Planning - Regular Meeting

Okay. We're going to go ahead and get started. So we're going to begin the meeting at 06:36. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance and the invocation.

Ready? Begin. And to the republic for which

it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Alright. Let's pray. Heavenly father, Lord God, we thank you for today, Lord. We thank

you for the breath that we have and the provisions you've given us, Lord. We pray over

the citizens of Asperia, Lord, in a a time of a lot of chaos. We also pray over our emergency responders, our firefighters, police officers, and we just pray over them, Lord, for safety and provision. We thank you for this meeting today, We ask for guidance and wisdom, and we thank you for all things. In your holy name, pray. Amen.

Roll call.

Chair Roger Abreo. Here. Vice Chair Sophie Stino. Here. Commissioner Dow Burke.

Here.

Commissioner Earl Hodson? Here. Commissioner Timothy Amman?

Do we have any well, we do have agenda revisions. Yes.

Thank you, Chair. Unfortunately, we do not have a city attorney this evening. So all agendized items requiring a decision of the Planning Commission will have to be pushed to the next meeting. So if you reference the agenda, the adoption of the minutes and the appeal of the warehouse structure are going to have to be postponed until the next meeting. We will present to you the objective design standards that is agendized only because it is a nonvoting item. Wonderful.

Do I move forward with the public announcement portion? Okay. 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 a 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 open the public comment period at 06:39. Do we have any white cards?

I have no white cards, chair.

Being no white cards, we also close the public comment period at 06:39. As we have the revised agenda, we are moving forward to our presentation, correct? Okay.

Hi, so thank you. So good evening. Tonight, I'm here to kind of walk through the city's draft objective design standards. These are for multifamily and mixed use developments here in the city. For tonight, this is a discussion item only. So we are not asking that the Planning Commission make a vote or take any action on tonight's item. This is simply just a presentation. This document is rather large document, if you will. And so we just kind of want to give a broad overview of the document. If the Planning Commission has any comments, we can address those comments.

And then our intention is that we will bring back this objective design standards to the next Planning Commission meeting where we'll take an action at that time. So if you recall, obviously, over the past couple of months, we've been busy with the city's general plan. And most recently, the updated general plan was presented to the Planning Commission, and then it was adopted by the City Council last month. Among other things, the general plan included a revised land use element that modified the city's densities for C2 zoning for the RC regional and commercial zoning designation. And then we increased the zoning within the R3 to 30 units an acre.

So it's 30 units an acre for those three zoning designations. The next logical step now is the adoption of objective design standards, and that's what we'll be presenting to you tonight. Ultimately, these objective design standards are required under state law, and they are also required within the city's housing element and specifically Program 14 of the city's housing element. And I'll kind of go into a little bit more detail about that in just a minute. So currently within our city's municipal code, we have design guidelines.

And those design guidelines are applicable to multifamily development as well as commercial, industrial and single family developments. However, state law requires that residential and mixed use design standards be objective, meaning that they are measurable requirements and they are not subjective opinions. So that is a state law requirement that cities are required to implement. As an example of an objective design standard, that would be something like the front yard setback shall be five feet. That is clear, quantifiable.

It's a yes or no question. An example of something that would be more subjective would be a front yard setback should match the character of the neighborhood. These design objective design standards do not modify any of our existing zoning standards, but that's just really kind of an example. Right now, our city's municipal code and the city's existing design guidelines, it mirrors more of it shall match the character of the existing neighborhood. And so you'll see as we go through the objective design standards, we made a number of changes to try to match what we had in terms of the existing requirements, but we changed what should have been a suggestion to now more of a requirement.

And we'll kind of go over those through the next slides here. So one of the so overall, the objective design standards are really broken down into seven different chapters. So for this presentation, I'm going go through each chapter and then kind of discuss some of the key takeaways and key differences between the new standards and then what had been previously presented in the city's municipal code. So with respect to Chapter one, these new objective design standards will apply to all new multifamily and mixed use developments here in the city. These standards will not apply to single family developments, and they will also not apply to renovations of existing multifamily developments.

