have it pumped on a regular basis, holding tanks. Things of that nature. I know there's been conversations of that way back when, when you start impacting along that river bottom. Used to not be, but as much as it has been recently, so question mark on that still. But again, the building itself, I don't have any problem there as long as we do get the fire flow on site. or a fire hydrant, I should say, on site to protect it, and as you mentioned, 300 feet is what they normally call for, and right now it'd be the hydrant up on the street is over 300 feet away, so it would require a fire hydrant on site.

Yeah.

Well, my faith in that is, you know, I'll leave it at that. And so, and then again, my concern, my heartburn is not having anything in hand, even closely, remotely, showing the safety factors of the street and what's happening. I understand the impact. and where the location is, what that entails. But there's just nothing in front of me that allows me to have peace of mind that it's going to function the way it is because you can't put a price on life out there in that curve. And we know the drivers that don't pay attention over here in the high desert. And that's one of them. And I know you can't put signal or stop signs in just to control speed. So I know that's not even in question there. But it is part of the safety question as to the relevance of at least getting them to stop at the top of the hills where they have to consider slowing down before they get there. So that would be part of the question again. But since I have nothing in front of me, I just, again, I'm very torn.

Is there verbiage that we can include in this for some of the concerns that we're talking about?

If there are specific items you'd like to condition, I think that'd be within the scope of your authority.

Okay, that's what I'm wondering. So that would be very much part of the discussion.

I think that would be inclusive of what we talked about, the line of sight and the stop sign. three-way stop sign at Pepper to help mitigate some safety issues there, concerns. The lighting I saw in the writing, I didn't see that as an issue because it will be sitting lower and they do have the requirement already of putting deflectors and facing them downward where they can't branch out into adjacent properties. So I know they've done that for a number of businesses nowadays. So I don't see that as being as relevant as obviously the traffic safety is, again, the biggest thing on the table right now. But I think if we talked about the line of sight concerns, the ingress-egress controls and potentially the three-way stop at Pepper.

I mean, considering that we're not traffic experts, obviously, we can't say we want no left-hand turn coming out of there. So how do we word this to where – because I agree – you know, I would like, I think it's a great idea to add a stop sign. That's going to slow people down. That's really going to minimize risk. And then, you know, I think a no left-hand turn is still a safe thing because when church lets out and you have other churches letting out, people coming off of Jack around and turning on the orchid to go home and go South. Now you have that added traffic. So left hand no left hand turn coming out. An added stop sign and then I'm not sure how to add the verbiage in about the fire. Because if we're not going to get fire sprinklers, I agree with. I agree with Dale that there should be some sort of something on site, whether it's a. Closer fire hydrant or. Um, you know, if it's not a commercial, I still don't understand. Cause like, if it's not a commercial, uh, application and it's not a residential and we're on ag, but we're under 5,000 square feet, the cost, the cost for the standard fire suppression system. I don't know. I guess it's out of my way to us, but

fire hydrants within 300 feet of the building which is 300 feet yeah it's not that far away it is yeah it is within 300 feet that's that's that was the standard it used to be 600 feet and then they changed that um 10 years ago to 300 that helps with the fire element right and they are the the current fire hydrant if i'm not mistaken is about 360 feet from the building

um i believe there's one on orchid on the on the east side of orchid but i correct me if i'm wrong tom i thought you said that there was one on site there is a hydrant on site there's going to be one on site or there is one on site there's going to be one that's what i you it's going to be at about the 318 foot line just like the little piece just west of the building

yeah okay i can see where it would probably go so that would be right in here right in this little piece here so there would be one here yeah and that's about 300 that's right at 300 feet i don't know how i missed that during this time during that discussion sorry so so i get i guess the question is how do we how do we add the verbiage for the concerns the the safety concerns that we're talking about

So you can make it as a part of the motion either a requirement for everything that you just mentioned for the stop sign and for There was a stop sign in the- No left-hand turn. And line of sight. Line of sight study. You could either make that as a part of the motion. You could require that as a study to be validated. Typically, that's how that would be done. A traffic engineer would validate that that doesn't result in any unsafe traffic movements for any reason. But aside from that, if that is your motion, you can make that as a part of your motion. Okay.

Do you have anything to say? No.

I would just say absent any actual design on this, that's the safest thing that you can do is consider the modifications with the turn and the stop considerations going into it absent being able to see anything further.

Are we ready to do a motion? So just to recap before the motion is brought, there's three additional conditions total. Is that correct? Correct. The first one being undertaking a traffic study? Line of sight. Line of sight. Line of sight.

