Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

How you doing? Welcome. Let's

go. Let me see. I'm sorry.

Testing my test.

I was dealing with Verizon on the real. Oh, he is. Oh my god. Okay. Okay. We're busy one tonight.

When it's my item, but yeah.

Okay. be a very unique meeting right now. Okay, the time is now 501. I'm going to call this meeting to order. Madame Clerk, will you please take roll call?

Commissioner Marsh here. Commissioner Marshall here. Commissioner Thomas here. Vice Chair Messen is absent. We have quorum. Thank you, madam clerk. At this time, pursuant to our planning commissioner rules in u absence of our chair and vice chair, we will need to move uh to elect a temporary presiding officer until the vice chair arrives at the meeting. Uh madame clerk, will you accept nominations? I'm calling nominations for temporary chair. Does anybody have any nominations? I'll nominate uh Paul Marsh. Commissioner Marsh, do you accept the nomination?

Yes. Are there any further nominations? Hearing no further nominations, I'll take a vote. Commissioner Marshall, I Yes. Commissioner Marsh, yes.

Commissioner Thomas, Commissioner Marsh is temporary chair. Okay, good evening everybody. Okay, so what we're going to do now is have the invocation and the pledge of allegiance. uh the invocation by Commissioner Thomas and the uh pledge of allegiance by Commissioner Marsh. Shall we bow our heads? Heavenly Father, we come to you today first thanking you for your many blessings. Father, we ask that you guide us as we go through our deliberations today. Father, just fill our minds with the things that you know necessary to make the decisions that need to be made here today. Guide us, Father. Father, we ask your blessings on our city council, our planning commission, all the committees and staff here. Father, we also ask special blessings on our community in Jesus name I pray. Amen. Okay, if everybody please stand, face the flag, place your right hand over your heart. 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.

Okay. At this uh at this point, we'll do uh we'll do public comments. Um, this would be a time for the public to speak on agenda items or on issues not posted on the agenda, providing those issues are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the planning commission. Those who desire to comment on a public hearing item may wish to reserve their remarks until that particular public hearing has been opened. So, um, do we have any speaker cars for public uh comments?

We do. Our first speaker is Carlos Rodriguez on item number six. Good evening, Carlos Rodriguez with the BIA Southern California. On behalf of the BIA and our members, we thank you for your unanimous vote on September 10th meeting directing staff to prepare a resolution to initiate the municipal code amendment process. Tonight, we urge your support of the previously requested resolution option B, adopting resolution number P-25-032, which will begin preparation and analysis of a draft municipal code amendment for your consideration, ideally next month. As noted in the staff report, the commission requested a pilot program outline and a comparison of vinyl fencing to the city's current masonry wall standards. With your adoption of this resolution before you this evening, we respectfully ask you to also direct staff to include the following parameters. One, the use of the BIA vinyl fence standard as the only allowable vinyl fence option in the pilot program. Additional direction would include for your consideration update update of drawings to reflect a concrete continuous footing or metal barrier which we would love to talk with you about next month. Also providing direction on vinyl fencing being limited to side and rear property lines not facing public streets or project parameters within all R1 tracks

and PUDs. All highlighted in our previous presentation last month. Vinyl fencing has been approved across Southern California as a best practice for new home construction with support from both Firewise Wildfire Experts and the High Desert Association of Realtors. Uh there's a letter of support for your consideration as well today. Uh staff has raised concerns about fire risk. Uh however, Firewise has confirmed that vinyl fencing is commonly approved in fire protection plans and is actually uh safer certainly than than wood, being less combustible. Importantly, Victorville's recent adopted local responsibility area maps include no very high fire severity zones. Your current LS rece do not have any very high fire severity zones, meaning the zone zero restrictions cited in the staff report are not applicable in the city of Victorville. The proposed standards is fully compliant with state building code requirements for Victorville's fire map designations. Again, the vinyl fencing we're proposing today is in alignment with your fire map designations. In conclusion, we respectfully urge your vote of support for option B, the resolution that you asked last month to be brought forward today. We ask for your support to follow through and allowing staff to prepare a draft municipal code amendment for your review next month. Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Tim Roberts on item number six.

Good evening, commissioners. Last month, this body voted 50 in support of moving forward with the evaluation of the proposed pilot program. We were surprised to see a staff recommendation against the unanimous commission action. In their opposition to your request, the staff brought up four key elements against the pilot program, and I'm appreciate the opportunity to address those directly. Repeating a little bit of what Carlos just mentioned, first is the fire safety issue. Uh, as you, as Carlos mentioned, the city recently adopted these fire severity zones. As you already are familiar, these maps designate land under state responsibility into one of three zones representing risk severity from wildfires. The zones start at moderate and include high and very high. Throughout the state, areas that fall into very high zones are encouraged to implement various building code hardening measures, including the concepts of zone zero, which keeps any combustible materials at least 5 feet away from structures. The staff report references these zone zero building code standards as a reason not to consider vinyl fencing. Within the entire 74 square miles of Victorville, there's not a single block of land that has very high fire hazard zones. So, the simple truth is that zone zero requirements simply do not apply under either state or local code. Even if it did apply, which it does not, the pilot program as proposed includes masonry block house return walls. The location of the vinyl fencing would already be compliant with zone zero by the fact that the minimum sideyard setbacks are five feet. Second issue brought up by staff is pets and neighbors. The design enhancements that we're proposing have been discussed at length, so I won't take your time in going over them again. The staff report acknowledges these changes, but suggests quote they do not provide the same protection that a masonry block wall provides. End quote. as if to suggest masonry walls have stopped all animal control issues and vinyl fence would open the floodgates to these issues. Again, a quick review of the animal control incidents that staff report provided is is in one of the appendices. The first sheet, as provided by the

staff, 11 of the 50 incidents include references to dogs jumping over fences or going through open gates. These facts are ignored in the staff report. vinyl fence or black wall would not address dogs jumping over fences or going through open gates. We strong we stand strongly behind the quality and strength of the design developed specifically to address these concerns. Third is noise. Noise concerns at the planning level typically come from street traffic, not from backyard to another. That's why all perimeter and street return walls remain blocked. Inside the track, vinyl fences serve only as privacy dividers. The staff report introduces this notion of STC ratings as an argument against vinyl. The simple truth is that noise coming from your neighbors next door will be heard in your yard regardless of your privacy wall material. And lastly, durability. The staff report again makes reference to the fact that vinyl isn't as durable as masonry, which of course it is not, but it is durable. The system is engineered with 95 mph wind loads with shorter 6oot panels, steel inserts, and deeper footings. It carries a 20-year warranty, and damaged pieces can be replaced individually by do-it-yourselfers, and something you simply cannot do with lock walls.

Your time is up. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jennifer Chung on item number six.

Good evening, planning commissioners. Um, I'm not as tall. Tonight, we respectfully ask that the planning commission pass a resolution to initiate the code amendment process to allow the limited use of vinyl fencing within track boundaries, side and rear yards only, as we've discussed, as part of the 24-month pilot program. To be clear, this resolution simply opens the dialogue. It does not approve the product. It allows staff and the commission to move forward with drafting a proposal under specific parameters we've outlined um designed specifically for Victorville's conditions. This proposal is ultimately about making home ownership more attainable. Housing affordability, as you know, is at an all-time low, and families are struggling to qualify even for entry-level homes. The goal of this pilot is to reduce barriers to home ownership by allowing a time-tested, high-quality product that lowers construction costs without sacrificing safety, quality, or design. Allowing final f fencing for interior privacy walls can create roughly savings of $6,000 to $13,000 per home. Saving that savings that builders use to directly help home buyers. At our Jasper community here in Victorville, we are offering up to $30,000 per home to help families buy down interest rates, and even then, many are unable to qualify. Every responsible cost savings makes a difference. At Pacific Communities, we've been building homes across SoCal for more than 30 years, and we've used vinyl in the majority of our communities as privacy fencing. We have never had a single customer service or warranty issue, including at our Brookside community right here in Victorville, which has stood for over 15 years without one fence related call or replacement. This is a time-tested, low-risk product already used successfully in dozens of

SoCal cities, including Palmdale, Meny, My Muretta, Tmacula, Ontario, and Rancho Cukamonga in both entry level and luxury neighborhoods. And importantly, this pilot doesn't change Victorville's character. All perimeter and straightfacing walls remain block, preserving the community's look and sound standards. Vinyl fencing applies only to interior side and rear yards as privacy fencing. The enhanced design ensures safety, durability, and strength. And as we often say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Many home buyers tell us that block walls feel institutional, while vinyl offers a softer, more inviting appeal, that classic white picket fence look that represents the dream of home ownership. In short, this is a balanced, practical step that maintains Victorville's high standards while helping more families overcome the affordability gap and achieve home ownership. Thank you for your time and for your continued partnership in helping Victorville families achieve home ownership. We also welcome the opportunity to be called upon if any questions arrive beyond our threeminut comment card. Thank you. We have no additional speakers for general public comments. We do have one speaker for item number four which we'll call during the public hearing of that item. Okay, with that um are um are there any are there anybody are there any other people in the audience that want to make uh any comments under the um um general public comments one is the public hearing item so we can call you once the public hearing is open for that item. Okay. So, with that then uh I'll go

ahead and close uh the public comments and we'll move to um the next item which is okay uh special orders of the day. Um okay so tonight uh we are recognizing Rob Kurt for his service as a planning uh planning commissioner. Um very proud service at that. So Mr. Um, sir, We have a PowerPoint. PowerPoint, please. Thank you. Good afternoon all. This item is being presented to recognize Rob's Kurt's 21 years of dedicated service to the city of Victorville as planning commissioner and a large number of those years serving as the chairman. Mr. Kurt, if you will please join me for recognition.