These standards will be in addition to the zoning requirements that are already in place in the city's municipal code. So the underlying zoning standards of R3, those setback requirements or the parking requirements in the commercial zones, those are all still required. These objective design standards are in addition to those other existing requirements. They are essentially replacing our existing design guidelines within the municipal code. One of the provisions that we added within these objective design standards is that an applicant may choose not to apply the objective design standards to their project.

In those cases, that project would be subject to the city's existing standards and would be eligible for that project to be forwarded to the Planning Commission and or reviewed as a discretionary action. Let me back up just a little bit and objective design standards where they're required under state law. If you recall, we had a number of or a housing entitlement project that came before the Planning Commission a few months ago. And we had advised the Planning Commission that you were very limited on the ability to deny a residential project. Currently, under state law, if a project otherwise complies with existing zoning standards, you would not be able to deny that project.

In addition, a city would not be able to apply design guidelines or deny a project based on design guidelines. However, a city can deny a project if it doesn't comply with the objective design standards. So in the future, if a project does not comply with these objective design standards, it could theoretically go through a discretionary review process and or be subject to a denial. However, as I mentioned, so one of the key provisions in the objective design standards is that if an applicant chooses to, they may opt out and then comply with the city's existing design or development standards. Should they do that, they would lose the protections of that they would be guaranteed an approval if they otherwise met all of those zoning standards under the Housing Accountability Act.

So for Chapter two, we kind of we start introducing some site planning, and we discuss various topics such as the site layout, building orientation, pedestrian circulation. So I'm going to show you some of the new requirements and also what the old requirements were. So as you can see previously in the city's design guidelines, multifamily developments were encouraged to have a strong street presence with public entrances orientated towards the street. And then a majority of the unit entrances were accessed from the street or the main open space area. Under the city's proposed objective design standards, the term should would be replaced with a shall.

And so now all building entrances would be required to face the primary street with pedestrian access being provided from the sidewalks. In addition, previously large multifamily developments were encouraged to be clustered or broken into groups of smaller buildings. The objective design standards will now create additional requirements that they will require sites with four or more buildings to be clustered into groups of at least two or more buildings. And then that could be accomplished through those three bullet points there, which are citing the longest facade of each clustered building up to 30 feet of another building, and we're citing the corners of the building within 20 feet. So those are objectionable and measurable requirements that must be met.

As you can see previously, it was should and the use of terms should be clustered into groups of into smaller groups. So similar to the last slide, previously, the majority of those unit entrances were required to be accessed from the street. And then the use of distinctive architectural elements were encouraged to denote the entrances to individual units. Now the objective design standards will require that the front doors be orientated towards the street and that they be visible and that the front elevations emphasize the entries, porches and other living areas. So once again, was pretty similar requirements.

A lot of that was replacing a should with a shall, but clarifying some of those requirements there. With respect to the open space, so this is Chapter three. The new open space requirements are probably the biggest change from the city's existing development standards. As you can see, previously common open space was required, but it was ambiguous to how much or what amenities should be required. So previously, under the existing standards, it would require amenities that were appropriate to the project size.

It would require things like pools, spas, recreation buildings for large projects and then barbecue areas and gazebos for smaller projects. What we have done here in the objective design standards is that we've placed requirements for common amenities based on a project unit size. So a smaller project with three to 10 units would now be required one major or one minor amenity. And then you can see as you get larger, such as a project with 91 to 120 units, a project would then be required four major amenities or three minor amenities. And they could also choose between four or two major and then five minor amenities.

With respect to the types of amenities, we've also now defined what is a major versus what is a minor amenity. So as I mentioned previously, the municipal code didn't necessarily define those major or minor amenities. It also didn't define how many of those amenities were required. So here, we've listed what's a major versus a minor. It should also be noted that amenities can be combined with other types of amenities.

So an example would be, if you have a pool with a clubhouse and a gymnasium, those three would all count as three different major amenities. So if we go through the list here, major amenities include things like private parks with at least 1,000 square feet, clubhouses that are at least seven fifty square feet in size, rooftop terraces, swimming pools and spas, gymnasiums, which have a minimum dimension of six twenty five square feet, hot tubs and then other recreational amenities that are deemed appropriate by the Director. As I mentioned, you can combine those as sort of one amenity, but you would be able to include three of those amenities. So something like a pool, clubhouse and spa would be three major amenities. With respect to the minor amenities, those include things like barbecue areas.

