City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening everybody. Uh today is Wednesday, February the 11th uh 2026 and the time is uh 5:00 p.m. The regular meeting of the city of Victorville Planning Commission will come to order. Madame Clerk, would you kindly take the role? Commissioner Marshall here. Commissioner Messen here. Commissioner Morales here. Vice Chair Thomas here. Chair Marsh here. We have Cororum.

Okay. Um at this time we'll have the invocation and the pledge. Uh the invocation will be led by Commissioner Marshall and the pledge will be led by Vice Chair Thomas. Uh would you please stand? Okay, heavenly universe, I'd like to ask tonight that you grant us the wisdom on this commission and to everyone in the room uh and their advocating. Uh I ask for uh the blessing on on a a peaceful and and thoughtful meeting tonight and um yeah, thank you. to face the flag. Right hand will be 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 uh at this time we'll have uh public comments. Um this will be uh this will 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 um has has been opened. Uh, Madame Clerk, uh, do we have any speakers?

I have no speaker cards today.

Okay. and then we'll close uh uh close the public uh public comments and we'll move to the our first item is the approval of our minutes uh um minutes of the November 12th, 2025, December 10th, 2025 and January 14, 2026 regular planning commission meetings. So I'll invite a motion um on this item. Commissioner Thomas moved that the minutes for November 12th, 2025, December 10th, 2025, and January 14th, 2026 be approved. Second.

Okay. So, we have a u we have a uh first um a motion made by Vice Chair Thomas and a second by uh Commissioner Marshall. Madame Clerk, we uh will take the vote. Commissioner Marshall, I. Commissioner Messen, yes. Commissioner Morales, yes. Commissioner Tom, Vice Chair Thomas, yes. Chair Marsh, yes.

Motion passes unanimously. Okay. So, we have taken action uh we've now taken action to approve uh staff's recommendation as presented on the agenda. Our next item is a site plan and conditional use permit with an initial study required to allow for development of of 99 unit condominium uh development. a tenative track map for condominium purposes and a zone change from planned unit development to R2 low medium uh low medium density residential two parcels totaling 8.5 acres. Mr. Haviki uh would you kindly introduce this item? Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Agenda item number two is case number 24-00005. And as you noted, it's a conditional use permit with an initial study and uh mitigated negative declaration that will allow for the development of a 99 unit condominium development. Included in this proposal is a tenative track map, a zone change from planning and development to R2. And this is on a project site totaling approximately 8.5 acres. It is located at the northwest corner of Silica Drive and First Avenue. And for reference, that is uh west of and abuing Midas Elementary School. Uh the proposed site plan and conditional use permit will allow for this condominium development that consists of 19 three-story buildings and an overall density of approximately 11.6 uh 62 units per acre. The design includes residential buildings with a mix of four, five, and six unit structures and include enclosed ground floor parking with individually owned buildings. Uh included in this project is a comprehensive package of on-site amenities. This includes a clubhouse, a mail center, a lounge with kitchen,

activity lawn with water features, an outdoor patio, swimming pool, covered barbecue and picnic area, full-size pickle ball and basketball courts. And these amenities are all integrated into the overall design of the project, centrally located, and there's over 100,000 square feet of landscaped open space and walking trails. And as proposed, this exceeds the requirements of the development code for a project of this size. As proposed, the project has been designed in accordance with most development standards outlined in the development code. This includes conformance with required parking, landscaping, amenities, and building height standards. Additionally, this project exceeds development standards in some areas uh namely quantity amenities, parking, landscaping, and unit size. Uh as proposed and in order to ensure the final project maintains compliance with all applicable development standards of the development code and the proposal you see before you this evening, conditions of approval have been added addressing landscaping, refuge collection, and fencing throughout the site. With regard to the building elevations proposed, uh these include a primarily modern architectural design that includes staggered wall planes, canal levered second floors, exaggerated framed windows, metal awnings, and glass guardrails. Uh as well as various materials throughout the proposal. Staff finds that this proposal complies with all of the multif family design guidelines as proposed and is supported by staff. Uh, as you'll see as part of this proposal, it also includes a conditional use permit and ten of trackm. And this requirement exists because the condominium projects will create individually owned units through the division of airspace with the tenative

