Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music]

[Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]

[Applause] [Applause] Hey, hey, hey. [Music]

It is. Yeah. I'm sorry about the confusion on the night. So just then this is just your nose. comes up.

Yeah. I just wanted us I'll get it back. Okay.

question. Thank you very much. Okay, it is uh 5:00. I'd like to uh welcome you all to the City of Victorville Planning Commission meeting for August 31st, 2025. I'll call this meeting to order. And can we have roll call, please?

Commissioner Marsh, here. Commissioner Marshall, here. Commissioner Thomas is absent, Vice Chair Messen is absent, and Chair Kurt here. We have quorum. Thank you. Next, if you'll please rise for the invocation, that'll be led to us by uh Commissioner Marshall, followed by the pledge of allegiance by Commissioner Marsh. Okay, heavenly universe, I would ask that you please grant us the wisdom this evening to uh consider all the items at hand with uh the wisdom and the patience uh that it may call for. Amen.

Uh please uh face the flag and 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, next up on the agenda is our general uh public comments. This would be a time for the public to speak to the commission on items that are not on tonight's agenda. I understand we have at least uh one. That's correct. Our first speaker is Carlos Rodriguez. Welcome.

Yes. Mhm. Uh good evening uh chairman and fellow commissioners. Uh Carlos Rodriguez. I'm chief policy officer for the building industry association of Southern California. Uh we respectfully request the planning commission bring forward an agenda item for your September meeting to permit the limited use of vinyl fencing within track boundaries, specifically sideyard and rear yard fencing as part of a 24month pilot program. This program would not eliminate block walls for new communities. Block walls would still be required along the perimeter of the community, street facing walls and front yard returns. This is a narrow targeted change focused on flexibility and good planning. Vinyl fencing is the industry standard for residential communities across Southern California, including neighborhoods with homes priced at 1.5 million and up to $2 million. For Victorville, we proposed an enhanced hybrid product with steel reinforced post, concrete footings, and the strength to withstand wind speeds over 100 milesPH. It also includes UV protection, weathering performance, and will not rust, rot, or splinter, or require uh painting, ensuring long-term aesthetic appeal and low maintenance for homeowners. Our the product also carries a 20-year warranty and includes a metal barrier underground to uh prevent pets from digging out and enhancing public safety. From a planning perspective, this proposal allows the city to test a high quality, proven product while maintaining community design standards. It also uh would reduce construction costs by 6 to $13,000 per home, giving

builders greater flexibility to reinvest those savings into incentives that improve affordability and help more families achieve home ownership in Victorville. We believe this pilot program is innovative. its balanced approach. It maintains visual consistency, enhances durability, improves homeowner satisfaction, and supports the city's goals of increasing attainable housing. We ask for your support this evening to move this forward for consideration at the September meeting and putting it on the agenda. We would hope in the meantime in adding it to the agenda, we'd have the opportunity to schedule some a tour so you can see uh the uh vinyl fencing for yourself to work with you, your fellow commissioners and staff to bring this forth uh in a staff report for a a a good robust uh deliberative discussion. We appreciate the opportunity for your consideration tonight. We urge your support to put it on the agenda in September and thank you so much for your consideration this evening. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Jennifer Chung.

Welcome.

Hi, thank you for the opportunity to speak. Um, we are here today to obviously revisit a topic uh that we last presented to you about 3 years ago allowing vinyl fencing in new home development in this uh rear and sideyards. At that time, the product was advance has been advanced even further and its performance has been thoroughly time-t tested. We have over 25 years of experience installing vinyl fencing in our communities with no service issues. This is not theory, it's reality. We've used vinyl in the majority of our projects, including the million-doll to$ two million dollar projects that Carlos had alluded to in Torrance and Seami Valley. Even in the challenging high wind environment of the Antelopee Valley, we've successfully installed vinyl for over two decades without problems. Um, this is a superior product that delivers durability, low maintenance, and lasting sorry, lasting curb appeal. To address the concerns raised by council, planning commission, and staff in the past, we went back to the drawing board. We'd like to the opportunity just to present our version of this enhanced uh vinyl fence engineered specifically for the Victorville market. And these upgrades go above and beyond the standard product, ensuring the highest performance for local conditions. So, it is no secret that housing affordability is on everyone's mind. Builders across the board are cutting prices, offering larger incentives, and providing rate buyowns. For example, LAR has been offering incentives to up to 13% of the house costs by allowing uh vinyl fencing in place of block walls. We can save thousands of dollars per lot. Savings that can be passed uh directly to home buyers or used to maintain competitive pricing. Every dollar matters when families helping families achieve home ownership. We're