They shall have a minimum of two permanent grills and then a shade structure and two picnic tables. Tennis, pickleball and basketball courts are minor amenities. Tot lots with commercial playground equipment would be a minor amenity. Gazebos and covered seating areas, community gardens with raised planters, courtyards with a minimum of six twenty five square feet, aboveground decorative gas fire pits, which are surrounded by a minimum of four permanent seats would be a minor amenity, Community rooms and with a minimum of 500 square feet would be a minor amenity and other recreational amenities deemed appropriate by the Director. In addition, one of the other things that we did with the amenities is that we also defined what cost like the requirements for what some of those amenities are.

An example is we previously experienced issues with projects that experienced issues with respect to the types of playground equipment that projects were proposing to provide. In a couple of cases, we had residential projects where they proposed playground equipment that was similar in size and scale to what would be like a residential backyard playground equipment, and it was 50 or 60 units. So now within the requirements, you can see that the playground equipment is defined as commercial playground equipment and then some minimum of six twenty five square feet in size of the playground area. In addition, there are also requirements for the minimum size for a pool that was also added to that. So with respect to Chapter four, we introduced building mass and scale and it starts getting into the design aspects of the individual buildings.

So for Facade Modulation, you can see that previously, it suggested avoiding designing buildings that were longer than 125 feet. And then facades of multifamily buildings should be divided into smaller modules that are less than 30 feet in width. So now there once again, there are specific requirements in the ODS that will require building modulation for every 60 feet of building facade. And then for every 125 feet or I'm sorry, 120 square feet of building facade, a major modulation of a minimum of six feet in-depth and 20 feet in length shall occur. Once again, these are fairly similar to previous requirements.

It's just a lot of this is now a shall instead of a should. As you can see, the roofline variation, it was previously encouraged within the existing design guidelines. And that was could have been accomplished with a combination of one, one point five and two story buildings in different roof variations. In the ODS, the roof variation and roof height shall occur at least three feet for every 50 feet of lineal building. So for every 50 lineal feet of building, a change in roof height, a minimum of three feet tall shall occur.

Going into Chapter five, we start talking about some of the materials and finishes. Previously, the existing design guidelines encouraged natural materials that were responsive to the climate, whereas the ODS now requires buildings to be constructed of durable materials such as stucco, natural stone, brick, siding and then precast concrete. Exterior siding may now include manufactured and composite veneer or stone or brick, whereas previously, the synthetic materials were not allowed. And then trim and accent materials could include metal, tiles and then similar types of materials. Also as a requirement now, a minimum of two types of complementary building materials, excluding glass would be required for a building facade.

So previously, architectural embellishments were encouraged in the design guidelines. And then now facade articulation will be achieved with using at least three of the architectural elements that are listed in that table there. These include window variations, moldings around windows, balconies, decorative veneer, decorative light fixtures, decorative gables, decorative moldings and cornices or trellises, trellis structures. Once again, previously things like these architectural embellishments were encouraged but weren't necessarily defined within those design guidelines. Part of the intent of the objective design standards is that this will not only make it easier for staff to review, but also for developers to understand and have more of a clear understanding of what those requirements are.

So with respect to Chapter six, we go into the utilities and lighting and fences. So with respect to the lighting requirements that were listed in the ODS or that are listed in the ODS, they mimic and or match what our existing development standards within the city's municipal code. Previously, within the design guidelines, adequate lighting was required, but pedestrian scale lighting was only encouraged. So pedestrian scale lighting is now required along all walkways and open space areas for within the objective design standards. And then open space areas shall be adequately lit with durable low maintenance fixtures.

So going into the mixed use chapter. Currently, we don't have a mixed use chapter within our city's municipal code. We do it we did allow mixed use development within the Mainstream and Freeway Corridor specific plan, but not within the municipal code. So this is adding some new requirements to the municipal code. In addition, what was existing in the Mainstream and Freeway Corridor specific plan was very limited in terms of what requirements were going to be in place.