Missur's tenure spanning from 2001 to 2010 and again from 2013 to 2025 has truly shaped the Victorville community for generations to come. Excuse me. The role of planning commissioner is not just about drawing lines on a map and reviewing new development. It's about creating a vision for the future. And for over two decades, Mr. Kurt has been a leader in shaping the future of Victorville. During Mr. service of the city of Victorville. The city has addressed a host of rewarding and beneficial land use and zoning documents that have undoubtedly led to enhance enhanced development through the city. These include the creation of the city's development code as well as the creation and implementation of the city's residential, commercial, and industrial design guidelines. Mr. Kur's time on the planning commission is reflected in some staggering numbers. During his tenure, we've seen over 100% population growth and created over 18,900 new housing units. This kind of growth requires commitment to solve problems, a dedication to the community, and you've provided those foundational traits while continually working to implement the municipal code. Additionally, during the 21-year span Mr. Kurt has served the city, he's had oversight over the adoption of five separate planning developments. the adoption of over or overhaul of seven different specific plans and multiple updates to the city's general plan including the adoption of seven seven I'm sorry four separate cycles of the housing the housing element frustrates me so much I lose lose what I say beyond housing Rob's time in the planning commission has included the advancement of industrial development throughout the city these efforts

efforts are showcased where Mr. Kur's efforts have helped restore 4,500 jobs and sparked the development of approximately 4.5 million square feet of industrial space bringing major employers like Amazon, Boeing, and Mars Peter City. Additionally, the Foxboro Industrial Park added another 2.1 million square feet of space and welcomed major businesses like Goodyear Tire and American Logistics. Perhaps most visibly to the community, Rob has been instrumental in numerous transformational projects that have changed the face of Victorville. This includes the development of 10 new hotels, the Amazon Fulfillment Center, as well as vital community anchors like hospital expansions, the Victorville City Library, and the Victorville Wellness Center. Additionally, Rob has approved large commercial shopping centers throughout the city, including major development along US Highway 385 and Interstate 50. Rob, your dedication, your insight, and your unwavering commitment have left an undeniable mark on the physical, economic, and social fabric of this city. And I personally owe you a debt of gratitude for your support of city staff and your steadfast leadership throughout your years of service. Thank you. Thank you for your contributions to the city of Thank you all. That was a a a really cool presentation. Thanks, Alex. Um I think tonight it was it was a little weird sitting in the audience. I think this is maybe only the second time in my life that I wasn't sitting actually at the dis but sitting out in the obvious out in the audience and um Alex I did notice that there are some typos or

faults on these um name tags on the font. You got bold and large small so maybe you want to take care of that. Never noticed it because I was always up here but um yeah it's it's been a really good ride. I've really really enjoyed all these years um being involved with the city of Victorville. I've seen so many um young people come in and and build their way up, you know, through the ranks up up to, you know, upper management and such and it's it's neat to see that. Means I've been around a long time and I do have always um considered Victorville kind of, you know, my business professional family. So um once again, I've enjoyed it. Thank you all the um professionalism here. Um, when I first started, I've seen multiple different planning directors and and staff, but I'd say over the last seven or eight years, the city has really gotten strongest with most recent Alex. Everything I've seen and worked with him is nothing but common sense and fair even during the tough things. And before him was um Scott Webb and I really learned a lot from him. and even during the, you know, tough times, stressful times, um, you know, his, um, you know, he just his common sense and his, um, calming demeanor always seemed to, you know, benefit this city and and the commission. And of course, working with all the staff up here and these commissioners, I've seen a lot of commissioners, a lot of great commissioners. This is the best. Thank you guys. So, with that, I say farewell and um, keep up the good work, everybody.

Um if if it's okay at this point, I mean if there's some uh words, some uh additional words uh commissioners would like to input. Is that okay?

Okay. Starting with uh Commissioner [Applause] Rob, I'd like to just say that uh it's been a real pleasure working with you. I've learned a lot from you and you talk about calm demeanor. Uh you have a very calm demeanor as well. Uh which gives I think all of us newbies uh a lot of confidence up here. We're going to miss you and uh hope to see you again soon. Uh Rob, I wish you were up here right now. Um but no, it's been a pleasure working with you. Learned a lot. One of the things that um I will always remember and cherish about you is that when I first became uh got first got appointed um as a planning commissioner, you were the first call that uh I received, you know, to meet and kind of go over, you know, what the job, you know, job duties are and what to expect and everything. And that gave me uh you know, an element of comfort coming in. So, you know, I appreciate that and I always remember that. Um, I'm glad you're not, you know, you moved out of I'm glad you're not moving out of the area completely, you know, so we still will have, you know, contact and everything. So, you know, again, you know, best wishes to you and your family and, you know, I'm going to miss you. We're going to miss you. Thank you.

Yeah, Rob, I just wanted to echo what everyone else is saying. I mean, I think that you have left really big shoes up here to fill. Um, you've been around for two decades. That's legacy. And I think that um I think your assessment is 100% accurate. There's uh there's a lot of professionalism here in the city of Victorville. There's a a very high bar and I think that um coming in and sitting on the planning commission over the last uh year has been um has been really it's been really eye opening and really um wonderful how professional and how thoughtful uh everything is. It's not like that in every city and and I think that your leadership has really helped to set the bar there and so um we're going to miss you. I hope that um you'll be out there in the audience um more often. Um I hope that you will you'll continue to come here and um and hopefully you'll be back at some point. I mean, you know, it's easy to move um from one part of the high desert to the other and uh and so we hope to maybe at some point um see you back up here on the dis. All right. So, with that, uh oh, with that, I'd like to give, you know, give uh um Rob uh another round of applause for the good work that he's done for the city. Okay. Um All right. Moving on to um our first business of order uh is uh item number one uh tenative parcel map uh with environmental exemptions to allow for the consolidation of 41 existing vacant residential lots. Uh so uh Mr. Um,

Commissioner Marsh, if I may, uh, there is one new special orders of the day item, uh, reorganization of planning commission members. Um, I would, uh, provide following input that, um, you in your role as presiding officer can reorganize the, uh, agenda items at your discretion. So, if you would like to postpone that item until um the missing planning commission member arrives or the end of the meeting, whichever occurs first, that is absolutely within your authority as a presiding officer to ensure that all commission members are present.

Yes, that that's what I would like to do to postpone it until all members are present. Okay. So, uh uh um uh would you uh Mr. uh Heriki, uh would you uh kindly introduce uh item number one? Absolutely. Thank you. Uh Commissioner Marsh, uh Mina Morgan, our associate planner, is the author of this item and he is presenting accordingly.

Thank you. Uh good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission. Item one is plan case number PL25-000010 is a tenative parcel map with an environmental exemption to allow for the consolidation of 41 existing vacant residential lots from track map number 14627 into a single parcel which will then be merged with a second vacant parcel parcel number one resulting in one consolidated parcel intended for the establishment of an elementary school on a property zoned R1 single family residential located at the northeast and northwest corners of Winona Street and 6th Avenue. As proposed, the applicant is requesting the approval of the proposed of the proposed tenative parcel map to combine previously recorded 41 lot single family subdivision, which is about 10 acres in size with another 10 acre parcel, creating one consolidated parcel of approximately 20 acres. The tenative parcel map includes vacating a portion of 6th Avenue to consolidate the 20 acre site for future school development. As conditioned, the proposal complies with all applicable title 16 standards, including minimum lot area and dimensions. Lastly, staff has provided LA addition memo before you for your consideration with an update to two uh of the engineering condition of approval conditions number 16 and 17 to require additional right-of-way dedication to accommodate a safe uh turning radius at the intersection of Hamoa Road and 6th Avenue in accordance with city standards. With that, staff recommends that the planning commission conduct a public hearing, receive testimony regarding the proposed project and take the following action. Find the project categorically exempt under section 15315 of the California Environmental Quality Act and adopt resolution number P-25-031

approving case number PL25-000010 subjects to the revised conditions of approval. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Um are there any uh technical questions from the plan uh from the commissioners regarding this item? Okay. Um uh with that then I'll I'll open a public uh public hearing. Uh Madame Clerk, are there any um requests to speak?

Yes. Our first speaker is Christina Skipper. Hi. Um, I actually live a couple hundred feet from the site where they're proposing to build the school. We actually bought the house about six months ago. Um, and I have lived There are schools very close by prior and I do know what that means. Um, it means, you know, children throwing trash on your lawns. They walk by. It means hearing loudspeakers that they speak over in the morning very early. Uh, it means people blocking your driveway and, you know, that are coming to pick up their children. Um, blocking your driveway. And so my husband and I were quite careful when we were looking for a home to purchase to buy one that um did not have, you know, a school very close by um and that was zoned for single family only. So um you know, we're not super excited at the idea that kind of none of that's going to matter now because we're going to make that special exception um for this in particular. I also think that the environmental assessment should be followed. You have a lot of uh native wildlife and plant life in the desert and um I don't think that it should be uh kind of dismissed that easily. Um so yeah, that's it. Our next speaker is Marisol Rodriguez.

I'm very shy to talk, but um I'm here for my neighbors. We're in front of the property. I have been living there for 20 years. Very common. My biggest worry is when it rains, the water pours in my driveway. My biggest worry is that are they going to make sidewalks to prevent the water coming in? If not, I'm just going to run and sell my house and get out. Um I don't know. I thought it was going to be a picture showing where was going to be the entrance, but there's no pictures. That's all that's all my concerns. the water, the sidewalks, if we're getting sidewalks in the other side of the of the school. My address is 16231 Winona Street. Thank you.

