Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, good evening, everybody. Today is Wednesday, June 10th, 2026, and the time is 5 p.m. The regular meeting of the City of Victorville Planning Commission will come to order. Madam Clerk, will you kindly call roll?

Commissioner Marshall?

Here.

Commissioner Messon? Is absent. Commissioner Morales? Present. Vice Chair Thomas? Present. Chair Marsh?

Here.

We have quorum.

All right, thank you. And at this time, we'll have the invocation led by Commissioner Marshall. And our pledge will be led by Vice Chair Thomas. If everybody would please stand.

Heavenly Father, I would ask that you please guide us tonight as we review the matter at hand and guide our hearts with calm and wisdom as we consider the different plans that we have for the city, amen.

Place your right hands 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.

OK, and at this time, we'll have public comments. This would be the 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. Madam Clerk, may we have our first speaker?

We have no request to speak.

OKAY, THEN I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE'LL MOVE TO OUR FIRST AGENDA ITEM IS TO APPROVE MINUTES OF OUR FEBRUARY 11, 2026, MARCH 11, 2026, APRIL 8, 2026, AND MAY 13, 2026 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING THE MINUTES. SO I'LL INVITE A MOTION FOR THIS ITEM. I move that the minutes just named be approved.

Second.

Okay, so we have a motion made by Vice Chair Thomas and a second by Commissioner Marshall. Madam Clerk, will you please take the vote?

Commissioner Marshall?

Aye.

Commissioner Morales? Aye. Vice Chair Thomas?

Aye.

Chair Marsh?

Yes.

Motion passes with Commissioner Messon being absent.

Okay, so we've now taken action. to approve staff's recommendations as presented on the agenda. Okay, so our next item is a vesting tentative map, a vesting tentative track map with the proposed mitigated negative declaration to allow for the development of a 54 lot residential subdivision from three undeveloped parcels totaling approximately 15 acres Zoned R1T4, which is single family residential and transitional four units per acre. Mr. Hattagy, would you kindly introduce this item?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. members of the Commission. Agenda item number two, as you noted, is case number PLAN 25-00007. This proposal will allow for the development of a 54 lot residential subdivision on approximately 15 acres of land. It is zoned R1T4. That T4 is a transitional zone that would require a maximum of four units per acre under the current zoning. This project is located in the southwest corner of penny road and all of their all of era, generally speaking, this is west of us highway 35 between Luna and the Mesa roads on the west side of town. As condition that proposed vesting tentative track map it's all development centers of title 16 this includes minimum lot sizes dimensions usable area and dwelling unit density, with the density of 3.5 units per acre as proposed. The proposal is also in general conformance with the single family design guidelines, as it includes a lot design that has varying lot widths throughout the proposal, dual use drainage facilities, and entry landscaping at the primary entry points to the site. The proposal in this case is a tentative track map that is submitted as a vesting tentative track map, and which in this case that establishes the developer's vested rights to proceed under the ordinance's policies and standards in effect at the time the tentative track map is approved. What this would include things is like lot with standards lot size standards, for instance, if the city were to change minimum lot sizes to 8000 square feet in the future, while this map was still in the tentative step map stage, it would retain the allowance to have 7200 square foot lots under the current code that it is approved under. environmentally this project went through an initial study with a mitigated negative declaration. These have both been prepared for the track map, and this resulted in mitigation measures for biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, geology and soils, and noise. 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 mitigated negative declaration with a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the project and adopt resolution number P dash 26. dash 010 approving vesting tentative track map case number PLA and 25 dash 00007 subject to the attached conditions of approval and staff remains available for any questions you may have.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Hidegi. At this time, are there any technical questions from the planning commissioners regarding this item? I'll start with Commissioner Marshall. I have no questions. Okay. Commissioner Morales.

I also have no questions.

Vice Chair Thomas. No questions. And I don't have any questions. Okay. So at this time, I'll open up the public hearing. Madam Clerk, are there any requests to speak on this item?

We have no speakers.

OK. With that, I'll close the public hearing, and I'll invite a motion for this item.

I'll motion.

I second.

Can I please have you specify what you're motioning?

The staff recommendation to have I'm sorry, the staff recommendation for the public hearing. To approve it? Approve it, yes, ma'am.

Do you still second, Vice Chair Thomas? Thank you so much.

Okay, so we have a motion first by Commissioner Morales and a second by Vice Chair Thomas. Madam Clerk, please take a vote. Oh, are there, sorry, let me back up a little bit. Are there any comments on this pending motion? Commissioner Marshall?

No comments.