So the mixed use standards, they will apply to both vertical and mixed use projects where residential so vertical mixed use where residential is located above the commercial uses on the Ground Floor and then horizontal mixed use where they are located side by side from each other. Some of the key requirements for vertical mixed use developments will include requirements that retail uses will be required to front towards the street and then retail and office uses must be located on the Ground Floor with residential uses located above. For horizontal mixed use, the commercial and residential uses are required to be separated. Commercial uses must be located along the street and then residential uses must be located in the back behind the commercial uses. For both horizontal and vertical mixed use, they're required to provide separate building entrances for the residential component and are required to have separate parking for the commercial and from the residential.

With respect to the design aspects of the mixed use, by and large, many of the design requirements are similar to the articulation and modulating that are already kind of discussed in the municipal code, but they are reiterated for the mixed use developments. In addition, many of the development standards applicable to commercial development would also remain in place. One of the other requirements for mixed use developments is that the residential components, so the open space requirements that would already be required for residential would also still be required for the mixed use developments. The last part is that with the objective design standards, one of the things that we've created now is a checklist that will be required. So the checklist is essentially a summary of all the different requirements.

An applicant, when they submit their application, will be required to submit the checklist. They will check yes or no if they met the requirement. And then there is an area for city response in which we will review it and respond with a response as to why they may not have complied with that requirement. The intention of the objective design centers is that once again it's a clear requirement that could be answered with a yes or no. As I mentioned, many of the requirements that were in place in the design guidelines historically have not necessarily been enforced or have been extremely difficult for city staff to enforce when they use terms like they are guidelines and terms like shall or should I'm sorry, should and they suggest or recommend that you include three different architectural features on the building.

Those are difficult to enforce when sometimes builders are saying, well, it doesn't say I have to, it says I should and I don't want to. These objective design standards will create a clear requirement for what is required. And as I mentioned, it will be able to be answered with a yes or no requirement. One of the key takeaways, though, is that with respect to the compliance with the objective design standards. As I mentioned, a project that does not comply with the objective design standards, It does not mean that it would automatically be sent to the Planning Commission for denial.

There is an aspect where a director is able to modify up to three of the requirements, and it's a 10% deviation from what is existing. In addition, there's also another opt out clause where an applicant can choose to opt out of the requirements of objective design standards. Should they opt out, then it would go through more of a discretionary review process, which currently would be a site plan review that would be reviewed and approved through the DRC level. However, it could be recommended to the Planning Commission if it substantially deviates from what otherwise the requirements are. And so with that, those are just kind of some of the broad changes and some similarities with the objective design standards.

As I mentioned, we're not asking the Planning Commission to take any action tonight. If you have any comments or feedback, we can incorporate that into the standards and then bring that back to the Planning Commission next month. But other than that, if you have any questions, I'm available for any questions.

Thank you, Brian. Anyone have questions, commissioners? Yeah, you answered all my questions, so you read my mind or something, so.

I made some notes on this handout that was provided. So if I go to section 2.4.2, Vehicular Circulation, Page 19 of our handout, the use of asphalt for driveways and walkways is prohibited. Not sure why.

I'm sorry, can you repeat the section number one more time?

2.4.2, vehicular circulation, Section D as in David, the use of asphalt for driveways and walkways is prohibited. Two point four point two vehicles are getting the use of asphalt for driveways and walkways. I just wanted to know why, but that was highly restrictive. I mean, it's cost a lot more money to lay down concrete than it does asphalt. It's a little too restrictive in my opinion.

And then I go to Section 2.5.4, garages individual. Section A, garage doors may occupy no more than 40% of the Internet, street facing doors, enhanced materials such as float. I had a problem with this one is that if you look at some more modern designs or design for security garage like for instance, you look at some of the designs for progressive modern design of a townhome in New York City, for instance, is one that's very well known, I forget who owns it, it's someone of high notoriety. Their brownstone is completely flush. It's metal from top to bottom.

And you can't even see the opening for the garage door, but it's there. So I mean, the pictures are pretty and I understand why you want extra articulation and recessed garage doors that might not if one day someone should design a more modern, I think that's highly restrictive. Then I move to section

Can I answer a couple of those questions real

quick? Sure.