Line of sight. Because you said we couldn't do a traffic study, correct? Correct.

The second was adding a stop sign. And was that at Pepper?

Pepper.

Yeah. And the third was no left turn?

Correct.

Correct. Out of the stop.

That was for the intersection. And, of course, the question on the ingress-egress, which would be a part of the right-turn motion. And these are requirements. And then the fire hydrant on site.

Yes, I think staff would find a spot where these belong in the conditions of approval, but as long as they're mentioned during the motion, they would be required.

Now, if something falls apart in this thing, does it come back to us or? Will we ever see this again? I want to kind of protect ourselves on taking this forward.

Typically, when there's minor modifications to the conditions, that will either go through DRC or at times it's just administrative, but given the length of discussion tonight and the Planning Commission's concerns, if you'd also put it as a part of the motion that if that condition is revised that you would like it to come back, we could certainly do that. Okay.

Yeah, because I don't want to hold the facility up, per se, other than the conditions we just discussed. I would be okay with that. Okay?

Yeah. Ready to motion? Yeah, you want me to do it? Yeah. Okay. I guess you'll have to help me out with this one.

I'm going to write it out first.

all right so i'll make a motion to adopt resolution number pc 2026-10 approving conditional use permit cup 26 00007 with the added conditions of requiring a stop sign at pepper and orchid a no left-hand turn out of the proposed facility, and a line of sight study. Is that, do we nail it?

Conditions of this are to be modified. Did it come back to the Planning Commission for review?

Correct. adding if the conditions were to be modified that it would come back to Planning Commission. Okay. All right.

Do we have a second?

I'll make a second.

Motion passes 4-0.

Thank you. Good discussion, though. Moving on to planning division reports. Brian Leonard.

Just a reminder, we should call back Sophie Steno.

Oh, she made it.

So in terms of updates tonight, first off, I think it was very healthy discussion about the project tonight. So glad to see a healthy discussion and a good outcome at the end. With respect to updates, on the 27th of this month, that'll be in two weeks from today, we'll have our first workshop for the overall development code update. This will be the first in a series of about six or seven workshops that we'll be hosting with the Planning Commission over the course of the next year, going into next year. It'll be very similar to when we did our general plan update and hosting a workshop once a month. So our first workshop will be August 27th. And then during the month of September, our IT department will be doing some work in this room, and so we will not be able to have a second meeting in September. But we'll be coming back in October for the second development code workshop. And then, as I mentioned before, once we get started on that, that's really gonna be the heavy lifting. Next week, we'll be discussing just the overall code update. kind of introducing it and then getting into some of the areas of residential development standards that we intend to modify and looking for recommendations or really just recommendations from the Planning Commission if you agree with the approach that we're taking. So as I mentioned, be on the lookout for those over the next couple months and then that's all the updates I have.

Attorney report.

No report for me today, but I would point out if anyone has questions or would like a legal update on anything specific, please let me know. Okay.

Okay. No crazy regulations that are getting ready to land on our city?

So far, no. Okay. Just the usual housing mandates that come down, and so far that's it. Okay. Okay.

All right, so no director report, so we'll move on to the next item. Planning Commission comments. Any of our commissioners want to start off?

Yeah, I'll start, I guess. I wasn't here last time, so I apologize for that. So I'm gonna use this as my little sounding board tonight. Again, my concern with the school district, let me go with the school district first, with their inability to be able to control traffic at their facilities is horrendous. The fact that we as a city allow these people to use our right-of-ways for their parking lots and lack of ability to control traffic on site just drives me nuts i i sat at at um mojave and i avenue it took me five minutes to get past Laverne school Due to the inability of traffic there and so you know they have their they put their cones out Which is in my view illegal because they don't have the right to do that. They're not licensed or certified traffic control people And so they put the onus on drivers to deal with that. So it just really just bothers me to no end that we continue to allow that at the school districts. And that's just not that school, I've seen it at multiple schools. And I understand people, a lot of them driving them there, but there's still ways to mitigate that and not impact what we already have with the traffic. So that's it. Now my other concern is reading. I've been reading a lot or watching a lot as well on the rec and park. That's, I mean, obviously they've got their own issues. But my concern is as a citizen and part of the city is the one item that I've seen repeatedly show up is the potential possible sale of the lakes which bothers me to no end again that getting rid of something that that's our we own the water rights there and without those water rights then we're at the mercy of Mojave Water Agency to either purchase them at a higher rate or I go and find them somewhere else to purchase or lease which just drives cost up so IF THE PARK, IF THE LAKES WERE TO FALL APART AND JUST SET VACANT, WOULD BE BETTER JUST IN ORDER TO OWN THOSE WATER RIGHTS IN TODAY'S MARKET. IT JUST DOESN'T, I DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULD BE CONSIDERING THAT. AND AGAIN, I HAVEN'T SPOKEN TO ANYBODY FROM THE CITY IN REGARDS TO THAT ON THIS SIDE. BUT PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT, THEY'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS, AND THE FACT THAT THEY'VE EVEN COME UP IS WORRIESOME. SO THAT'S, BUT...