There are no additional speakers. Okay. Uh if uh if if there's no other speakers um that wish to speak to on this item, I'll now call There is actually Commissioner.

Hi, my name is Jessica and I live on Apple Tree Lane. This would be directly in my backyard. I am the same. I purchased this house 10 years ago and I went out of my way to not be around to school. I work in radiology. I work home. The noise pollution is going to be detrimental and it's going to make me have to move. I'm also worried about the traffic since building the newer homes over there. People are racing up and down the streets now and there's it's not going to be safe. There is nowhere I don't know how they're going to get parking in that very small lot. Even if we combine those two for buses, for parents, sorry for parents, for vents and parking and buses. There's no way that this is going to be safe for my kids playing up and down the sidewalks. I really hope you guys take that in consideration approving this. Not to mention, there are six schools within a two mile radius of elementaryaries. I don't understand why there has to be another one. So, I hope that is taken consideration. I don't want this to happen at all and I will fight this every single meeting. Thank you. There are no additional speakers.

Okay. With that, I'll close the uh I'll close the public hearing and I'll bring it back to the commission for a motion.

M Mr. uh guiding officer, may I provide some some insight into the comments provided?

Yes. Um I I think it's important to note that this proposal isn't it is by the school district and the ultimate intent intent is to develop a school on this site. Um at this time it is just tenative parcel map to or track map I'm sorry parcel map to uh essentially combine the lots into one um and remove the uh rightway that's there for I believe it's 6th Avenue. uh this was seen as the most um the clearest way to accomplish all the goals of getting rid of unneeded rightaway, combining all the lots into a single parcel. Um it is something uh that could potentially even be done through a lot merger which is an administrative function and not subject to discretionary approval. Um, I would also know, um, ultimately when the school does, um, plan, if they plan to to develop this site, um, which I I believe the intent is there, which is why they're merging the parcels together. Um, school districts aren't required to go through city approval processes. Um, state law allows uh, school boards to act um, on their own accord and approve a project as long as they vote to supersede city authority. Um, at this point in time, the city's been successful in engaging with the local school districts to ensure that we have a seat at the table to ensure we can address concerns such as parking, such as, uh, traffic and access and so on and so forth. Um, so um, if if the school district ultimate ultimately decides to proceed forward at the site, um, under that um, understanding that we currently have, we would have the opportunity to see that project again um, through our our city planning process and through the entitlement process. Um this parcel map does not provide any entitlement to develop a school. Um it is solely for the purpose of combining the lots into a single lot and removing unnecessary rightway. Um the other part of that just so so the the um commission is clear um it's my understanding um that school districts

the way they decide on locations from schools um is based on a few factors. Um it's based on population, it's based on new housing starts. Um if we could go back to the aerial image that shows uh the lots in the area annually the school district um asks city staff every school district city of Victorville ask city staffs what kind of construction we anticipate in the vicinity in their within their districts. So as you as you'll know north of this site there's a large track map that is recorded. Um I I do believe that is preparing for uh construction and development in the future. Um, so the types of things the school districts look at are are those there's a need because they anticipate that with those housing starts with the construction that's happened in the vicinity that there is a need for additional uh schools to serve those those residents and those children. So just a little insight on how I believe that um they make those decisions on the school sites they select and where the need is.

Okay. Uh thank you for that. Um so basically I mean nothing nothing is in concrete. It's just a consolidation of land as far as

correct at this point it's just consolidation. um question that I have is so if we consolidate the land um and let's say for so so it seems like uh to me that this is going to be um so for for folks that are in the audience that are opposed to the project it seems like this would be um taken up at a schoolboard meeting. So just just from like a technical perspective that if there was opposition it um it's essentially the school board that would bear the ultimate responsibility. That's that's question one. And then question two is if we merge the parcels, does that then remove the res uh the the zone one um sorry the the single family residential zoning? So like let's say for example folks in here went to the school board um they they raised heck and the school said or the school board decided and said oh okay actually no in fact we're not going to build the school. Um would would we then be able to um like are we taking away the the R1 zoning? So it's two questions.

Thank you Commissioner Marshall. Uh yes I do believe um that the school boards go through their own approval process as well. Um, so notwithstanding the city's approval process that so like as noted previously they so far have decided to go through our process. I do believe they go through their own process. I'm not exactly clear on what steps that is or how it goes through the board or administrative, but um there is their own approval process. And secondly, yes, you're 100% correct. The underlying zoning is not changing. If ultimately the site determines um that a school site doesn't work and the school district decides to uh switch gears and go a different direction, the underlying R1 zoning will remain. Um it will actually be beneficial in that respect. The tract that you see on the east side of this proposal, that's paper lots as we call them now where they're recorded. um that was recorded years and years ago um prior to much consideration for the um the the grading that would need to take place to accommodate that development. So I can recall from different presubmitt meetings we we've looked at that site with applicants and there's been a lot of challenges with regards to how the dirt get how the dirt gets moved, how to uh maintain our guidelines that require um uh subdivision walls at the top of slope as as opposed to bottom of slope. So it would solve a problem with that track that I I think in retrospect if we were to look at that again today, it may not have that design that you see before you that's reflected on that aerial image.

Okay. So with that then I'll invite a motion on this item. I, Commissioner Thomas, uh, recommend that we accept staff's proposal here. I move that we recommend staff's proposal. I second. Okay. Uh, and, uh, madame clerk, will you take, uh, will you take the vote? I have a first by Commissioner Thomas and a second by Vice Chair Messen. I'll take a roll call vote. Commissioner Marsh? Yes. Commissioner Marshall? I, Commissioner Thomas. Yes. Vice Chair Messen.

Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Okay. So, we uh we we have now taken action to approve staff's recommendation as presented on the agenda. So, our next item is now can we go back to Yes. Yes. Yes. You would you would revert at this point to your postponed item of reorganization of planning commission members. Madame clerk, I would you accept nominations at this point? I would um for the role of chair.

Nominations are in order for the office of the chair. While nominations do not require a second, any member may offer one to signal endorsement or may also vote for him and herself. I open the nomination period. Are there nominations for the office of the chair? I nominate uh Commissioner Messen to be chair. Commissioner Messen, do you accept this nomination? I do not. Are there any further nominations?

I nominate Commissioner Marsh. Commissioner Marsh, do you accept the nomination? Yes. Are there any further nominations? Hearing no further nominations, the nomination period is closed and we'll proceed to appoint a chair. When called upon, please vote by stating the nominees name you wish to hold the office. Commissioner Marshall. Commissioner Marsh, Commissioner Marsh, Commissioner Marsh, Commissioner Thomas, Commissioner Marsh, Vice Chair Messen, Commissioner Marsh,

Commissioner Marsh is now chair. I guess after the little bit of the shock sets in but I appreciate that everybody appreciate your confidence. I have a little bit of learning to do. Um okay so now we can move on to item number two. Okay. All right. So with that uh we'll move on to um agenda item number two uh which is amendment to the uh futureville municipal code. Um Mr. Heri, would you introduce that item?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, this item was submitted by Daisy Kawasaki, our senior planner, at the request of Joe Sleggers, our city building official, who's also here. So, they'll be providing clarification on this.

Good evening, commissioners. Um, the item before you is case number PLN25-000015, a proposed code amendment to update chapter 5 of the Victorville Municipal Code in alignment with the state of California's trienal adoption of the title 24 building standards codes. As mandated by the state, the city is required to adopt the 2025 additions of the California building, residential, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and energy, and green building codes. These updates will replace the 2022 additions currently in effect and will ensure consistency with statewide regulations prior to their effective date of January 1st, 2026. In addition to adopting the updated codes, the proposed amendment includes several refinements to Chapter five, such as simplific simplification of language and clarification of enforcement authority, removal of unused appendices that are voluntary and not applicable to local practice, and elimination of the exception of certificates of occupancy for private residential dwellings, therefore establishing a uniform requirement for all structures and improving documentation standards. These changes are administrative in nature and do not modify land use allowances. As such, the amendment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under section 15061B3 as it can be determined with certainty that there is no possibility of a significant environmental impact. With that, staff recommends that the planning commission conduct a public hearing, receive testimony regarding the proposed project, and take the following actions. recommend that the city council find the code amendment exempt pursuant to section 15061B3 of the California Environmental Quality Act and two adopt resolution number P-25-029

recommending city council approval of the development code amendment case number PLN25-000015. Um, with that, the building official is present this evening and available to answer any technical questions you may have regarding the proposed code amendment. Okay. Um, are there any technical questions from the pl from the commissioners regarding regarding this item? Okay. With uh no questions, then I'll open the public hearing. Uh, madame clerk, um, are there any requests to speak?

There are not. Okay, there are no requests to speak. So, I will close the public hearing and um bring it back to the commission um to um for a motion on this item. I move to um I'm move to approve the motion. Second.

Are there any comments on this pending motion? U none. Then madam clerk, will you please take the vote? Commissioner Marshall, I. Commissioner Thomas, yes. Vice Chair Messen, yes. Chair Marsh, yes. Motion passes unanimously. Okay. So, we've taken action uh to approve the staff's recommendation as presented to on the agenda. Uh our next item is item number three, an amendment to the Victorville Municipal Code. Uh Mr. um would you kindly introduce this item?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Agenda item number three is also authored by our senior planner and Mrs. Kawasaki and our building official, Mr. Sleggers, and they will provide synopsis of this item. Agenda item three is a proposed code amendment to chapter seven of the development code which governs business licensing. The update reflects recent city organizational changes by formally designating the building official who now oversees the business license division as the enforcing agent while retaining code enforcement's role where appropriate. It also authorizes business license staff to perform in-house live scan fingerprinting services when required for certain business license applicants such as drivers of vehicles for hire, vendors, and door-to-door solicitors. These background checks were previously administered by the Victorville Police Department at their off-site location, but will now be conducted at city hall by specific staff members who have already obtained proper California Department of Justice um certification and the necessary equipment for performing such services. These changes are once again administrative in nature and as such the amendment is exempt from SQA under section 15061B3 as it can be determined with certainty that there is no possibility of a significant environmental impact. Therefore, staff recommends the planning commission conduct a public hearing, receive testimony regarding the proposed project, and take the following actions. recommend the city recommend that the city council finds the code amendment exempt pursuant to section 15061B3 of the California Environmental Quality Act and adopt resolution number P-25-030 recommending city council approval of development code amendment case number PLAN25-000016. Once again, Mr.

is available to answer any technical questions you may have. Okay. Um, with that, do we have any questions uh from the uh from commissioners?