So for the first one, with respect to the asphalt for the driveways and walkways, so that is only referring to the driveway approach within the public right of way. So where you have your driveway approach right before it's the sidewalk, that would be concrete. So we wouldn't allow an asphalt driveway approach. And then the walkways, it's also clarified elsewhere, but a pedestrian walkway is a concrete walkway. But this is not referring to a vehicle like drive aisle or anything like that. That would be a four foot wide pedestrian walkway.

Okay. So sidewalk?

So this is on-site. So on-site circulation. So yes, sidewalk, but it's not a this is a pedestrian sidewalk if you will.

Okay. Okay. Well, that doesn't say that. But at least that's not the way I interpret it.

We can clarify that. But, yeah, that's how that would be interpreted. Okay.

Do you want to make a comment on the garage doors?

For the garage doors Do

you understand did I articulate what my problem was with that?

With the garages fronting the street and being within the front yard setback and being recessed? Right. So remember part of the emphasis is that one, have building entrances and pedestrian entrances orientated towards the front. The second part of it is that, I guess, you want those pedestrian and front doors orientated towards the front. I would also add that currently, the requirement in the design guidelines that's encouraged is that no more than 60% of the front yard setback area can be devoted to parking.

So this is saying it's 40%. So we're actually reducing that a little bit. But in order for a project to still have pedestrian orientation and to front the public right of way, you would discourage the use of garages that front the street. Where garages do front the street, we're asking for some enhancements there. That's an 18 inches recess. The garages are recessed. They include some enhancements like windows.

Well, mean, that could be I understand what you wrote. But hey, I live in a beautiful home that was custom designed, and I have recessed garage doors and a modern design house. Remember this

is also multi Being from

a city, a large city, people hang out in those recessed areas for maybe well, other than I just wanna stand here for a moment reasons, you know, maybe for burglary or other mischievous activities. Anyway, okay, that's not a big point. I mean these are just comments. And then I go to 5.3, Colors A, Section four. Accent colors may be a different color to accentuate and contrast the building's facades.

The use of strong, bright, and unnatural colors shall be avoided. So is that a definite not allowing bright colors? Because we just repainted our commercial building on Asbury Road, and we put a bright, bright yellow on it, which I questioned from the beginning, but I should never question the architect because his final it looks great. You know? He used, dark gray, off white, and then bright yellow. And and I just thought, oh my gosh. You know? But it's fantastic. It looks great. So I think this is too restrictive.

Again, it's something clean that up a little bit to make it also a little more clear.

If some design designer, you know, progressive designer comes in once. I mean, if you look at that new apartment complex down off the 15 on the east side on the east side of the 15 in Fontana, Those are colors I would not have chosen. I'm not a big fan of the choice and those are some bright colors. So they're being designed that way right now, the big boys. And then if I move to Section 6.3, utility mechanical equipment, Section F, electric and other metering equipment and panels shall be painted to match it.

So there's nowhere in here where it talks about EV charging stations, which I know are requirement now for even small residential projects. So are you saying that those ugly chargers, which take up a lot of room, by the way, at least especially the fast charger ones, they don't have to be hidden from view? I mean, they just had to pay be painted matching the color of the complex. That might not necessarily be doable because these things come already finished. I don't think you can choose them in red, black, or blue. They come as they're manufactured.

But this is saying metering equipment, not charging.

I just didn't I didn't there was no mention of EV charging stations. So I

just Yes. So the EV charging stations, that would be something if we were to address, we would like to address that within the municipal code itself under a separate section, not necessarily through these objective design standards. And that would be applicable to all developments, industrial included, not just specific to the multifamily. But yes, that would be a separate municipal code section.

Okay. And then my last two comments were back on this the same thing you have up on the screen, Section 3.2D. I'm not a big fan of having above ground gas fire pits. I think they're a fire hazard. I think lately with the community stressing on how dangerous fires are in this area, the fact that the county has now pretty much put all of his spray in the high fire zone. I wouldn't allow this. I want this stricken. You can put lighted fire pits if you want, you know, fake fire by light. I mean, have such things.

Yeah.