proposing this 24-month pilot program so you can see the results for yourselves. This is a low-risk opportunity to test the enhanced final product in our upcoming communities and confirm that it meets the city's standards for quality, durability, and aesthetics. All the while um improving house attainability. Vinyl fencing is stronger, better, and more resilient than ever before. and it has been proven over decades in demanding climates and in high value communities. We are confident this pilot program will demonstrate that it can serve Victorville homeowner owners just as well. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Mike Durham. Welcome everybody. My name is Mike Durham. I don't know if I will be as eloquent as the group prior to me, but uh I'm the vice president of operations for LGI Homes and uh I just well re would reiterate what was said. Uh vinyl fencing is a standard in our business in the city of Victorville. Um we just came off of bu building 181 homes at Desert Willow Village, all block. Uh one of the hardships we've been facing is affordability. I mean, it it's no secret like uh Jennifer had spoken about it. We've hit the price ceiling in many capacities. I think about when I bought my first home, I paid $85,000 and was scared to death over it. Uh where the median house price these days is $500,000, which could be painful for anybody on top of people looking to buy a home in affordability. So, vinyl fencing is something we do on a day-to-day. It's what we use everywhere. It's we've been using it for years. I come from a building background. Uh worked for a company called PY Homes for 15 years and that was our standard. Um product's been around forever. It's not debatable. It's it's a great product. Uh what we're asking for is consideration to use it here in Victorville. Uh which as Jennifer mentioned, it's going to help out from an affordability standpoint. Um, we're doing everything we can to get buyers in, including paying down points for interest rates these days, uh, paying closing costs, whatever we have to do to help people get into the door and still, uh, continue the business. But this is an aspect that is an alternate product that we use on an ongoing everywhere else that provides benefit and part of that benefit is the cost piece as well. Uh, but great quality product. I have no problems putting in my home.

Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Rick Kvasos.

Good evening. My name is Rick Kavalsus. I work for one of the major fence companies that work with all the builders locally. and I'm here to pro provide my support for the builders as far as my experience in installing the vinyl fencing. Um, and working with them, they've actually gone above and beyond. Um, well, it's it's a very good product even in standard 8ft on center with no reinforcements, 70 mph wind loads. uh they designed something that would shorten up the on centers, add steel into the posts and into the rail and then we went ahead and helped them out with calculations and we get it up to 95 to 110 mph wind loads. Um I've been in fencing since 1999 um and primarily installed as an installer the vinyl fencing. I have never replaced a vinyl fence for uh anybody whether it's a homeowner or for the new builders. Um, for me it's a great product. I think they're they got something that's going to help them out. And um, if you guys need any information, I can answer some questions on anything else. And I got a copy of the uh, structurals for that if you guys want to see that. I thank for your time. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Elon Fineold. Dear distinguished planning commissioners and staff, my name is Elan Fangold. I'm the VP of operations for Pacific Communities. I think Jen, Carlos, and Rick did a great job explaining everything on the vinyl fence in terms of aesthetics and durability. I want to stress the issue of affordability one more time. Um, as you know, affordability in California has hit record low. The average saving per lot when going vinyl versus block is on average $10,000. That could be the difference from a lot of our um prospect homeowners from being able to buy a home and not being able to buy a home. At the current project in Victorville that we developed called Jasper, we now offer up to $30,000 for buying down the rate so we can have more affordability for home buyers. But even that is not enough for some of them and they cannot attain home ownership. This cost savings that we can later on bring to our buyers by reducing the rate is crucial to get more affordability and home buying ability for new homeowners in Vicville. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. We have no additional speakers.