trackm. And the proposal will include shared common areas triggering long-term subdivision access, parking, and maintenance considerations that differ from standard multif family apartment projects that are approved via just a site plan. Uh however, as proposed and designed, staff supports approval of the conditional use permit and tenant track map and has included appropriate uh findings within each resolution as applicable. Also included is the zone change requirement to change the property from planned unit development in its current zone of PUD-1-90 to R2 lowmedium density residential. This R2 zoning uh designation would be consistent with the site's existing lowmedium density residential general plan designation. It will match the R2 zoning neighboring the site and as proposed and with the R2 zoning it would provide for an enhanced development as compared to the existing PUD zoning designation uh which does not meet current Valville municipal code standards uh or general plan density standards. Uh with regards to the environmental review on this project, an initial study and mitigated negative declaration were prepared and this resulted in multiple mitigation measures with regards to aesthetic measures, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, geology and soils and noise uh included in the mitigated negative declaration. Additionally, comments have been received by the Department of Toxic Substances Control and a neighboring property owner uh with updated mitigation measures and responses to those comments provided to the planning commission for reference, including the late addition item before you this evening. And with that, staff recommends that the planning commission conduct a public hearing, receive testimony regarding the proposed project, and take the following

actions. Adopt the attached mitigative negative declaration with a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the project. adopted resolution number P-26-00004 recommending city council approval of the zone change portion of case number PL24-0000005 adopted resolution number P-26-00005 recommending city council approval of the conditional use permit portion of case number PLN 24-00005 subject to the the attached conditions of approval adopt resolution number P-26-00 006 recommending city council approval of the site plan portion of case number PLN 24-00005 subject to the attached conditions of approval and adopted resolution number P-26-00007 recommending city council approval of the tenative trackmap portion of case number PLN 24-00005 subject to the attached conditions of approval and as you may recall this requires council approval because the zone change portion of the item triggers the rest of all items to be considered concurrently by the city council. Staff is available for any comments or questions you may have. Thank you.

Okay. Um, thank you, Mr. Hodi. Um, are there any uh technical questions from the planning commission uh from planning commissioners regarding this item? Uh, start with Commissioner Marshall. Yeah, I had one question. Um, I'm just curious about the genesis of this project. Was it, you know, was it our um economic development team that went out? It looks like a really cool project. And so I'm just curious like what the, you know, what how how the project kind of came into being

um beyond staff's engagement during the presubmittal process and our normal development process. I'm unaware of any additional um insight there. However, I know the applicant is present this evening. Perhaps uh if the commission desires, they can inquire with it. Um, okay. Uh, Commissioner Messa, yes, just two quick ones. So, I did see that in the staff report it says that at minimum they would build three residential buildings during the phases. So, I'm assuming that we might see four buildings go up in one phase, five in another. Um, due to the amount, I think, right? If I'm doing that math correctly.

Uh, yes, the phases would would vary. um there is minimum set and I think importantly with a proposal such as this uh the amenities are um proposed in concurrence with the different phases. So along with the first phase I believe you have the clubhouse as well which is one of the most important amenities in my opinion and then each phase adds to those amenities. So, we're not going to see a situation where um just buildings get built with no amenities. They will have amenities added with every phase of development. And I believe uh the the intent is over 36-month period to have full development.

Great. Thank you. And then just one last one um to um continue off that. I I believe the applicant requested that as the buildings go up that they can be moved into as long as safety conditions are met. Does that include the turning left lane that is included or would that come at a later date? Uh good evening, Commissioner Messen. Typically, your public improvements are going to be tied to the track map. So, once the tenative map uh gets approved, we'll go through engineering, final engineering, review all the improvement plans, and then at that point, prior to city council approval, the property owner or developer will provide securities. So, we will have either cash or a bond in place for those public improvements. Um, typically if the city has a an a recorded subdivision improvement agreement, we can allow occupancies of the individual units because we have a security in place for those public improvements. Generally speaking, they're going to want to complete those improvements to be able to provide access to the residents. But I would imagine that the public improvements and the on-site improvements are going to be done simultaneously.

Great. Thank you so much. That's all I have. Uh, Commissioner Morales, I do not. Um the question I did have I believe you had answered it was a 36 month. Is that how long that they plan on this is going to take that to build out? Yes, that is the anticipated construction timeline. Vice Chair Thomas.

Yes. The uh zoning was changed proposed to be changed to R2. Uh would that be just that particular uh parcel that that particular lot? I know not notice that there is a a lot about the same size behind it uh on silica. Uh is that also being changed or is it remain the same or is it R2 already?