So I pull that out. And then, I have two comments. I'm sorry. I noticed that on the carport, you didn't allow any flat carport roof structure. So if a like we have in these municipal buildings across the street that the county has has and a lot of schools have added covered parking to their parking lots, flat covered parking to accommodate solar panels.

So I think that not allowing flat covered carports in a mixed use or

We can clarify that for the purposes of solar, if that would be allowed for the purposes of solar. But otherwise, I think the intent there is that it's an unarticulated plain metal flat or flat metal carport. We would like to see that either the roof incorporate the solar features and or a roof material that matches the building. But if it were solar

But I think that I think your book in here, it said flat, no flat allowed.

Yes. I see where you're going with it. For solar, for the purposes of solar, if they were to design it flat for solar, I think we could look at adding something in there to allow for something like that or at least address that a solar carport would be allowed.

Okay. And then my last comment was about the lockable 100 cubic feet. So that's different than square feet, isn't it? What is that in square feet? That's a smaller amount. That's not 100 square feet, right?

Yes. 100 square feet, that would be

10 by 10. So 100 cubic feet is how many? Who's the math? Who's the engineer? Okay. Well, then maybe I don't have a problem with this. I just thought, wow, 100 square feet. I'm just reading it out, it says cubic. So that's a lot smaller storage area. Okay. And I think that's all the comments. Well written document. I didn't see any spelling errors.

Well, thank you. No, we appreciate those comments. We'll certainly address those. And when we bring it back next month, we'll kind of go over each one and how we addressed it.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Commissioner Aman, one question. These new objective design standards look like they're really tailored towards the new mixed zoning that's coming in. But it starts out addressing that these draft objective design standards for multifamily and mixed use development. So since it will be multifamily, is that going to apply to like a four to six units high density residential project that's not in a mixed use area?

Correct. So this applies to anything three units or more and or if it's a mixed use development with at least 25% residential. Yes, 25% residential.

Is there any conflict with small mixed use developments not being able to achieve these objective design standards?

If there were to be, once again, they would have that opt out provision. Part of the reason why we also wanted to include the opt out provision is you have a number of developments like on Sequoia, for instance, that you have vacant parcels that are next to some of those developments where they might expand an existing apartment project. And in cases like that, it's going to be difficult for them to meet these requirements. But I can understand how they might want to mirror the existing development and continue their development on a vacant parcel. Something like that, we allowed that opt out provision. Also, it's three or more units or like three units or four units and they opt out, I think we're going to give them some consideration given that it's only three or four units.

Just thinking about that, it sounds like you've considered that.

Thank you. Thank you.

Yes, I really don't have a comment other than going through the write up and reading that how code was implemented, ADA requirements was kind of implemented. I saw that there was not a lot of conflict in there. So I thought it was, again, like the other commissioners, it was encouraging to read. A lot of paper, though, but well written. All right. So I think that was it. Okay. So we're pretty much done with all the agenda items. Moving on to Planning Division reports. Can we move on to that one?

Okay. Yes. So the only thing I would add to tonight's presentation is that once the objective design standards are adopted, the next step after that is that we are looking at updating our municipal code for various sections as well. So that will be for the next year, two year process, we'll be updating our municipal code. Some of those things that you mentioned like solar and the electric vehicle charging stations, that will all be included once we get to more of a comprehensive development code update.

The last thing I wanted to mention with respect to the objective design standards is that next month when we bring this to you, we will also be bringing to you some clarifications in the municipal code and or updates to the municipal code that reflect the increased densities that were already allowed to the general plan update. So there'll be some cleanup items in the municipal code. That's going be going with the subject design standards next month. I'm not presenting those municipal code changes tonight, but they largely reflect the increased densities that are already permitted as a part of the general plan update. But really what I wanted to get at was that starting here in the next few months, the next step after the objective design standards will be a comprehensive municipal code update.

And we'll have a series of workshops and stakeholder meetings to kind of address some of those new standards and what those standards could be or how the Planning Commission, City Council, public want to see those standards drafted. So that's it.

All right. Thank you. Do you have any other items to report?

No. Okay.

Director?

Good evening, Planning Commissioners.