No one else. Okay. Um then I will go ahead and I will uh uh close the general public comments. Um we just heard from the individuals on this um fencing and although this is not an agendaized item right now um we cannot deliberate, discuss or question anything on this. However, they did make a request to um give us a presentation I believe at the next meeting which would then need to go on the agenda. Um, I'm under the, uh, feeling that that I'd be okay with that, assuming if the rest of the commission is, and if they are, would the process be a vote to to uh allow that to go onto the next agenda for a presentation?

That is correct, Mr. Chair. A vote would be uh necessary to agendaize something uh by a majority of the planning commission. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to clarify that. is is does anybody want to make a motion to allow them to come in?

Mr. Mr. Chair, if I may, if that is the path forward, I I know the request is is for a um I just want to be clear on the request because what was presented here tonight was to to bring an item forward at next meeting. However, with our required 20-day noticing guidelines uh to notice a code amendment, um my recommendation, should that be the path forward of the planning commission would be, as you noted, to have a discussion uh slash presentation of the item at the next regularly scheduled meeting in September. Uh and then from there the planning commission would determine if there was any actionable items or requests from staff to regarding code amendment or anything correct

at that point which we don't even know until we see the presentation. Okay. Um sound all right to you guys and if so does somebody want to make a motion? I'll make I'll make the motion. I'll second. I have a first by Commissioner Marsh and a second by Commissioner Marshall. I'll take a roll call vote. Commissioner Marsh, yes. Commissioner Marshall, I. Chair Kurt, yes. Motion passes unanimously.

Okay. And so uh just as a clarification, uh they will uh be able to bring it will be on next the next agenda which would be what would that be? Um September 10th is the next regular meeting and they would be able to give uh an agendaized presentation at that point with discussion and dialogue. Correct. Correct.

Okay. All right. Then that moves us on uh to You're welcome. Uh moves us on to a set of uh three sets of minutes we need to deal with. These minutes were from uh May 14th, 2025, June 11th, 2025 um and July 9th, 2025. I'll make a motion to approve uh the minutes for May um is it May 14th, June 11th, and July 9th of 2025. Second.

I have a first by Commissioner Marsh and a second by Commissioner Marshall. I'll take a roll call vote. Commissioner Marsh, yes. Commissioner Marshall, I. Chair Kurt, yes. Motion passes unanimously.

Okay. Thank you. Um that brings us to our first uh public hearing item which is item number two. And um unfortunately on this item I'm going to have to recuse myself from this item due to a conflict of interest as I receive payment from the applicant for performing professional services not associated with this per uh with this proposal. So with that I will um have to leave the dis Due to Chair Kurt having to recuse himself, we have lost quorum. We will now move on to item number three. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission. Item three.

Yes. Thank you. Yep. We're ready for um item number three.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of planning commission. Item number three is plan case number EL24-000020. It is a tenative track map with a mitigated negative declaration that allow for the development of 32 single family lots on four undeveloped parcels totaling approximately 10 acres and zoned R1 single family residential. The project is located south of the intersection of Tony Ridge Lane and Ferndale Road and encompasses parcels on both the east and west side of Ferndale Road. The proposed tenative track map meets all the development standards of the R1 single family residential zone district, including minimum lot sizes, usable areas, and dwelling unit density. In addition, the proposal is consistent with the um established character of the existing and surrounding neighborhood. As proposed, no lots are less than 7200 square ft with an overall density of approximately 3.2 2 dwelling units per gross acre and access to the site will be provided through Ferndale Road and Chesta Avenue. The proposed map includes a design in accordance with the R1 single family residential zone district and the single family design guideline which incorporates elements such as um multi-purpose basin, avoidance of through streets and enhanced landscaping. In addition, landscaping area areas will be provided along Tony Ridge Lane that will include returns at the local roadway entries to create a landscape entry feature. And with that, staff recommends um that the planning commission conduct a public hearing, receive testimony regarding the proposed project, and take the following action. Adop adopt the attach mitigated negative declaration with a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the project and adopt resolution number P-25-019

approving tenative track map case number PLAN 24-000020 subject to that dash conditions of approval and that concludes my presentation happy. Okay. Thank you. Uh any questions uh on that staff report? Okay, not not seeing none, then I will open up the public hearing. Do we have any uh speaker cards? We have no speaker cards. Okay. If there's no one here to speak on this item, then I will close the public hearing and I'll bring it back to the commission for a determination.