Thank you, Commissioner Thomas. Uh the zone change would only be applicable to the property in question. Although uh property to the north is currently zoned R2, property to the west is currently zoned R2. And being this is a corner lot, um those contiguous properties would be zone 2. Across the street to the east is a school district property that is zoned public and civic. And I believe to the south uh we have single family residences within a PUD. And and I don't have any um I don't have any technical questions for uh for staff. So, at this point, I'll open the public hearing. U Madam Clerk, are there any requests to speak? No, chair.

Okay. Um Okay. So, then I'll go ahead and I'll close the public hearing and I'll invite a motion for this item. I'd like to motion that we move item two. I second. Okay. So, we have a uh we have a motion uh first by um Commissioner Marshall and a second by Commissioner Messen. Um any comments on the pending motion? Um start with Commissioner Marshall.

Uh yeah, I just wanted to say that I think that this project looks um it looks really cool. I think that there's a a profound need right now for density uh in our communities and and walkability. And so I look at um I look at something like this and I see um you know, I see Palm Springs, I see other communities that are, you know, that are uh wealthy and that are up and coming. And so I'm excited to see a project like this and I I hope that uh we have the opportunity to approve more projects like this. Uh Commissioner Melson,

I just want to echo those sentiments. I think it's um very well put together and um given that the area also has other residential um but it's it's really nice to see something like this come through, especially because I think it's probably one of the first type of projects like this in the city. So thank you, Commissioner Morales. No comment. Uh, Vice Chair Thomas.

Well, let me add to uh everyone else's comments about uh it being a good project. I think it is a good project, and I like it because it's condos, so uh they're individually owned, so you're not uh you're not dealing with uh rentals. Uh one of the concerns I have, of course, is school there. And someone did mention in in our package here about traffic. Uh just making sure that there's some some mitigating measures out there to make sure that uh traffic flows okay there. Uh there's a school there and I know in the mornings that can be kind of tough, but uh after looking at these plans, it it appears that there are other ways uh there, you know, other ways to ingress and egress. So you don't necessarily have to get out on uh uh First Street. So, uh, but I think it's a good project.

Okay. And I I I too I like the project. Um, so, uh, we'll go ahead and go to the vote. Uh, Madam Cler, will you take the vote? Commissioner Marshall, I. Commissioner Messen, yes. Commissioner Morales, yes. Vice Chair Thomas, yes. Chair Marsh, yes. Motion passes unanimously.

Okay. We have uh we have now taken action to approve staff's recommendation as presented on the agenda. Um, now we'll go to uh continue public hearings. Our next item is um it's the third continuence uh request for case number uh PLAN23-000023 a site plan with a proposed mitigated negative declaration to allow for the development of two industrial warehouse buildings totaling approximately 174,000 square ft on two vacant M1 light industrial zoned parcels totaling approximately 8.5 acres. Mr. Hadigi, um would you would you kindly introduce this item?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senior planner Travis Clark uh is the author of this item and we'll provide an update for the commission.

Thank you, Chairman. Uh Marsh, fellow commissioners, uh yes, item number three is a continuence request for case number PL23-000023. uh as noted by the chairman uh is a proposal to allow for the development of two industrial buildings totaling approximately 174,000 square feet for uh warehouse and distribution. Uh with each building comprised of 80,85 square ft of warehouse space and 6,910 ft of ancillary office space. Uh the project site is located north of and abudding theological extension of Cactus Road and bordered by the extension of Mesa Linda Avenue on the east and uh Lassen Road on the west. Uh this case is being presented to the planning commission tonight as a third continuence request. Uh, as the commission may recall, this item was continued from the December 10th hearing, uh, to afford staff and applicants and the applicant, excuse me, uh, time to address the comments received during the SQA review period and to prepare a response for the planning commission's review. Uh however uh at this time the applicant's consultant is still compiling a formal response to the previous comments received and consequently the applicant has requested uh that this item be continued to the April 8th 2026 meeting uh to afford staff and the applicant time to prepare a response for the planning commission's consideration. Uh therefore, uh staff is recommending that the planning commission conduct a public hearing uh receive testimony regarding the proposed project and continue the public hearing uh to the planning commission's April 8th, 2026 hearing and uh staff is available should the planning commission have any questions.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Um let's see. Are there any technical questions from the pl from planning commissioners regarding this item? Start with Commissioner Marshall. I have none. Commissioner Messa, I have none. Commissioner Morales, I have none. Vice Chair Thomas, none. And I don't have any myself. Okay. So, at this um I'll open I'll open the public hearing. Madame Clerk, are there any requests to speak? No. Chair Marsh. Okay. Uh since this is a request for continuence, I'll leave the public hearing open and I'll invite a motion on this item. I move that motion to continue the item.