I had just one quick one. Um, I believe the staff report mentions three staff members were certified, one being the primary point of contact for DOJ. I just wanted to know if there would be a secondary contact should they be on vacation or out sick, just to ensure there's constant communication as needed, if needed. Sorry, I'm a little taller than our last presenter here. Um, that's a great question. Uh, and we did anticipate that Jamie Corby is listed as the primary. Uh, she's, uh, the analyst that oversees the business license division and operations. She's the main custodian of records, but the other two that are designated, one of which is myself, and then we also have our licensing technician, Sabrina Lasserelli. She's also certified and can handle those things. Operationally, when these requests come in, they come into a generalized email so that multiple different staff members can see and respond to these requests.

Okay, great. Thank you so much. Any uh any other questions uh by commissioners? Okay. Uh no questions, then I'll I'll open the public uh public hearing. Madam clerk, are there any uh requests to speak? We have no speakers. Okay. Um, since there are none, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for a determination. Yes. I'd like to move this item um per staff recommendation. I second.

Are there are there any um Oh gosh, I lost one place. Are there any comments or anything um regarding the motion? No comments. Uh Madame Clerk, will you take the vote, please? Commissioner Marshall, I. Commissioner Thomas, yes. Vice Chair Messen, yes. Chair Marsh, yes.

Motion passes unanimously. Okay. So, we uh we have now taken action to approve staff's recommendation as presented on the agenda. Uh so, this moves us to our continued public hearings hearing items. Okay. So, item number four, a site plan with an uh addendum to a previously certified er e. Uh Mr. Herrigi, uh would you kindly introduce this item?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the commission, senior planner Travis Clark will provide overview of this item. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Uh Marsh, welcome. Uh item number four is plan case PL24-000024. Uh it is a site plan with an addendum to a previously certified ER to allow for the development of a multi-tenant commercial commercial retail center. A conditional use permit to allow for uh the development of a car wash. A conditional use permit to allow for the development of a fueling station. And a conditional use permit for off-site alcohol sales on an undeveloped 30acre project site zoned civic commercial within the civic center sustainability specific plan. Uh the project is an expansion to the existing Desert Sky Plaza commercial shopping center that's currently anchored by Home Depot. Uh the expansion is comprised of 11 new commercial buildings totaling approximately 311,500 square ft of which approximately 149,000 square ft of the development is slated to be a target retail store. Uh the remainder of the approximately 162,000 square feet is to be developed for various retail, restaurant and service uses. Uh the development will include three major retail spaces, three restaurants uh with drive-through service, four pad buildings, a car wash, a bank with drive-thru, and a fuel station with convenience store. Uh this project was continued from the planning commission September 10th meeting to afford the applicant and team additional time to evaluate the implications of the project's conditions of approval, specifically uh the condition pertaining to annexation into the city's CFD. Uh the applicant has met with staff and uh since our previous meeting and agreed to proceed as conditioned as noted in the project staff report uh the proposal will complete the southern portion of the desert plaza's development providing a comprehensive

interconnected shopping center from Civic Drive to Amarosa Road and from Roy Rogers Drive to Valley Park Lane with access to the development provided through two signalized intersections and several new driveways along the project. Uh race center medians will also be constructed as a part of the project improvements uh to prevent left turn movements along Roy Rogers and Emerosa Drive, excuse me, Amarosa Road. Um the overall development has been welldesigned uh with a cohesive architectural theme that utilizes a similar color palette and materials throughout the project that include varying exterior finishes uh features and materials that not only modernize the desert plaza's development but also follow the design elements of the present design plaza or desert plazas, excuse me. Um while also adhering to the specific plan architectural design criteria. Uh in addition to the architectural design and enhancements, uh the site design has also adhered to the municipal code and specific plan standards as it relates to main entry drive aisles which include increased lane widths, uh vehicle stacking and enhanced landscaping, as well as a hierarchy of interior drive aisles, uh parking in accordance with minimum standards, paving treatments, and cart corral throughout the target parking field. Uh staff would note that uh while not mentioned in the staff report, the project will necessitate the vacation of an undeveloped paper street uh known as California Avenue uh to accommodate the development of the overall project. Um unnecessary to the project or the area circulation, uh city staff are in support of the vacated roadway, uh which is scheduled for consideration by the city council later this month. As a component of the overall proposal, the project does necessitate multiple conditional use permits to facilitate the development, uh, including a CUP for an express car wash, a second for a fuel dispensing facility, and a third for

beer and wine sales, uh, within a convenience market in conjunction with the fuel station. uh staff finds that the proposed conditional use permits comply with the city's development code and specific plan with the necessary findings included within each of the applicable project resolutions. Lastly, uh consistent with SQA guidelines, uh an addendum to the Desert Sky Plaza EIR has been prepared as part of the proposal uh to assess the environmental impacts of the project since the original EIR was certified by the Victorville City Council in May of 2012. Uh the original EI found that the project posed potentially significant impacts related to air quality uh biological resources, hydrarology and water quality and traffic and circulation. However, uh those impacts could be mitigated to levels that are less than significant. Uh no impacts were identified in the ER as significant or unavoidable. uh staff concluded through the preparation of the subsequent addendum that the original ER did fully analyze and mitigate all potentially significant environmental effects that would have resulted from the development. Uh it was determined through the analysis performed with the EIR addendum that no subsequent EIR or mitigated negative declaration uh was required. Therefore, uh staff recommends that the planning commission conduct a public hearing, uh receive testimony regarding the proposed project and take the following actions. Find the project consistent with the project's previous environmental impact report and exempt from additional environmental review per section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act entitled addendum to an ER or negative declaration use. U adopt resolution number P-25-024 approving the site plan portion of case number PLN24-000024 subject to the attached conditions of

approval. Adopt resolution number P-25-025 approving the car wash conditional use permit portion of case number PL24-000024 subject to the attached conditions of approval. Adopt resolution number P-25- 26 approving the fuel dispensing facility conditional use permit portion of case number PL24-000024 subject to the attached conditions of approval. And lastly, adopt resolution number P-25-027 approving the accessory alcohol sales conditional use permit portion of case number PLN24-000024 subject to the attached conditions of approval. uh staff as well as the project applicants are available should the planning commission have any questions.

Are there any questions um from the commission? I have just a few um for the conditional use permit for the alcohol sales that's just beer and wine correct. Thank you. Yes, commissioner. It is only for beer and wine and only in conjunction with the uh convenience store. And then the conditional use permit for the car wash. Um I don't believe I see it highlighted on um the sketch, but where would it be located?

Um if we can see the site plan on the screen, please. The car wash um is actually immediately adjacent to the current Farmer Boys restaurant. So, it's going to be at the eastern most edge of this pro proposal u along Roy Rogers Drive. You see the larger uh double stacked lane? That is the entry to the car wash tunnel. And there's no identified user for that just yet. Just the three, the Chase Bank, the fueling station, and the target as of right now. Correct. That is correct. as of staff's knowledge. That's correct. Thank you.

And my concern is the proximity of the car wash to other car washes in that area. I understand that there's uh at least one car wash that's less than a th000 ft away. I was looking at your package here and there is a letter here from someone expressing concern about that. Is that car wash a deal breaker? I mean is that's not included with that change complexion of this.

Sure. Thank you, Commissioner Thomas. Um that is correct. Um there is another car wash that is currently entitled um approximately 1100 ft to the west of this project. Um uh the commission may recall approving that I believe in about 2020. Um the project uh has been entitled. Um they have not submitted for plan check as of yet. Um but they do retain an entitlement at this time. Uh that's correct. Um the applicant is available and here uh maybe the question directed toward whether or not the project could go without the car wash would possibly be better answered by the applicant should you choose to uh hear from the public.

Yeah, I would like to hear from the applicant. Also, isn't there a car wash over off of Civic and Roy Rogers and isn't that within close proximity? Uh, thank you, Commissioner. There is a accessory car wash to the current fuel station on the corner. Um, it's actually the northeast corner of Civic and Roy Rogers. Um, the policy speaks actually to standalone car washes. Um, it doesn't directly speak to secondary or accessory car washes to fueling stations.

Okay. So, uh, is the applicant here? Uh, is the applicant here uh, that would like to that would wish to address the car wash issue? Chair, if I may, you'd actually need to open the public hearing in order to hear from the applicant. Oh, okay. Thank you. Um, okay. So, any more questions from the uh commission before I open the public hearing? Okay. With no uh no questions, then I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Um, are there any uh people wishing to speak?