I'll make a motion to adop um to adopt item number agenda item number three according to staff recommendations. Second. I have a first by Commissioner Marsh and a second by Commissioner Marshall. I'll take a roll call vote. Commissioner Marsh. Yes. Commissioner Marshall. I. Chair Kurt. Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Okay. Thank you.

That moves us on to uh item number four, staff report, please. Good evening, chair and members of the planning commission. Item number four is case number PL PL24-000021 which is a request for a site plan modification to previously approved case number PL21-000012 which authorized the development of a 7,380 ft autozone retail store on a 1.3 acre parcel located north of and abuing Mojave Drive just west of Elvato Road. While the original um project was deemed categorically exempt under sequest section 15332 for infill development, a subsequent biological survey identified a western Joshua tree within the footprint of the proposed retail building. Because the tree cannot be preserved in place, the applicant is required to obtain an incidental take permit from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. This change triggers the need for the adoption of a mitigated negative declaration as the original SQA exemption no longer applies. The site plan modification serves to ensure SQUA compliance and formally incorporates the required mitigation measures. Importantly, the site plan and proposed development remain largely unchanged from the original approval. The project site is part of a larger development at the prominent northwest corner of Mojave Drive and Elvado Road, comprised of four parcels. An adjacent fueling station to the east, which is part of this overall development, is currently under construction and will provide autozone access to Elevado Road through a connected rear drive aisle. A condition for reciprocal access between the two parcels um the four parcels of the overall development has been included in the associated resolution for this project. Autozone will additionally have

access to Mojave Drive provided by two shared drive aisles. The original building elevations that the planning commission reviewed in the original site plan Q plan 21-000012 did not meet the city's commercial design guidelines as it lacked adequate color variation and wall articulation and required revised elevations to be provided prior to building permit issuance. The updated elevations included in this site plan modification case retain the stone veneer Wayne's coat and neutral color palette, but now include darker accent colors for visual depth, decorative cornice treatments at the parapit, metal trellis features for landscaping to break up blank stucco walls. These enhancements improve the building's architectural quality and better align with the city's design standards. The proposal generally complies with Title 16 landscaping requirements. Planters are distributed throughout the parking area. Multiple 12-in box trees are proposed and an oversized landscape planter is located along the site's frontage. A condition from the first site plan approval has carried over to require to require vertical landscaping features such as climbing vines on the new metal trellis features or the planting of Italian cypress trees to break up some of the otherwise blank stucco wall surfaces. Though this project has been in plan check with the building department since its original entitlement approval which was stalled due to the issue with the on-site Joshua tree. A complete and code compliant landscape plan is still outstanding and must be approved prior to permit issuance. As outlined in the staff report for this item, staff would like to make note that during the typical noticing process for this project, three response letters were received from various local agencies, including Bertekch, Southwest Gas, and the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, as well as two responses from tribal governments.

Applicable comments have been incorporated into the project resolution as conditions of approval, including the requirement for a code compliant trash enclosure, project adherence to fugitive dust best management practices, requirements for MDAQMD permits for utilization of certain types of equipment during project construction, and conditions related to the discovery of cultural resources during the project's construction. In summary, this site plan modification ensures SQA compliance through the adoption of a mitigated negative declaration and updated conditions of approval. The proposed development remains consistent with the original approval and aligns with the zoning design and development standards of the city of Victorville. Staff recommends that the planning commission conduct a public hearing, receive testimony regarding the proposed project, and take the following actions. Adopt the associated mitigated negative declaration with a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the project and adopt resolution number P-25-018 approving the site plan modification case number PLAN24-000021 subject to the attached conditions of approval. Staff remain available for any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you for that report. Uh any questions of staff? No. Thanks. I'll uh open up the public hearing on on this agenda item number four. Do we have any cards? We have no speaker cards. Is there anyone here that would like to speak to us tonight on this one? Okay. I will close the public hearing on number four. I'll bring it back to the commission for determination. I'll make a motion to adopt U agenda item number four according staff recommendations. Second.