I second. Okay. So, we have a motion uh we have a motion um made by Commissioner Messen and a second by Commissioner um Vice Chair Thomas. Madame Clerk, will you please take a vote? Commissioner Marshall, I. Commissioner Messen, I. Commissioner Morales, I. Vice Chair Thomas, yes. Chair Marsh. Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Okay.

So, we have taken action to approve staff's recommendation as presented on the agenda uh continuing the public hearing to April 8th, 2026. Okay. So, our our next item uh new business is closed circuit television surveillance requirements. Mr. Hottie, would you kindly introduce this item?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Uh, agenda item number four, as you noted, is regarding a new business discussion item regarding closed circuit television surveillance requirements. As you may recall, at the planning commission's January 14th meeting, Chair Marsh inquired into the city's standards regarding closed circuit television surveillance systems um at public areas of establishments operating at bars and nightclubs. Specifically, it was in uh reference to u some law enforcement activity had taken place during the holidays at a location where where the cameras weren't fully available. Uh so to to discuss that item as part of um in response to that item, I'm sorry, as well as a larger discussion by the city council on the city's overall surveillance requirements, staff thought it was relevant to bring forward a discussion item to talk about um the background and current implementation regarding items that come before the planning commission and zoning administrator as well as future options that could be considered u to potentially strengthen those the city's surveillance capabilities. So, regarding our background and our implementation, um, beginning in 2014 when the city adopted ordinance number 2324, staff began to include conditions of approval on all, uh, alcohol uh, related businesses that sold alcohol for on-site consumption um, and provided operating conditions uh, there on those conditional use permits. Uh later in 2024 when the city adopted ordinance number 2450 uh those conditions of approval were strengthened and ultimately resulted in the condition of approval that we have currently that reads uh as follows. The business shall install and maintain a closed circuit television system capable of readily identifying facial features and stature of all patrons entering the establishment during hours hours of operation. Cameras are to be recorded and a minimum of a 90-day library of events shall be kept and available for

inspection by the Victorville Police Department. So that is the condition we currently utilize. I think of note with that condition is the intent there was for patrons entering establishments. Um and it doesn't have any language regarding exterior areas of the facility, parking lots, public areas, so on and so forth. Uh so the way staff proposed this item and provided some information for the planning commission is there are a few different options we can take to either um address concerns uh raised by not having uh those cameras in certain areas of of sites and to really expand the city's coverage. So um one option would be to um look at conditional use permits that we authorize in the city of Victorville. As you know, conditional use permits are discretionary and they can be uh approved with conditions of approval. So, one option um that exists is the planning commission and zoning administrator uh could include a condition of approval on all conditional use permits for any land use moving forward. That would include include video surveillance requirements. Uh so, this wouldn't just be limited to alcohol sales. It would be limit to any business that requires a discretionary approval. That's something we can um initiate fairly quickly. Um staff could propose a condition, come up with that and items that come before the planning commission or the zoning administrator could include that condition accordingly. That would act to expand the network of of available video surveillance that is in the city. Um additionally, that condition kind of handinhand with that would be the ability to update that condition of approval as it reads now. Again, as I noted, it it only speaks to patrons entering facilities. It doesn't speak to public areas or parking lots. So perhaps there's an opportunity to expand the language there to expand the coverage of that condition. So on on those uh uses that are have a condition of approval placed on them that require