I hope everybody is having a wonderful evening. I hope you found that Brian's presentation was as informative as I did. We look forward to bringing this and other items back to you. So my only update, last month I had a chance to present a comprehensive economic development update to the City Council. I will be bringing that same presentation to you at our next meeting. I hope you, in advance, will find that it's as informative as I hope it will be. So thank you again for your attendance tonight, for your service to our community, and we look forward to the next meeting.

Thank you very much. Alright. Planning Commissioner comments.

Looking at me.

You're always for sale.

Alright. The only thing I really have that has been on I I see it on a regular basis is the school district seems to have their own agenda on traffic control on the streets. And I don't I don't believe we have a permit in place that they can go out and do traffic control. They're sending their proctors out in the street on I Avenue and who knows where else to, move cars around. They've got delineate.

They've even painted the street now for their, cones to go out there. So, this has been something that's been ongoing from way back when we used to review the bus drop off locations. And I don't know. I I think, you know, they think they can set their own agenda and within our district, and I don't think that's right, for the people that are driving past there that are being impacted by this. I know we're already being impacted by the cars that are trying to get in and out of Starbucks on Main Street and the cars that are trying to get in and out of, In N Out Burger on Bear Valley Road that back traffic up.

You have to think way ahead to get out of the way of these vehicles. And there's and and I understand there's really not a whole lot we can do with that. That's just traffic once you get in there. But, you know, I I see this, and then I on top of that, I go by and see work being done at Juniper Elementary. And they're doing a lot of work on-site, but there's nothing off-site. Are they excluded from doing off-site work? If they're most people, if they're doing remodels and updates in a commercial type area, there's gonna be conditions. And I don't see anything unless there's something I'm missing on this. I could

speak into that actually. What? I could speak into that if I can. Okay. Can I respond to him being the architect that's actually in charge of that project?

Oh, you're in charge of the one at Juniper? Are they bringing in new buildings?

They are. They're bringing in seven buildings.

And they're not doing any off sites?

Correct. Because everything within the property boundary is under the governance of the Division of State Architect. So there is no requirements because they're doing that. There is no requirements other than to comply with DSA and code They're not doing anything off-site. They're not doing any utility connections or street improvements or anything like that.

But they are creating probably additional impact because they're going to add more buildings, more children, everything else. Now we've got this new storage that took up their parking on West side of the street.

That was about their parking. I know. I was just saying what they thought They used was it. Their Correct. And and the school district has been advised by myself and my boss to that their their site is extremely impacted. Oh, absolutely. So if you've ever been there when school lets out or goes in I

live right around the corner. So I deal with that on a regular basis day in and day out. Right. So that's why I say it becomes quite evident to me on I try to avoid it whenever I can, knowing when school's letting out

or something. It's very bad, and I I've seen it firsthand.

And you've got all that right away there that should be and that's why I'm thinking be they should be conditioned to take those power poles down, put it underground, put their curb and gutter in where it should be instead of that little berm and that little turnout that everybody tries to turn into right just before Smoke Tree there. So it just sits in my crawl that I can sit there and watch the school district continue to do these type of things, especially the new school down the way on I Avenue. That's a charter school, if I'm not mistaken.

One.

But I know we had that issue with bus parking at, oh gosh, Joshua Circle, all those. They came in and gave us this hoopla about how they were gonna put the buses over here and this, that, and the other. And as soon as they found out that it wouldn't work, which anybody that's not blind would have noticed that, they just switched it all back around the way they wanted it and impeded traffic their way. So just one of my pet peeves, I guess.

Right. And I could say that so I hope I I could say that other jurisdictions, other cities have approached school districts and approached to their superintendents and their assistant superintendents and just had a meeting and kind of discussed planning notice that it impacts the city and the traffic. Some of the stuff in Apple Valley Unified School District have had sites that were similarly impacted. Sycamore Rocks is one of them. And we did another one with Sitting Bull and where we did very large drop offs for, you know, stacking depths where projected stacking depths, not current stacking depths.

So that was very favorable for the neighborhood, so something like that could happen. But as a company, you know, we're just the architects, but we have advised the school district multiple times.