I have a first by Commissioner Marsh and a second by Commissioner Marshall. I'll take a roll call vote. Commissioner Marsh. Yes. Commissioner Marshall. I. Chair Kurt? Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. that has passed. And that moves us on to um number five, some new business. It's a uh I think just an overview report on Assembly and Senate bills.

Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Uh members of the commission, agenda item number five provides a synopsis of Assembly Bill 130 and Senate Bill 131, uh which were approved by Governor Nuomo on June 30th, 2025 and went became effective immediately. Um, these bills together make major changes to both the California Environmental Quality Act and California Housing Law. This includes uh items such as new SQA exemptions, updated housing streamlining streamlining requirements, and building code uh implementation standards. Uh within this report to the planning commission, the focus of staff's assessment was to provide a brief explanation of those topics uh that will impact future planning commission reviews and approvals while refraining from analyzing those portions of the bills that do not directly impact uh the planning commission's uh review items. Some examples of those items that were not included u in our synopsis are things such as litigation streamlining coastal commission uh procedures, uh water and sewer system exemptions, uh homeless shelter safety reporting requirements, and funding for homeless uh services, state funding for homeless services. Just a few examples of types of items that were not included because generally those items don't become come before the planning commission for review. Um, with that to highlight some of the some of the bills that we noted in our attachment and in our synopsis, I won't review all of them, but I think um, for the purpose of this meeting, it's important to go over the ones that you'll likely see in the coming uh, months and years. Um, first uh, the infill housing exemption. Uh this exemption um to SQA will basically allow um any housing development on a project site of less than 20 acres um to be considered exempt from SQA. There are some parameters though that it has to meet. Uh number one, it has to be uh next to development within a quarter mile of the site or abuing the site on

75% of its sides. Um it has to be at least 15 units per acre in density. it has to comply with the underlying zone district um and it cannot be habitat for protected species. So a good example of that um in this case would be a project site that maybe met all those criteria but had a Joshua tree on it would not be eligible to utilize that categor that SQA exemption. Uh another one of note is resoning consistent with the housing element. Um some municipalities um deal with a lot of public output and outcry over resoning that was required as their housing element. As you may recall, we recently updated our zoning code to introduced uh mixed use zones that go up to 30 units per acre. Reszone the R4 or redesate the R4 district to allow 30 units per acre. Some communities, these are very contentious uh updates. We luckily didn't have that issue, but this allows cities to find um those projects and those zoning updates exempt from SQA to take um away um any kind of challenge due to squa with those zones. So if if it's a housing element mandated pro housing element mandated program that the state requires then it can be considered exempt from SE as it relates to your zoning ordinance update. Um another interesting exemption is the near miss sequestry mining exemption. Essentially what this exemption does um it's not a complete exemption in the true sense where the entire project would be exempt. Um, however, if a project, we can, I guess, reference the infill housing exemption. Let's say a project met the 20 acre threshold, met the density threshold, met the threshold of the development on all four sides, but did have a Joshua tree on site. In that case, they would still have to go through an initial study and mitigate NEG deck likely. Um, however, that review of that study would be limited to only that item that didn't meet make it eligible for the SQA exemption. So in a case like that, the the initial study would essentially

focus solely on the biological resources. Um it wouldn't bring up greenhouse gas. It wouldn't bring up transportation because those things are are not subject to any of the exemption allowances. So a very unique one. It can be used in all the SQL exemp exemptions. That seemed like a very appropriate one to tie it to because it's referenced in this in this in one of these bills as well. Um but that's a unique uh change that the state made for their exemptions. Um, another one, small lot subdivisions, remainder parcel allowed. Um, I highlight this one only because we'll have a code amendment coming before you soon regarding SP9, SP 684 regarding small lot subdivisions. Uh, at the time of our new business item on this at the last meeting of the planning commission, our senior planner, Miss Cow, Mrs. Kawsaki, noted that there's recent changes, and this is one of those changes. um that essentially now in those small lot subdivisions, a remainder parcel that has a home on it can be included in that. Um remainder parcels aren't counted towards the overall 10 lots that could be created with the SB684 development. Essentially, it becomes 11 lots. It's just one's called a remainder, not a numbered lot. So, that's a unique one that was added. And lastly, uh there's a building code update pause. Um, this one is is unique in that residential building codes will be delayed. Um, there there'll be no allowances to update or adopt new residential building codes as they relate to residential development until June 1st of 2031. So, it locks in those building codes for developers so they're they know the rules of the game as they proceed. Uh, with that, this item was presented for information update purposes only. Uh, so there is no recommendation at this time.