the video surveillance that in addition to entries into the facility, it would also cover public areas such as parking lots um and public areas of the site that otherwise wouldn't be subject to the condition of approval. Uh we also have the option to uh expand law enforcement access as the condition is worded now. Um it is conditioned so that law enforcement has the ability to ask for those uh recordings. Um potentially though there is a push uh in in the city in the future to have a real-time information center um where a lot of these cameras that the city has access to um they can really be brought up on screen real time. So when there's uh crimes occurring or or calls for service, those cameras could be brought up and re reviewed by public safety officials immediately uh and determine what the nature of the call is and what resources need to be sent. So if we do um look at that condition of approval, an option could be to uh add language that would allow law enforcement to have real-time access to those systems in the future. um it doesn't exist yet within um that I'm aware of that we have those abilities yet. However, um the condition could be worded in a manner that when that is available that those systems are able to connect to the city's real-time information center. So then we have that additional um level of surveillance. And lastly, uh if the planning commission saw appropriate, uh there is an option for a municipal code amendment. Um, as the planning commission may recall, uh, in order for the planning commission to formally direct staff to initiate a code amendment, um, it has to be by resolution first instructing staff to initiate a code amendment. So in this case, if there was a recommendation by the commission to look into those options, recommendation could be made that staff bring back a resolution for consideration in the future where any new development um would be required to

install closed circuit uh television surveillance um systems that would be subject to all those requirements of connection to the city system, expanded coverage, etc. So with that staff really wanted to bring this forward as a discussion item to to have the conversation with the planning commission. That being said, we did provide a recommendation and that recommendation that staff provided is that the planning commission recommend expansion of the implementation of a standard condition of approval that requires a closed circuit television surveillance system to all land uses that require a conditional use permit. uh that the planning commission recommend an update to the currently implemented standard condition of approval that requires a closed circuit television system to include expanded coverage areas within public portions of premises um including parking areas. uh that the planning commission recommend an update to the currently implemented standard condition of approval that requires a closed circuit television surveillance system to be designed to connect to city systems and connected to city systems when associated infrastructure is available. And that city staff prepare a resolution for planning commission consideration to initiate a victim municipal code amendment to require closed circuit television surveillance systems for all new development. And with that, staff is available for any questions the commission may have.

Okay. Thank you. Um, okay. At this time, are there any question uh technical questions uh from planning commissioners regarding this item? We'll start with Commissioner Marshall.

Yes. So, just just I understand. So the staff is recommending that uh that that essentially on all new development um that has conditional use or just all new development um sort of writ large uh that there should be the requirement for uh for you know basically surveillance and and the other uh ju just to make sure that I'm understanding correctly and that that some of these systems were possible uh some of these surveillance systems would then connect into a broader uh centralized um surveillance system.

Thank you, Commissioner Marshall. Uh yes, at this time staff's recommendation is to add this condition of approval to all conditional uses to expand the um conditional use permit condition of approval to also include public areas, parking areas as well as connection to that broader system when available. Um our recommendation at this time is only to um prepare a resolution for planning commission further consideration should the planning commission want to seek th that type of condition on all new development. But at this time our recommendation that things that we could do uh essentially uh within days would be to u update the condition of approval on conditional uses and then prepare a resolution for future planning commission consideration should the planning commission wish to look at options for requiring that on new development and have a larger discussion at that time.

Okay. Uh uh Commissioner Messa. Yeah. So, um, well, we just approved a a residential conditional use permit. So, how would that apply in that situation? Would would the surveillance be in like the the visitor area, maybe the mailboxes? Do like would there be parameters for those type of developments if if it's going to be a cup that's going to be um applied for and then given by planning?

Thank you, Commissioner Messen. Yes, absolutely. Our our intent is only within public areas. So what that condition looks like we haven't drafted it yet um if we receive a recommendation tonight that will be the direction we move but our intent and how we envision that condition to look is just for public areas of the site. Uh so there there would be uh not any private areas of the site. I think for a thing a proposal, I'm sorry, like the condominium complex. What we envision are the the shared space, the the pool areas, the lawn areas, uh perhaps um the entry, the mail room, exactly those types of areas. But u kind of stopping short of anything that could be considered private or subject to privacy laws.

Okay. And then um just one other question that I had um um come back to me. I just lost it. Sorry. Okay. Uh Commissioner Morales. Yes. So this would just be for for all new development um that you're stating. Um but it would eventually is it something that you just want to discuss that it would eventually go to like the police station um in the future they would have you know access to all of every single development as well. Um

thank you commissioner Morales. Yes. So the proposal now conditional use permits could be on on new construction or they could be on um existing sites. So, so perhaps if for instance if there's a an office use that requires a conditional use permit in an industrial zone, if they came to the zoning administrator for a conditional use permit, we could place the condition on a project like that. So eventually um the the um amount of cameras we have would increase throughout the city. Um again, that the the resolution would be for consideration at a future date by the planning commission for brand new development that's not subject to the CUP. And then to answer the last part of your question, yes, it would eventually be um the capabilities would be there to the police department or public safety officials to review that um and have real-time access to it to to help guide them in their uh response uh to to response calls. I'm sorry.