Well, I don't doubt that. And I know Joshua Circle, Juniper Elementary, all those were built back when most of the kids up here were bused. They weren't their parents weren't driving them to school on a regular basis. 500. So now you've impacted the school buses and the people driving. So, again, that's just I I I see this day in and day out. I know as far as I I know that you could send out the city can send out inspectors or code or somebody and have them remove the cones off the street, have the proctors stay off the street because they don't they're not permitted to be there. You know? It's not like they're having a crossing guard or something. I I saw an article on that just recently, but that's a whole different story.

But I just yeah. It just bothers me when I see and when somebody gets hurt, who's gonna be the liable party there? Because it will be. Some Proctor somewhere along the line, unfortunately, is gonna be taken out from somebody who's trying to run past them or do something else. And so I'm just you know, I know other people have gotta see it and I just that's that's just me.

Earl, that's it. Okay.

Tim?

Well, just want to say I'm glad to be back. I was off at the last meeting that the Planning Commissioners had and I want to thank them for all their great input with regard to establishing or continuing pallet businesses. City Council was made aware that the Planning Commission made some recommendations to allow pallet businesses under some revised conditions, but they were not interested in reviewing those or discussing them at their meeting. I was a little disappointed at that. I'm not a real fan of emergency ordinances.

I think they put a lot more people in jeopardy than the city really realizes, not only on the applicant side, but on those consultants and contractors supporting those applicants. I am on the positive note liking all the new development in Hesperia. I think it's fantastic. I know we had at, one of the meetings, people were not happy to see that a new Starbucks was coming or McDonald's on 7th And Main on the South West Corner, but I think it's fabulous. I think I think all new development, the new Mr.

Car Wash looks fantastic when I drive down Main on the other side of the bridge. So excited to see the new the old shopping center getting revitalized where, I always want to say what was over there? What was that story? It was one of our with the new car washes going in and then the gym. Yeah. That's fantastic. With regards to In N Out, I know we saw their plans come through for a parking lot just south of them, but I don't see any activity there. I was kind of surprised at that. And I drove by the Amazon, mega Amazon site. So I'd be curious to know because I know some people have been asking me how long is that Main Street gonna be torn up.

It's quite the bit of backup right now. I know they're working furiously, but that's a bit of an of an issue. Other than that, missed family night out, but I know other members of my family were there and said it was a wonderful event. And I'm glad to be back. Look forward to all your future hard work and continued hard work.

Tim? I'll

keep it short. Just thank you again to staff and all the work that you guys put in. Everything comes across really professional. I can read into it. I did notice one spelling error here. I drove by this document. I don't think it was prepared by staff. But as I was taking a look at the proposed projects here, it said the Mohave Street and East Avenue. I could not find it anywhere, but I I assumed it was E Avenue. So just noting that that's in there.

Also, to pick up on Dale's comment about schools, I am concerned about Lime Street Elementary. The now that school's back in session, the the drop off, the the kids young kids walking across the street randomly at all different spots, sometimes with parents, sometimes without. Cars get backed up there, and they're busy to get home, get off work, or go to work. I don't know. But, it's unsafe.

So I I think we should definitely see what is within the ability to take some control measures or put a, law enforcement officer there to at least see what's going on and do what they can do. It's hot. Drink water. I don't know where we're at as far as cooling stations for the public, anybody out there, but we gotta be observant of the heat that's out there right now and keep our our city safe. That's all I've got. Thank you.

Alright. Yeah, I I too echo that the the concern with our schools. It it has been a big issue for many years and so, any encouragement the city can can help with nudging the school district in in any way in in forums. But it costs a lot of money to do these things and so but it all starts by, you know, pulling a plan together, getting public cooperation and things like that. So I appreciate the discussion today, absolutely, and it's nice to hear other people.

At times, I feel a little crazy showing up to school district meetings and being the only person in the room saying that. So it's nice to have people echo that. Also, too, the presentation was put together very well. I agree with Commissioner Almond. It was done professionally. I'm not gonna check its spelling as these two do so well. I'll leave it to them. But with that being said, we're gonna go ahead and adjourn the meeting until, oh, September 11. Goodness. At 06:30, these chambers. Meeting adjourned.