Our first speaker is Luca Giovanardi. pretty impressed. You pronounced that last name really well. Good evening, commissioners. I'm uh Luca Juvenardi. I'm chief development officer for New Mark Merrill, uh heading up the development of the proposed 30acre retail center at Roy Rogers and Amarosa. Um we're very excited to bring this project to you tonight and um worked very hard over the last couple of years to attract um a great mix of uses and tenants uh that create a really good synergy and will provide amenities and job opportunities for the residents of the city of Victorville. Um we would appreciate your support on this agenda item tonight. Um, and I do want to thank staff, specifically Travis and Freddy, as well as Alex and Scott for their assistance and guidance on this project. Um, to address the question regarding the car wash, um, it is an integral part of the project, uh, the project would not be viable without it. And, you know, again, these are, I think, uses that are creating good synergy, whether it's the fuel station or the car wash or the restaurants, um, or or the soft goods. I think a large commercial corner like this and a shopping center like this um requires I think all these uses and in our case specifically uh the financial viability of the project actually depends on it. We also submitted I think some additional documentation regarding um the um you know the need for additional car washes in the city. I think right now uh is one car wash for every 10,600 residents in the city and that generally

is um considered um insufficient in the sense that there is room for for additional car washes based on the research that we've done and also that the tenants we've spoken to have done. I'm here to answer any additional questions. Thank you. Any other speakers? We have no additional speakers.

Okay. Um with that then I'll close the public comments uh public hearing and I'll bring it back to the uh commission for motion. Do we need to open it if we want to have more discussion or if you'd like to speak with the applicant, we'd need to reopen the public hearing. I guess amongst ourselves. Oh, no. You don't have to open the public hearing amongst yourselves. No.

Um I I don't know how my fellow commissioners feel. I I think the project's a great project. I'm personally not a fan of front-facing um the car wash. I don't think it mixes well. Um and maybe it's a conversation to have with staff that should these continue coming forward that maybe we can abut them a bit if they're coming in larger projects. Uh I believe the other one that was approved on hook was actually in the backside if I'm not mistaken. Um, so I just wanted to make that comment maybe for a future conversation to have. Um, but I know the applicant had mentioned that it's tied to the feasibility of the project. I don't know how the rest of the commission feels.

Yeah, I mean I I tend to be in agreement. Um, Commissioner Messen, I think that, um, you know, we've all driven on Bear Valley and we've driven throughout the high desert and I think it's getting, um, I think it's getting a little bit ridiculous. And so, uh, yeah, I I I share I share that assessment. At the same time, just acknowledging the fact that, um, financial viability is really important to the project. And, um, you know, I feel like having a target is always a good thing. Um but if there was any um any way either in the future to to consider maybe um reducing Yeah, it seems silly to almost say to to hide the car washes, right, or the liquor stores, but if there's a way that we can, you know, the way that we can move them, I think that would be um that would be great.

Just just a comment. Uh I think I'm in agreement uh with my fellow commissioners here. Uh I'm just concerned again about uh and this is different. I understand it's this being uh car wash is not a standalone. It is going in as part of a uh project here. So I'm I'm okay with that. I'm okay with the project. Uh just car washes. We have taken a little heat for for so many car washes in the city and some of our citizens have said that they would like to see something other than car washes. And I'm not against car washes. I love them because I sure don't want to be on this heat, you know, trying to wash a car, but I am concerned about the number of car washes that we have and especially uh when they're close to each other. But again, as part of the project. I'm okay.

Okay. So, are any uh any additional comments? Okay. Then, um I'll invite a motion for this item. I move to um I move the recommendation as written by staff. Is there a second? I second. Uh, let's madam clerk, will you please take a vote? Commissioner Marshall, I. Commissioner Thomas, yes. Vice Chair Messen. Chair Marsh. Yes. Motion passes unanimously.

Okay. So uh we have uh we have now taken action uh to approve uh staff recommendation on the presented u presented on the agenda. Congratulations. Uh we'll move on to item number five uh an amendment to the Victorville municipal code with an environmental exemption. Uh Mr. Introduce this item. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. As you may recall, this item was continued from the September 10th planning commission meeting uh where senior planner Daisy Kawasaki initially presented that. She is here again to present that one more time.

Thank you again, commissioners. Item number five on tonight's agenda is plan um PLN25-000013, an amendment to the Victorville municipal code with an environmental exemption making various changes to title 16, including but not limited to new and updated land use allowances and standards related to statemandated housing types and an update to ministerial tenative map approvals. This city initiated amendment to title 16 is intended to implement recent changes in California housing law specifically Senate Bill 9, Senate Bill 684 and their respective update bills which is which have been provided as attachments in the staff report for this item. These legislative updates are part of the state's broader effort to increase housing production particularly in urbanized areas like Victorville and support infill development. The proposed code amendment aligns with these mandates while preserving the city's ability to apply objective standards and maintain neighborhood character. In recent years, the state has adopted several laws to streamline the approval of small-scale residential projects. SB9 allows for urban lot splits and two unit urban dwelling units um on single family zoned parcels. SB 684 facilitates small lot urban subdivisions of up to 10 units and SB 450, which is an update to SB 684, streamlines multif family housing projects, particularly in designated infill areas. These laws require cities to adopt ministerial review processes and prohibit discretionary review or public hearings for qualifying projects. To comply with these mandates, staff has prepared targeted amendments to the development code that designate the zoning administrator as the approval authority for these housing types. Update land use tables to reflect where they are permitted and outline development standards such as minimum

lot sizes, setbacks, parking requirements, and density thresholds. They also clarify the application process, including the requirement for the city to act on complete applications within 60 calendar days. These changes are reflected across multiple chapters of the development code including within chapter one definitions where we have added key terms including urban dwelling unit, urban subdivision, objective standards, and ministerial approval. Chapter two for administration where we've updated the permit and approval matrix to assign review and approval authority to the zoning administrator. Chapter three for zoning and land use where we have added urban dwelling units to the permitted land use table for residential zones added new development sta standard tables for ADUs urban lot splits and small lot subdivisions and introduced a new section to outline the purpose applicability and standards for urban dwelling unit projects including environmental constraints. We've also updated chapter 4 for subdivision regulations to establish the zoning administrator as the approval authority for tenative maps associated with urban lot splits in small lot subdivisions. This proposal is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under section 15061B3 as it does not authorize physical development without further review and will not result in significant environmental impacts. The amendment adopts administrative procedures and objective standards that support the city's housing element and land use element. Ultimately, staff worked very closely with the city attorney to develop this code amendment that will ensure that Victorville remains in compliance with state housing law while providing a clear framework for staff, property owners, and developers. It supports the city's housing goals, streamlines the review process, and maintains local control through enforceable objective standards. Staff recommends the planning commission

conduct a public hearing, receive testimony regarding the proposed project, and take the following actions. recommend that the city council find the code amendment exempt pursuant to section 15061B3 of the California Environmental Quality Act and adopt resolution number P-25-028 recommending city council approval of development code amendment case number PL25-000013. Staff remain available for any questions you may have. Okay. Uh uh thank you. Um, are there any technical questions uh from planning commissioners regarding this item?

I had one quick one. I know that um the lot sizes are are identified in the staff report and it maybe it's maybe in how what we consider an ADU in size, but does the how small the building is matter as well um when they're building? I guess like I'm thinking more so if someone was to, you know, build a shed and say that it's going to be an ADU, but it's not actually conforming to what you would use for an ADU because it doesn't have all the requirements. I I don't know if it's like a kitchenet or bathroom that would come with it. So, I'm just curious if that's identified at all. Um, there are no minimum size standards for ADUs or or these types of units. Um, now there are there are standards that we cannot prohibit that it be smaller then um but they they could propose a smaller unit. There's no

there's nothing but they would still have to abide by how many can be in the backyard based off the type of home. Right. That's correct. Both on the the urban subdivision, I'm sorry, the urban lot split where we're we're splitting one parcel into two and the urban small lot subdivision where they can subdivide it up to 10 units. Um, yes, the the quantity is something that we would regulate. Okay. Thank you. Any more questions from uh commission? Okay. Uh, with that then I'll open up uh the public hearing. Uh, madame clerk, are there any requests to speak?

We have no speakers. Then uh with no um no request to speak, then I'll I'll I'll close the public hearing and invite uh bring it back to the commission uh for a motion.

Second. Okay. Um are there any comments um on the pending motion? No comments. Uh then madam clerk, will you please take the the vote? Commissioner Marshall, I. Commissioner Thomas, yes. Vice Chair Messen, yes. Chair Marsh, yes. Motion passes unanimously.

All right. All right. So, we have uh we have now taken action on uh to approve um item number five according to staff recommendations. Um and this moves us now to new um our other our new business items. So, we have uh item number six, uh discussion of possible action to consider a municipal amendment to adjust single family uh single family residential wall and fence standards. Uh Mr. would you please uh kindly introduce this item?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Agenda item number six is discussion and possible action to consider a municipal code amendment to adjust single family residential wall and fence standards for new track developments within the city. I have prepared a PowerPoint for you on this. Perhaps it will. There we go. Thank you. As directed at your September 10th meeting, staff has prepared this analysis regarding the potential initiation of a municipal code amendment to allow vinyl fencing as an alternative to our standard masonry block walls and new residential tracks. Staff was specifically tasked to compare vinyl fencing against current standards and based on our comprehensive review, staff does not recommend a change to the current city standard. Our analysis shows that vinyl fencing does not comply with the intent of the single family design guidelines and that our current city standard that requires block walls is superior when considering critical safety, strength, longevity, and communitywide issues. Our current requirements for masonry block walls is not an arbitrary rule. It is deeply rooted in the goals and mandates of our development code and single family design guidelines. The development code exists to protect and promote the public health, safety, prosperity, and general welfare, and to enhance the character and quality of existing neighborhoods. Our single family design guidelines, which were codified in 2015 following direction from the city council, explicitly aim to ensure a safer community, achieve higher residential value, and create a prettier, cleaner community with pride of ownership and improve streets. These foundational goals were noted by the city council in their adoption of the single family design guidelines in conjunction with ordinance number 2318. Subsequently in 2021 and 2022, neither the planning commission nor the city council took auction action to adjust these standards after review of vinyl fence options.