Great. Thank you. Vice Chair Thomas.

Well, I can definitely see the value in in this uh especially at uh our businesses that serve alcohol and and so forth. I do have a I guess a little heartburn with uh privacy issues with uh people being filmed, but I mean it's part of everyday life now. Everywhere you go, it happens. But, uh, I don't know that I would want to require something like this in in condos or in and and and maybe they're needed. I'm just looking at the situation, the gut three situation going on. Maybe they are needed. If more cameras had been available there, it would have been a little easier maybe to resolve this. But, uh, again, I do get concerned about uh privacy issues. Uh, people uh uh being filmed all the time. It's just not you know, not not something that that's real agreeable with me. Now, it doesn't bother me. I'm not going to do anything wrong, but uh but there are people that, you know, knowledge of something like this, us passing something like this would would create some some problems with them, too. But, uh uh I think it's I think it's a good idea. I just have a little heartburn with it applying to all businesses and all new uh uh projects that involve CU uh CU. So, uh that's my concern. Okay. Uh may I have a just a couple of uh minor questions. Now this require this this requirement will only um this will only um go towards a new develop uh new new um

conditional use permits. So, if so, like an existing a an existing nightclub or bar or whatnot, they're not going to have to uh they're not going to fall under this requirement if it's if it's adopted unless they upgrade or update or ask for an update to their conditional use permit or does it is it retroactive to all?

Thank you, Chair Marsh. um as as is proposed and within the allowances our municipal code provides us. Um what we could do immediately is just address the new conditional use permits. Um and anything coming forward from this point forward u because they're discretionary items because uh whether the planning commissioner in their capacity review the conditional use permit or the zoning administrator administratively reviews a conditional use permit determines that that's a necessary condition of approval. um we can we can um place that condition on approval on any new condition use lease permit. So retroactively, no. That that would um as you may recall from um our deemed approved ordinance that went forward for on-site sales alcohol establishments, uh to do something like that retroactively on on businesses is a much um more intense process. Large code amendment and then we have to establish guidelines for how people are noticed, who who's apply, where it's applicable, when and in what instance. um down to um the inspection uh schedule for that like exactly like we did for deemed approved ordinance for on sale alcohol establishments. So at this point it would not be retroactive. Um it would only as proposed before you is only to impose those conditions on new uh conditional use permits. However, I would would add that businesses that have business licenses that have become uh problematic to either our police department for calls for service or code enforcement, the city um the city's municipal code does have sections that allow uh consideration of revocation of business licenses. And as part of that relocation process if there's an appeal filed, there's potential for kind of a middle ground to in in lie of suspension to place conditions of approval on that business license. Um it's not through the the traditional conditional use permit process. Um if if those cases

come before um the city manager, then essentially our code says that that business license is then conditioned. At the end of the day, they function very much the same. we apply the same kind of conditions of approval to those business licenses. Um, but that's the recourse we have at current time with those types of businesses if they are problematic or have have large calls for service or it becomes on our police departments or code enforcements radar that they need to be addressed or resolved um then there is a means to do that just not through the conditions permit process.

Okay. All right. Thank you. I guess my last question is just curiosity actually. Um, but as far as the cameras being able to communicate with like a main uh main system, is that a specific camera or can all c uh can all systems do this? Um, so they're not going to be required to get a specific type of system. Um there will there will be requirements to um be compatible with the city's system that we utilize and and forgive me I'm not 100% knowledgeable in that aspect of the requirement at this point in time. So I think to speak any further on that would not be beneficial to the discussion. However, um if we are um if the planning commission does make a recommendation to proceed accordingly, um that condition of approval will be vetted through our city leadership, through our city attorney um and our facilities seem to make sure that it it it meets all the standards that we have uh through the city. So, um I don't know if it's down to the camera so much as the software that they use that makes it compatible. Um and then there's different ways to connect into those whether it's a hard wire. I believe there's some some instances where there's like a a dongle that you can plug into the camera that transmits the signal via Wi-Fi. So, there's a couple different options for that.

Okay. All right. Cool. Um Okay. So, um Okay. Then at this time, I'll uh I'll invite a motion for on for this item. Chair, if I may, can I ask one more question?