everything else was good thanks for putting all that together I know it's always a lot of work and you guys first hand know my background so it's very hard for me sometimes to make these decisions because I'm in that seat but I also feel like I'm here and I think that if we weren't making these tough decisions sometimes based on the safety because i mean that that situation i think is is definitely a safety concern and if we're not doing that and if we're not bringing up the fact that something seems a little incomplete when brought to us then what are we doing here so i that's just where i was coming from from that and so i i think um i appreciate everyone looking at it and considering the outcome of that. So again, Mark, you know firsthand, I am the last person that wants to get held up or cost more money, but I would always be the one to say, yes, safety, yeah, okay, got it. I'm in. So that's where I'm coming with that. And thank you for the help with the verbiage and whatnot.

Commissioners, either one?

Well, I must have missed the fireworks, so I'm not sure what happened, but every project that does come along always has challenges. I have nothing to report other than I see that Maple is being completed, at least resurfacing, so I thought that was nice. I like some of the resurfacing projects that have gone by, and I appreciate them. School's out, or school's in now. School started, so everyone be careful out there, and I'd have to echo Dale's comments on... traffic mitigation around the schools. I just avoid going down Crystal, going down Farmdale as I leave my home to pass Crystal Elementary in the morning. But that's it.

Yeah thank you for putting everything together. Looking forward to the workshops that are coming up and some good details in there and participating in that. Also in the last month we went over the capital improvements and looking forward to Ranchero getting completed and getting those signal lights installed on the east side of Ranchero. That's definitely going to help out with Ranchero Middle School and Crystal the traffic that gets out. If you're on that side trying to cross Ranchero during school hours, it's dangerous. The stop sign that was put in there allows the perfect spacing for no cars to ever go across just because everyone takes off from the stop sign one after another. So it's just a regular bead of cars that go down to Ranchero Middle School. and that trickle makes it so nobody can go across and when people choose to it's dangerous so when that ranchero is complete and we get those signal lights in there hopefully it's done i know it's on the 26 to 27 calendar year the sooner the better i'm looking forward to seeing that construction begin thank you uh i wanted to think again staff we talk about it but tonight was a good discussion i think

We can all agree that traffic is a problem. When people don't follow the law, it causes it to be worse. So in that light, everyone be careful as you drive home. But I want to speak something about schools because it involves traffic. And for what I do, I'm an architect that designs schools. So for Hespair Unified is one of our clients. It's okay that I speak about this, correct? Okay, so when we get into this, You can imagine how many hundreds of cars go to one site at one time, and the only way to really handle this is on-site stacking. And so I do know on some of the newer schools that we're working with, and some projects we've been working on the last couple years, some are in Hesperia Unified, Carmel is one of them, where we're creating, and this is an affordability. like the city, you can't throw it and fix all our streets in one swoop, it takes time. But Carmel Elementary is one of them where there's a big bus drop off, or a car drop off that we're putting on there to include the cars not being in the street, but those are purchases of property, multi-million dollars being spent to do these drop offs. So it is the intent of the school district to do this, it's just a matter of money. And they do recognize the problem because they get a lot of fumed parents that get in their face repeatedly. So I think it's beneficial for them, but definitely noted, yeah, for them to be out in the road and coning, it just adds to a chaotic situation that I think if traffic was to flow standard, then people would obey the traffic law standard. But I completely understand that. And then once you're getting your traffic studies for these schools, it's like, holy cow, how do you mitigate this? And it's not a perfect world. But again, it goes back to if everyone drove the way they're supposed to, then it would be a whole lot better. Right. But into that, though, I wanted to thank everyone for the discussion. Valid points. I think everyone... worried about traffic safety and I'm really glad that Tom was here to discuss this because this is a you know I think it's a good use but also to just having this dialogue I think it's good for all of us to have that on more topics I think it's just good for us to have the kind of to encourage dialogue but without that being said I'm just gonna quit yapping so Meeting is adjourned to regular meeting time, which is really not regular, but the next meeting time, August 27th at 6.30 p.m. in these chambers. Thank you.