Okay. Um, any questions or comments from that presentation from the commission? Go ahead. I just wanted to thank you. Thanks for the clarification. I had um I was just curious on the uh on the freezing of the building codes. How long um how often are those building codes uh updated um from the state generally? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's a triannual cycle, so every three years. Every three. Okay. um they'll they'll allow them to update the commercial building codes and the other building codes as they don't relate to um res residences and dwelling units but for the purpose of residential those are on boss.

Okay. And then um I noticed in the um in the chart in one of the the graph charts the um there was mention of some some waiverss or something um that had to do with the Bright Line possibility that that if they um tied into the main California line project then there could be an exemptions. I didn't quite understand it. Do you remember seeing that? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Would that come into into play at all here?

It it potentially could. Um, we would have to confirm a couple things. Number one, we'd have to confirm that that project is 100% uh planned to connect to the California highspeed rail. Um, I believe there's some some plan connections, but I'm not sure how solid those are or or formal those planned connections are. Um, it also would allow those exemptions for like maintenance facilities associated with that rail uh to be exempt from SQA. However, it would have to be addressed in a larger ER. Although wouldn't that E would would basically have to note that those were planned, but they wouldn't have to look at project specific impacts for that maintenance facility where it may be located. So, they could have a larger E for the rail that says we plan to have um maintenance facilities in XYZ without going into detail in those specific locations. Um and if it was called out as part of that overall E, then that exemption would be applicable in that case. So, um, a lot of, um, asterisk, so to speak, on on what would make it applicable. Uh, but potentially, yes, that that could be that could work here for those like kind of maintenance facilities and things associated with Bright Line West.

So, that could that could help that project a little bit if they comply and it's could be some streamlining possibly. Okay. Um, I have no other questions. So, thank you for the uh update and the report. Um, so that'll bring us to final reports uh from uh commissioners. Commissioner Marsh, anything? Uh, no, I don't have anything. Okay. Anything? Uh, Commissioner Marshall? Nope. Nothing. Okay. Um, any um reports from uh staff?

Uh, just one item, Mr. Chair. Um, I know that we had one item this evening that was uh not being able to act on due to quorum. Um, I would note that uh the planning commission rules do allow the planning commission to reconsider that item and adjourn a meeting to um to another date to to reconsider an item due to quorum. Um, it does require a majority vote of the planning commission. So, uh, staff has identified September 3rd, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. as a viable date should the planning commission, the majority of the planning commission, um, wish to, um, adjourn this meeting and reconvene for the purposes of hearing the item that was unable to make quorum.

Okay. So, do I do we need to get that consensus right now? Yes, we do. Okay. Um, so, uh, what Mr. Hardig has just uh said is that uh basically do we want to have a special uh meeting uh before the next regularly scheduled one to hear this item that we were not able to hear this evening. Right. Um does anybody want to make a a motion on that? Yeah, I make a motion to have to have the meeting special meeting, right? Yeah, I make a motion. It would actually be a regular meeting. It would be a reg. It would be a regular special meeting. Not a spe there's no special. It's just a regular meeting. Well, all the meetings are special. What are you talking about?

Come on. Yeah. I'll make a motion to have the meeting on September the 3 at 5:00 p.m. Uh, yes. And a second. It's important. I have a first by Commissioner Marsh and a second by Commissioner Marshall. I'll take a roll call vote. Commissioner Marsh, yes. Commissioner Marshall, I. Chair Kurt. Yes. Motion passes unanimously.

Okay. Thank you. I'm glad we're able to do that. Yes. That is an important item for our community and do what we can. So with that, as planning commission chairperson, I hereby adjourn this regular planning commission meeting to an adjourned regular meeting to be held on Wednesday, September 3rd, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. at the City of Victorville Council Chambers for the purpose of considering agenda on number item number two of today's agenda that was unable to be acted upon due to a lack of a quorum at this very special meeting. Thank you. Yeah. See you then on the third.