Oh, yeah. Um, so regarding the the surveillance um system being able to connect into the city system, um, so currently do we happen to know how many businesses or developments have their own systems? Like is that known at all? Because I would imagine that some at their leisure would want to have that for precautionary measures. Um, do we happen to know that at all? And if we don't, that's perfectly fine. It's just something that came to mind. Thanks, Commissioner Mess. We do not have that information available. It's it's things we could we could locate with some research uh regarding our conditions permits and what items we've conditioned over the years. That wouldn't that wouldn't pull in the businesses that just have them because they they want them for their their insurance purposes, whatever the case may be. Um we found that we've been told that a lot of businesses um install those systems because it helps with their insurance costs. So, a a lot of businesses have them already. Um, so it it's not a burden in the sense that they have to install a system that wasn't already there. Um, it's just uh providing the the additional step to have the connection available.

Gotcha. Okay. I I did just want to also make note that as far as condition 3 goes, I am a little concerned about connecting to the city system because I would assume that we would have a specific requirement if and when that's identified. And I I I I don't want to put an burden on a a development, a business, or someone who's bringing something to the city if they already plan on doing something or that it's an additional hurdle for them. So, I hope that we can take that into consideration as we continue having this conversation on what once we know what that looks like since we're not sure yet. Um just so that that's a little bit more clear.

Thanks, Commissioner Mess. I I would I think that's that's great input. I think one thing I would add to is staff provided these recommendations um kind of in an order of what's easiest to implement first. Um and then maybe items that necessitate more discussion or more direction. Um so it's always on the table for the commission to consider these recommendations. They are numbered. Um so if if a first step is just you know looking at all conditional use permits with our current condition of approval um or perhaps that in public areas and then holding off and having larger discussions on the the connection portion or um even having larger discussions on um what types of business businesses or conditional use permits permits this would be applicable to. We can always bring that back to further discussions and hopefully have some more answers for the commission if that's something that the commission wants to consider in lie of the recommendation before you this evening.

Chair chair Marshall, if I could make a quick comment.

Okay, awesome. Um I I just wanted to um you know just sort of uh make mention right here and echo uh Chair Thomas um your your kind of concerns. Um you know just using like a Ben Franklin quote um one of my favorite quotes from him is is those that you know would give up a little bit of liberty uh to receive security um you know deserve neither and get none. And I am very very nervous about this particularly in this moment um when we have ICE raids and we have federal overreach that we're seeing in Minnesota and throughout the country. And uh and there's been a lot of cases where this surveillance is being used right now uh by ICE officers to go after um US citizens. And so I think that um I would urge the commission tonight that maybe we pump the brakes on this a little bit. um would be just kind of my my sort of comment and recommendation um with specific regards to the Nest um Guthrie the Guthrie case today. And this is something I know a little bit about. I've worked in tech and um I have a lot of friends that work in surveillance and they think a lot about privacy issues both nationally and internationally. um you know the if if there are issues like this the government um and the federal agencies the FBI is very well able to get into uh the footage even footage like Nest you know the the you know Guthri's Nest wasn't even connected to a system and and they were able to get come in and they were able to access that footage um we have a lot of Ring cameras and so there's there is and are ways where people can um you know in this moment achieve security but I'm I'm just concerned right now Because when I when I see this and I think about, you know, connecting to a central um database, I start to think about George Orwell and I think about 1984. And this is not um it's not something that is so off base. Um we're seeing it right now

in Minnesota um with the two uh killings and and so I'm just I have a lot of concerns um for us to kind of march in and they and I understand um and thank you for answering the questions before and I understand that this is just um you know sort of moving to to develop the policy. Um, but I I just want us to be, you know, to be really and consider this really carefully because I think that one of the things that unites us as Americans is a deep love of liberty and of our privacy.

Okay. Um Okay. So, uh, at this time, I'll invite a motion on this for this item. So, although not listed here, I I would like um to if if if the rest of the commission agrees to see if staff could come back with maybe a list of um businesses or maybe conditions in which we already do this so we can kind of compare and and go from there. I think it it it's it's nice to have an additional conversation because we we know that businesses that sell alcohol and tobacco tend to have this condition, but what else? You know, what other businesses are there? So, that at least would be um my recommendation um to start the conversation since it is very complex.