Various sections of the development code support the noted city council goals by requiring the highest level of design quality, architectural architectural authenticity and materials that reinforce the community's character and appeal as noted in the staff report and provided in the current slide. Uh given the strategic sorry given the strategic goals the city council is seeking to address with the adoption of the single family design guidelines staff finds that the proposed vinyl fence does not meet the noted high quality standards and is therefore not in compliance with the spirit and text of the guidelines designed to increase long-term home values and architectural quality. The most compelling reason to retain the masonry standard is public safety, particularly related to fire hazard and structural integrity in our challenging environment. The majority of undeveloped land in the city is now designated as moderate or high fires hazard severity zones by CalFire. And while not required for moderate fire hazard zones, state agencies emphasize home hardening and defensible space. Specifically, the area 0 to 5 ft from a home known as zone zero should not contain any combustible materials in order to prevent ignition from embers in a fire event. Additionally, nothing prevents the voluntary adoption of measures such as these. In fact, if you may recall, AB130 uh which paused residential adoption of residential building codes allows limited exemptions and those specific exemptions allow for fire hardening measures such as this. As you'll see in the current slide and included within attachment E of the staff report, the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety recommends the removal of all vinyl or wood fence within this zone zero area and specifically notes to avoid the use of fireresistant material such as vinyl within this area. Coincidentally, Firewise 2000 LLC, who submitted a public comment on this item, proudly endorses entities such as the

Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, as noted on their website. And while the written comments from Fire Wise 2000 support the use of vinyl as compared to wood or other combustible materials, noting its fire resistive qualities, no no mention of our current block wall standard is made which is non-combustible. Additionally, the city's existing minimum 5 foot yard setback falls directly within this zone zero. And while masonry block walls are non-combustible and fully comply with this critical safety recommendation, vinyl fence alternatives are combustible and do not comply with zone zero recommendations. Based on this analysis, adopting allowances for combustible vinyl fencing would actively reduce an enhanced safety measure that we already have in place, making homes more susceptible to fire spread. And this is notable especially in light of state mandates that allow new accessory dwelling units and SP9 units to be built less than 5T from property lines which we cannot stop. Uh with regard to strength and durability and acoustic considerations in our region, block walls offer a demonstratively superior ability to resist high winds compared to vinyl systems, even those engineered for high wind speeds. Their longevity is proven. Many of the city's original block walls are still standing today, as noted in the staff report. Additionally, block walls are significantly better at sound dening. Block walls typically achieve a sound transmission class rating of 40 to 46 or more, while vinyl fence typically rates only to 20 to 35. Retaining the block wall here helps enrich the quality of life by reducing ambient noise and noise produced from the neighbors. And as outlined in the city's design guidelines, enrichment of the quality of life is absolutely a goal of the guidelines seek to address. So sound dending is a relevant uh item in this discussion. Finally, our animal service services

division reports over 500 cases in a two-year span related to animals passing through or breaking down fences, many of which were not limited to digging under fences. The solid solidity of a masonry wall provides a level of protection and durability that vinyl with potentially dislodgeable panels cannot match, which is beneficial in reducing neighbor disputes. Uh, additionally, uh, with regard to approval periods, uh, the proposed amendment has been proposed as a two-year pilot program, but the impacts of any such program would continue for years after any such program has ended, if that was the will of the planning commission and the council. Currently, a city building permit is valid for 12 months after initial approval. And subsequent inspections conducted under the approved building permit extend the life of a building permit for 180 days, which can extend the life of that building permit indefinitely. Additionally, it's not uncommon for a developer to seek a single approval of a wall permit for an entire tract, meaning each wall inspection associated with each home built could potentially extend wall permits for the life of the development, even if the vinyl fencing was not installed within the pilot program period. In essence, a permit approved with vinyl fencing could extend long past the expiration of any pilot program period, with some track developments taking five years or more to complete. Additionally, with the adoption of AB130, the approval period for model homes is now 10 years. While this law is intended to address the dwelling unit construction standards, the language, as noted in the subject slide, is ambiguous enough to be subject to interpretation in the future. Uh, I would also note we received a public comment from the high desert association of realators, which places the focus on affordability. Uh staff would note that attract development would fall within state mandates for state density bonus law. Um state b density bonus law says that any housing

development of five units or more is qualified um to request um development standard waivers uh waivers and concessions for certain development standards such as fences. Obviously, in return, that's with a guarantee that affordable housing is constructed, that meets state definitions of affordable housing with covenants placed on the property, sales price limitations to really ensure that those homes address the community that needs the affordable housing. So, there are standards in place currently at the state level with no adjustments needed to our MUN code to allow uh affordable housing to be developed in the city of Verville. In summary, the current masonry block wall standards uh directly supports the development codes mandates for public safety, high design quality and enhanced community character and introducing vinyl fencing would constitute a step backward in all these critical threats. With that, staff has provided uh two options for recommendations. Uh the recommended staff option which staff supports is option A which is that the planning commission find that existing city of Victorville wall and fence standards applicable to new track development promote public health, safety, prosperity and general welfare and are consistent with the city of Victorville single family de single family design guidelines and take no action to initiate the amendments to the city of Victorville municipal code in a manner that would adjust existing war and cut standards. uh as requested by the planning commission at the September 10th meeting, staff has prepared a resolution should the uh planning commission wish to act in light of the evidence provided uh today. Staff does not support this option. Um namely because it does not recommend taking any action uh as it would introduce possible changes to existing standards that are contrary to the purpose of the development code. should the planning

commission wish to take that option. Option B is available for your review in action. And lastly, I would like to to offer uh additional information as needed. Uh with us tonight is Deputy Chief Andrew Roach and Deputy Fire Marshal Jeremy Casic with our fire department who are here and can speak u on fire safety issues as needed. I have uh Mr. Joe Sleggers, our city building official, available to speak on any durability and longevity issues that you may have questions on, as well as George Durant, our code compliance official, who's also in charge of animal services, who can answer any questions on neighbor disputes you may have. And with that, staff is available for any questions you may have.

Okay, thank you. Um, so I bring it uh any questions by the commission. Uh, I just had a comment. I And please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I saw in one of the resolutions that there was actually a workshop between city council planning commission and the industry at the time when this was being discussed a couple years ago. Did I read that correctly?

Uh that is correct. When the single family design guidelines were developed, they were a result of uh planning commission action, city council action, a focus group, and and multiple workshops that were engaged. Um to to be clear, prior to that uh that action being taken, the the wall standards were already in place. So the the the council at the time thought it's so important to enhance our guidelines within the city that in addition to the the wall guidelines to produce single family design guidelines. Thank you. I would like to uh ask our fire uh chief to come up and speak on the vinyl fences as far as combustibility.

Good evening, Andrew Roach, deputy chief fire department. in some remarks made earlier. Uh and according to the Firewise 2000 LLC uh report here, uh it appears that the vinyl fences are not a combustion hazard. Can you speak to that?

Uh I I can speak to that. So the the firewise report does identify the the vinyl fencing or the PVC fencing as being fire resistant. However, that does not make it entirely fireproof. So it it has fire resistant to uh specific ember brands and in a a fire condition under under certain wind controlled wind condition as opposed to the block wall which is entirely non-combustible. and the proximity uh I think we have the five foot proximity we're speaking of and inverse gathering I guess at the base of a vinyl fence or a wood fence or a block fence it's just like to hear your take on which one you

uh from the fire department perspective and and there's Been actually some research done on this and uh within the last 10 years the National Institute of Standards and Technology or NIST uh conducted over 180 full-scale fire experiments simulating wildland and urban uh interface conditions. They found that combustible fences including vinyl uh act as fuses. So they transmit flames from vegetation or debris uh into adjoining fences andor structures. uh post incident analysis of the 2017 Tubs fire and subsequent studies confirmed that fences were a key pathway for structure to structure fire spread under winddriven conditions and and I will I will emphasize the wind driven element uh of these studies because as we know in Victorville we have a dural wind pattern where our afternoon winds pick up every day at one o'clock and it is very common for it not to be a vegetation fire, you know, that's burning in the grass that lights a fence on fire. It's more common to see debris. And once that debris catches fire and catch that fence on fire, then we get into a confluation scenario where one fence gets more debris caught on fire, catches another fence, catches more debris on fire. From the fire department standpoint, it is much more beneficial to have masonry block wall that is completely non-combustible. I don't have any other questions.

I have uh just uh one um going back to the fencing. So technically they were saying um in in this uh in this letter from Firewise, they're saying that um that typically the vinyl fence will just melt. So the debris is from the melting of the fence. It'll just and it'll travel to or blow or whatever. Is is it true? I mean, do they catch fire or do they just melt?

So, you're you're looking at I mean, we're kind of dealing with things on an economy of scale here. And I'll read a little bit more from NIST here. Uh from a material standpoint, uh polyvinyl chloride or PVC uh begins to degrade and release hydrogen chloride gas at roughly 390 to 570 degrees Fahrenheit and can ignite around 930 degrees Fahrenheit. So if how quickly do we get to that that ignition temperature? Everything burns at a certain temperature. Um you know, we see it with lava, right? we can get rocks hot enough to where they will melt, right? And they will produce heat and radiant heat and flames. So, as we're looking at this, we're looking at this on an economy of scale. So, because there's such limited code enforcement resources when it comes to single family homes as far as them, you know, impacting u you know, really stringent code enforcement, folks can store stuff on their property as they as they please. And I can vouch for that as somebody that's been in many, many, many backyards in the high desert over the last 22 years. Um if there is a a collection of material, tires, shed, um whatever the the occupants may be storing, if we get to that ignition point, the fence will burn. So um yes, under lower temperature conditions, it will melt, deform, fall over, but once we get to a higher ignition point, the fence itself will burn.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Um I had a question as well. Has there been any analysis with the the fire in the palisades and the effect of vinyl fencing with um the conflation there?

Uh I know that the that there is numerous different analysis of palisades and the eaten fire. Uh I can't cite anything from palisades or nothing's been released um in with our professional circles to identify in one way or another. Um to I can add a little bit of context there, Commissioner Marshall. Um staff in our research, it wasn't included here today, but did extensive research on um those fires and um through different articles, it it was determined that the the buildings primarily that did survive the fire were those those buildings that had home hardening measures that had it wasn't it wasn't just the wall. Um but by and large, they all had either a combination of masonry and metal walls or masonry walls. They had home hardening measures on the home itself. Um, and those are the ones we can all probably recall those pictures of the single home standing in the middle of the fire zone with everything burnt around it. Those by and large, I'm thinking of a specific example in the Palisades fire. Well, that where that was the case. Um, it wasn't specifically the the only item was the wall that did it, but it was part of the larger um goal of their fire hardening measures that kept that home safe from that fire in a sea of of everything being demolished around it. Any other questions?

Okay. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much and congratulations. We'll see. Um Okay. So uh uh continuing are there any other uh questions for with uh um I I think we had so that there were other you you brought other resources. So we've got the deputy fire chief and then also code enforcement for animal issues, animal control. Yes, I we also have uh George Durant, our code compliance official, as well as Joe Sleggers, our building official.

Okay. Um yeah, I'd like to hear from from animal from the from uh animal patrol. Good evening. George Duran, code enforcement official for the city. I oversee code enforcement animal control. Um on the animal control side with respect to um any fencing barrier that's not masonary, what we find is often particularly with wood also with vinyl is when we're dealing with with large animals and the uh the product has shifted uh particularly with aggressive larger animals who perhaps are fighting with adjacent other animals. Eventually what happens is the the fencing starts shifting and um animal control officers will go out to address the repair and what we find is sometimes the repairs are inconsistent. They're patchwork meaning it's a piece of plywood that's nailed over a wooden fence or a vinyl fencing um in order to try to mitigate that area. And so it becomes a p a series of patchwork which um resolves the issue with respect to the animal not going into the other yard but obviously the aesthetics of that um although it's in the back um start becoming impactful. I could tell you though from the code enforcement side as well, um, uh, fence adjustments and fence repairs is quite of is pretty common complaint, meaning a neighbor goes through and repairs a fence and in that process relocates the fence plus or minus a few inches, sometimes maybe a foot. Um, and that becomes a lot line um, challenge and argument. typically a civil issue, but obviously it it involves code enforcement because neighbors start um

disagreeing on where the actual placement of that newly repaired fences at. Not much of an issue obviously with masonary walls. So then the encroachment issue would would appear whether it's an animal digging under the fence being knocked over the responsibility for putting up whether that's a block wall or another fence where it goes the encroachment into the cost and all that associated usually with that if the question is is it's normally like those are normal complaints that you get. Yes.

Thank you. And do you also deal with noise complaints as well? Okay. And so in your experience uh with um someone having a party with the vinyl fence in the back versus Stonemason, um would you say that what what is your what is your kind of take there? I I don't really have comments to that. That's not really something we we see. Uh police probably would would be able to to comment to that, but Any any other other questions for Mr. Durant?

Okay. All right. Thank Thank you, sir. Um I believe you said um that there was one more representative from the building.

Uh yes, Chair Mark uh Joe Slger is our city building official. I I guess I can come at this from multiple different angles really. Um I started um not as a building official but as a permit technician. Uh worked up front at the counter and kind of worked my way up through the ranks. Going back to those days, the complaints that we would get at the counter. Um, I'm sure there are people out there who vinyl fences appeal to them, but the vast majority of the complaints we would get were from people who were trying to make repairs to those types of fences that weren't masonry or complaints regarding neighborly disputes where like Mr. Duran mentioned, animals are getting under the fence causing issues and repairs were having to be made to try and mitigate those things. I will say that from my standpoint, when you have a wall that has a one foot deep and two foot wide footing, which is roughly what our uh standards require for a sixoot wall, it's virtually impenetrable. Um, and from a fire standpoint, this is, I guess, a little bit more of a building officials perspective, but a solid grouted CMU wall is a 4hour firewall by fire code and building code. So, you're looking at it really polar opposites. You're looking um really that the vinyl is lesser in every respect. It's more flammable, less noise resistant. Um, and I what I don't like about that from a building officials perspective is uh these guys are right by the way that the way they present it is that because we don't have very higher high fire hazard severity zones currently. It's not outright outlawed by the base model code

but the state is very much moving in a direction towards higher fire hazard severity zones. What I mean by that is we adopted maps. This is closer to 10 years ago now. And at the time, we had a few areas desert designated as moderate. Since then, we've uh just recently adopted new maps that will become effective at the beginning of the year and are enforcable by the the new codes that we just moved to adopt earlier today that do designate parts of the city as high for the first time ever. So, if we're trending in a direction where we're trying to move towards more fire hardening, I think it's a really bad time to step in and say, you know what, let's go with something that's more flammable, that's more likely to spread flame. Uh the timing on that, in my opinion, would be very bad. As Mr. How you mentioned, uh AB130 specifically, despite the fact that it asked for kind of a moratorum on new development standards for residential, they went out of their way to say with a few exceptions, if it's done for fire hardening purposes, we'll accept modifications to these codes. So really what that was is in my opinion at least builders asking the state can we get a timeout on all these additional requirements that we're constantly seeing every time we have a trienal code adoption with one exception. We're okay with doing it if it's a fire hardening measure for the reasons that we just talked about all the fires we've experienced lately. So to me that's contrary to the direction that the state is trying to go. It's bad timing. Now as uh quick question um as far as the um um determination I guess fire zones. So is it moving from moderate or uh moderate to high due to more housing um condensed housing or is it vegetation?

What's causing um

it's a little bit of both. Uh the new maps are more geared towards embercast um which Mr. Roach alluded to earlier. Um so it's really just based on a different model and that's because previously it was all based on what they call wildland urban interface areas. So they were looking at areas that were directly adjacent to um vegetated areas basically obviously like an area like right or a big bear. Those are very high fire hazard severity zones and they were on the previous maps. But with the newer maps, we've seen areas designated as high for the first time here in Victorville. They're mostly concentrated still around some vegetated areas, but those areas have a higher probability of embercast into these neighborhoods. And even some of the areas that I would call more, I guess, suburban are designated moderate this time around because you still get a higher chance of ember in those areas. I can point that I want to make to I've heard a lot of talk of affordability. Um, from my standpoint, the better argument is profitability. And I don't say that to to discount that point. It is important that our builders in the city make money when they build homes. That's what continues development in the city and keeps them going. I just from my standpoint, I don't see that these these developers, these builders are ultimately going to turn around. Let's say there's a $5,000 savings per lot attributed to a reduced fence type. I don't see that these builders are going to turn around and say, "Well, market rates 350,000. We're going to sell this one for 345 because the fence is cheaper." So, it doesn't necessarily help with affordability, at least not in the short term. Apologies, I should have made that point earlier, but I wanted to add that as well.

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, just just to flesh out a little bit uh Mr. Slater's point there. I think it's important note there's nothing in the proposal that says those savings would be transferred back to the the potential home buyers. There's no there's no um uh vehicle to require that. Uh there's nothing that was proposed that said that would happen. And we're dealing with a multitude of of builders who would be subject uh to any potential amendment. So, um, maybe perhaps there's one or two that would be willing to to memorialize that, guarantee that those would be be passed back, but to to make an assumption that the entire development community um would would stand on on that ground and say yes, we guarantee the savings will be back and put into the the project. Um, we don't have that. It wasn't part of the proposal. There is however a way as I noted earlier to make that mandate happen with our state density bonus law where there's guarantees there state law requirements that have recorded um affordability covenants that go on the property purchase price is required by state law to address whatever level of affordability those builders are seeking to address. So if there is a true desire to address our arena numbers to address affordability of projects, there is absolutely state law that's in practice now that we would be more than happy to implement on single family homes. Uh because again the code says that five or more units by the same developer. Any more questions? Okay. All right. Thank you, sir. Okay. So, are there any other questions from uh

quickly? Uh I guess out of curiosity, has the city been reached out to by other active builders in the city in regards to this? I mean, I know there's constant construction going on and they're not going to reap the benefit if this is passed. I'm not sure if there's been any discussion on that or

Thank you. Uh Commissioner Mason, at at this point, it's only individuals that have spoken publicly on this item that we've received direct input from. Um we've had fence companies with alternative materials seek to us about our standards and looking for options. But beyond that in terms of builders um on this item specifically, it's only been the the the group that's presented this evening. Thank you.