So, is that your motion? Is that your motion? Yes, it is. Okay. I second it. So, we have a motion uh made by Commissioner Messen and a second by Vice Chair Thomas. Um are there any comments on this pending motion? And uh we'll go back to Commissioner Marshall. Okay. And just so I understand this correctly, so so it sounds like chair me what you're saying is is that um to further So you're making a motion on furthering the discussion of the topic.

Yes. And I I know um it was mentioned, you know, being able to pull a list of which businesses or when when have we given this condition to others. Um, it'd be nice to be able to see that and just continue a dialogue since more often than not, at least it's been brought up recently, they tend to be with with businesses that sell tobacco and alcohol off premise. So, is this ever conditioned um other times? So, it would be nice to just see that before we kind of decide on where we want to go. Awesome. Thank you, Commissioner Melson. I have no comments. I hope that was clear enough for staff, though. Uh, Commissioner Mor Morales.

Um, I'm not sure like what to motion just because I if it was up to me, I would like to to to move forward with it. But I do agree that we do need to have staff come back with a couple couple things. Um I have you know I worked in the the CCTV um field for for years. I have um and the the benefit that does come from it is absolutely amazing. um just around locally I can you know list a bunch of businesses um cops will come and say hey I need footage of this or or something that they need and been able to solve um a lot of things that they needed because of the benefit of having these cameras um around our community. So I've never heard anyone say it's invading my privacy just because I deal with it so much. So, um I I guess I can I would like to to pretty much motion just if we can get a little bit more from um the employees as in the you know it being connected to my biggest concern was the city um because it does take a lot of work for that. So

So are you off offering a substitute motion? Is that what you're trying to do? Um I would like to um added. Added. Yes. So, you can offer a friendly amendment to Commissioner Messen's um motion if you'd like. And if she's acceptance of that, then we can move forward um with getting a um getting concurrence that Commissioner Messen and Vice Chair Thomas are in agreement with your friendly amendment. Yes,

I I agree with that. And and Commissioner Morales, um should we also include and it's whether staff should parameters as to if this was done where that would be whether that's public places. Correct. Just so we have one whole conversation, right? To have everything together. Okay. So, you're accepting that friendly amendment? Yes. Vice Chair Thomas, are you accepting that as a second? Yes. Okay. Okay. And uh Commission Vice Chair Thomas.

No, I think I think most of my concerns have been at least aired out. Uh and uh I'm in agreement with uh what we've uh what the motion is on the floor and for myself it's the same. Um uh my understanding of this uh of this item uh if if it's adopted then that's when the discussion and the uh contents of the layout of how everything is going to work um takes effect. Uh so you know again I think this is something that is needed. Um and yeah I'll leave it I'll leave it there. Okay. So madame clerk will you take the vote?

Commissioner Marshall I. Commissioner Messen yes. Commissioner Morales. Yes. Vice Chair Thomas. Yes. Chair Marsh. Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Okay. So we have uh we have now taken action to approve staff's recommendation as presented on the agenda. That that's inaccurate. Sorry. We've now taken action to approve um the to approve uh Commissioner Messen's uh uh motion to have staff come back with a list of businesses that um already have uh these conditions in place. Um and the additional information that Commissioner Morales added um as the friendly amendment.

Yes, that's what I meant to say. Okay. I agree. Okay. Um Okay. So, at this time, uh we'll do uh presentations and reports by commissioners, uh members and staff. We'll begin with commissioners. Commissioner Marshall, nothing to report. Just wishing everyone a happy Valentine's Day. Uh Commissioner Messen. Just want to welcome Commissioner Morales and thank you staff um for the report and for all the questions. I know especially with the recent topic. I know it's a little rocky, so thanks for helping us get through it. Commissioner Morales,

I I just want to say thank you for all welcoming me. Um it's been great so far. So I'm looking forward to working with you guys. Vice Chair Thomas. Uh I don't have anything. Thank you. And again, yeah, uh congratulations uh to Commissioner Morales on her appointment and we look uh welcome you and we look forward to working with you. And with that, we'll move on to uh anything um from the staff. Mr. Hodi.

Thank you, Chair Marsh, members of the commission. One item to report. Um the Victorville City Library, the new location opened this past week. It is currently located um at 14144 Green Boulevard. So, it's a wonderful facility. I was able to tour it last week. Very impressive. So, if you have time, stop by. Nothing else to report. All righty. And uh let's see with that. Um the time is what? I can't even 552. Yeah. 553. That's Yeah. And uh the meeting's adjourned. I can't I can't see.