Okay. And uh um I guess the one question that I have uh um or yeah question uh AB130 um how how it could potentially again you're you're stating that a two-year pilot program can actually become a 10-year permanent fixture within the uh uh within the city. Yes. Um, thank you, Chair Marsh. Uh, specifically, AB130 adopted or updated California Health and Co safety code section 189 through8.5. Um, and that was presented in the in the presentation, but it notes that standards in effect at the time an application for a building permit is submitted for a residential dwelling based on a model home design approved under those standards shall apply to all future residential dwellings based on that approved model home design in the same jurisdiction. It goes on to say that that's valid for a period of 10 years um unless there's substantial changes made to that model home. Now, um this is a fairly new law. um it does have some ambiguity to it. I don't believe that's the spirit of the law to to um address walls and fences. However, because of the ambiguity um and it hasn't been challenged because it's so new, it does raise questions about the interpretation of that and um potentially it could be utilized to extend such approvals for a period of 10 years. And again, then you look at a 10-year period that's for issuance of building permits. When you add to that our building permit standards, which if if there was a pilot program or if those were extended for 10 years, if a building permits approved within that 10 years, there's still time to build. Um there's still time to build

that. So um because a pilot program ends does not mean a building permit um becomes null and void. That's not how our code is set up. That's not what state law allows. Um, so once a building permit's issued, it's allowed to go forward underneath uh or understanding that the uh building codes that it was approved under are still valid. Even if those standards change, that permit's still valid. On top of that, any every inspection of a permit um when it's subsequent to or about to expire would increase that extension date by 180 days. So that goes indefinitely. So, in the case of of a track development, as I noted many times, track developments have a master wall plan. Um, and as you do one home at a time or one section of walls at a time, you continue to increase the longevity of that permit. So, so yes, the AB130 is one component. It's untested. We don't know. Um, it's it's worth discussing because of the ambiguity of how it's worded. Um, but the building permit part, we do know. Um, and we do know how long those are active for. We do see tracks sometimes upwards of five years take to build out and get developed depending on the size and number of lots. So, um you could you could look at this from a the context of um if there was a pilot program in place for two years and someone at month 23 pulls a track uh a master tract uh wall plan for the entire tract that's hundreds of units. How long will that take to build out? Um at that point, that approval and that permit will be applicable to the entire track. There's no way to stop it. So, if the city decides we don't like the pilot program anymore, we don't want this, that permit would still be active. Thank you. Any other questions?

Okay, with that then I'll um open up the uh u Oh gosh, lost some space. I'll open up the public comments. Um chair, if I may, it's not a public hearing item, so we would actually be in violation to do that. Oh, thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So I don't have to close nothing then because I said I opened it. You can say it for the record. It's fine. For the record then I close if I close this public comment. Okay. So um are there any comments? Um invite uh are there any comments from the um commission regarding this item.

You'll want to invite a motion first to get a first and a second and then we can have comments on the motion. That congratulations came too quick. Um uh okay. Okay. So, I invite a motion um on this on this agenda item. I move that we adopt uh option A.

I second that. And are there any comments uh regarding this motion? Uh I'd just like to say that I think that there is a a use for vinyl fencing. Uh but I think that in in view of the history of all the thought and so forth that's been put into uh the vinyl fencing or I'm sorry the block wall fencing and so forth, the rationale behind it that we should stay with it. Um, I would like to say um to uh to BIA and to to the folks here um you know I really um I respect the diligence with which um with which you you sort of stated stated your case and um you know this is also just making note that you know of exparte communication um and uh you know I think that this this is a really tricky um and difficult uh difficult issue. And I I think that the diligence that everybody the city planner uh everyone that showed up uh today uh that brought to the conversation um was uh yeah was was really important and this was like very very important conversation uh as a planning commissioner. It is the first uh my first uh you know difficult um you know it was uh yeah it was my first uh truly difficult um

uh thing that I had to to think about and um and really I I see both sides. Um I see you know the affordability conversation. Um I also um living in the city of Victorville um having friends uh who lost their homes both in the Pacific Palisades and Altadena. Um there is a huge concern that I have around um fire and fire safety. I mean a lot of us went outside last year or two years ago when we saw the sky completely orange. Um we also went over to the to the facility. So I think that that's important. Um, you know, I also like electronic music and uh, you know, I have speakers and I have CDJs and uh, and so I wouldn't want to necessarily disturb my neighbors and I, you know, I I think that some new information for me tonight um, uh, Mr. Hadi was uh, was very useful to see that there's, you know, there's clearly a difference um, in sound. And so, uh, just wanted to name that I appreciate the diligence that that you all, um, that you all brought to this and it was a hard decision and I'm glad that we were able to, um, you know, we were able to have this professional conversation. I just want to quickly um echo those sentiments and just appreciate the, you know, coming back a second time and even building a product that was specifically made for the city and and having to weigh out everything that's being highlighted. Um, it's it's a very hard decision to make when you're trying to modify how our development is going to look in just one particular area and and maybe it's a conversation to have in in its entirety since it's been a couple years. But, um, I think that itself is is difficult to do is to look at one specific thing um when looking at the overall development. Thank you.

Okay. And and that's basically my sentiments uh as well. um for in the beginning I mean it seemed pretty cut and dry seemed pretty simple and now that you know we've expanded um upon you know the things that um the pros and cons and whatnot there's a there there it leaves a lot of question there there is a lot of question there is a lot of concern um some of the things that I thought about in the beginning are rather minute to what was what's been disclosed today. So again, you know, I appreciate the due diligence of everybody, the presenters, um, uh, city staff, uh, you know, for giving us a complete understanding of what we're, you know, what type of decision that we might be making and stuff. So, you know, with that, um, I agree with, uh, the rest of the commission as far as, um, you know, the determination. So now, uh, we can bring it to a vote. Uh, so madam uh yeah, madame clerk, will you please um take the vote?

Commissioner Marshall, yes. Commissioner Thomas, yes. Vice Chair Messen, yes. Chair Marsh, yes. Motion passes unanimously.

Okay, so now we'll move on to presentations by the staff. um presentation reports by commissioners and commission members and staff. Thomas just want to again commend staff. I think that uh we have the best staff in California. I don't know about across the country, but we sure have good good professional staff here. Uh just some of the things that have been accomplished that I see being accomplished around the city. Uh I am particularly proud of uh a lot of the new development. Uh I'm certainly proud of the hotels and so forth that have gone up. Again, I probably need a closed door session on uh why we're having hotels. But, uh, it's good to see them, you know, come to fruition. And, uh, again, I have nothing against car washes. It's just that so close together. I do have an issue with that because it seems like they're, you know, building right on top of each other. So, hopefully we'll see a little spacing on that. But I do understand that if a project is contingent on having a car wash that, you know, we need to give that special Uh I am just pleased to work with all of the uh my fellow commissioners. Congratulations to Paul Marsh as our new chairperson. Uh I know that Paul's going to do a great job. So I applaud you and again Alex, all of you, you do such a tremendous job bringing the material to us. I thank you for that.

Yeah, and I just wanted to echo what Commissioner Thomas said. I mean, I feel like right now we're um you know, there's a lot of change of float. I think that over the next um you know, over the next uh 12 to 24 months, we're going to see a lot of changes. I think that the economic uh the economic um sort of demand uh for affordable housing is going to continue to uh to bring folks up here. And I think that, you know, we on the planning commission in partnership with the city council and city staff, um, are really, by the way, thoughtful and professional and, um, knows how to show up to a gunfight with a gun, uh, city staff. Um, you know, we're going to, you know, we're really going to be tasked right now with, um, some some huge changes as we, you know, look to build the next great American city together. Um, congratulations, uh, Chair Marsh. I'm looking forward to to continue um being on the on the commission and I continue to look forward to learning from um city staff as uh as we grow into these roles.

I want to start off by apologizing to my commissioners and staff and everyone in the audience for being late. I'm commuting from work and it's a little unpredictable. Um and I know Rob already left, but maybe he'll watch the recording and I just wanted to, you know, congratulate him for his service and he was always so kind to me. reached out when I became a commissioner and offered to, you know, answer any questions and also provided a different perspective on on projects and when to ask questions and and maybe looking at something that we're not looking at, especially when we're new and fresh. So, hope shoot them a text later. But congratulations, Paul. And I just really want to thank staff for being available and for answering our questions, you know, as needed, when needed. It's it's it's very helpful to be able to have that dialogue and and to just better understand what we're being presented with because it is very complex at times. So, thank you so much

and uh I just want to say thank you um thank you to the uh to my fellow commissioners. I appreciate your vote of confidence in me. Um I uh thank you to the staff. I mean, you know, for being able to keep us in line or not really in line, but you know, keep us from crossing the line, you know. Um uh you know I mean today I mean felt like a fish out of water you know gasping for air and stuff but uh you know I appreciate staff you know I appreciate your knowledge and your willingness to share it you know and and u I have a lot you know I will work and get better I appreciate everything. Thank you. Oh. Um. Oh. Now, now the fish out of water. Um, now uh are there any u um comments from uh staff?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just briefly, number one, congratulations on on your appointment to chair. Um secondly, I wanted to to note we have a few events coming up in October. Um we just concluded our fall festival this past weekend, which is a very successful event. Um, I was there in the afternoon into the evening. Um, it was it was very well attended from from what I saw. Um, hopefully you were all able to join. Um, I also wanted to bring note to to a couple events we have coming up this month. Unfortunately, I don't have the date in front of me, but I'll follow up with an email to the entire commission. I apologize. It's been a very busy day. U, but we do have our Halibu drive-thru event, Halloween or annual event coming up here um later in the month. uh which is where all the departments decorate this um different themes and it's a it's a good family uh fun event. Um and then we also have a uh city council workshop on the uh uh redesign of of seventh street through Oldtown. This is the area from D Street to essentially Forest. Um various topics will be discussed including uh design options, parking options, uh kind of a sneak peek and initial uh conversations with our consultant, the council, and the public so we can really hone in on the direction we're going with that design program and making sure that our consultant that we've contracted with is is being as efficient as they can with the use of the funds allocated to them. So again, I apologize I don't have the dates in front of me. I will follow up uh tomorrow with those dates for the entire commission but nothing else to report.

All right, thank you. Um uh with that the time is 7:05 and I will journ this meeting. Good job. You too. Thank you.