Commissioner Morales? No comments. Vice Chair Thomas? No. And I don't have any. OK. Now, Madam Clerk, will you please take the vote?

Commissioner Marshall?

Aye.

Commissioner Morales? Aye. Vice Chair Thomas?

Aye.

Chair Marsh?

Yes.

Motion passes with Commissioner Messon being absent.

OK. So we have now taken action to approve staff's recommendations as presented on the agenda. Our next item. As a continuance requested for case number PLAN 25-00005, a tentative track map with a mitigated negative declaration to allow for the development of 138 single-family lots on five undeveloped parcels totaling 39 acres and zoned R1 single-family residential. Mr. Hottagee, will you kindly introduce this item?

Thank you, Mr chair members of the Commission item number three, as you know, it is case number PLA and 25 dash 0005 this proposal includes a tentative track map that would allow for the development of 138 single family lot subdivision and our one was on property. While the proposal, as it's presented before you, includes a design in accordance with the single family design guidelines, including 7200 square foot minimum lot sizes, curvilinear streets, cul-de-sacs, and direct access to recreational amenities, a continuance is being requested on this item to allow for a completion of the public review period via CEQA, which concludes today. In an abundance of caution, the applicant requested that this item be continued to ensure that any comments received are incorporated. INTO THE APPROVAL PROCESS AS NECESSARY. THAT BEING SAID, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING, RECEIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING THE PROPOSED PROJECT, AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S JULY 8, 2026 HEARING. STAFF IS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS REGARDING THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER MARSHALL? NEW SPEAKER I HAVE NO QUESTIONS. NEW SPEAKER COMMISSIONER MORALES?

I have no questions.

Vice Chair Thomas? Yes, one question. Is this the first continuance on this?

Yes, Commissioner Thomas, that is correct. This is the first continuance.

And that's it? OK. And I don't have any questions. So at this point, I'll open the public hearing. Madam Clerk, are there any requests to speak?

We have no speakers.

Okay. And I will leave the public hearing open and invite a motion to continue this item to July 8th, 2026.

I motion that we continue this item until July 8th.

I'll second.

Okay. So we have a motion by Commissioner Marshall and a second by Commissioner Morales, are there any comments on this pending motion? Commissioner Marshall? No comments. Commissioner Morales?

No comments.

Vice Chair Thomas? No. And I don't have any. Madam Clerk, will you take the vote?

Commissioner Marshall?

Aye.

Commissioner Morales? Aye. Vice Chair Thomas?

Yes.

Chair Marsh?

Yes.

Motion passes with Commissioner Messon being absent.

OK. So we've taken action to approve. THIS ITEM ACCORDING TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. OUR NEXT ITEM, AN AMENDMENT TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE VICTORVILLE GENERAL PLAN WITH AN ENVIRONMENTAL EXEMPTION TO REMOVE VALLEY PARK LANE AS A DESIGNATED COLLECTOR ROADWAY. MR. HAUTEGEE, PLEASE.

YES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4 IS CASE NUMBER PLAN 26-00008. As you noted this proposal will amend the general plan circulation element of the general plan to remove valley park lane as a designated collector roadway. At the location of valley park lane is between hammer go sentence civic drive and approximately 1200 feet south of where Rogers driving is just north of city hall, where we sit today. Staff is proposing this reclassification for the length of Valley Park Lane from Amargosa Road to Civic Drive to a local roadway in order to resolve inconsistencies between the circulation element of the general plan and the Civic Center community sustainability specific plan. Currently, the general plan classifies this roadway as a collector, while the Civic Center does not include this roadway as a designated roadway in the circulation section of the specific plan. A January 2014 traffic study included with that specific plan document concluded that Valley Park Lane is not needed to meet long-term mobility needs in the Civic Center area. And this portion has been confirmed by the current city engineer, as noted in this staff report. This is exempt action environmentally from sequel pursuant to section 15061 be three of sequel as there's no possibility that the proposed amendment will have a significant effect on the environment and as much as it is a change to a map. And with that 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 amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan exempt pursuant to Section 15061 of the California Environmental Quality Act, and adopt Resolution No. P-26-011 recommending City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment Case No. PLAN 26-00008. And staff is available for any questions you may have.

Are there any technical questions from planning commissioners regarding this item? Commissioner Marshall?

I have no questions.

Commissioner Morales?

I have one question and maybe I had missed it. Is this, I know it's behind, right behind the lot where the, I think it's at Home Depot right there. And we've tested to see how much traffic is used for that roadway already.

do we know how much traffic or you know what it's going to cause to traffic thank you commissioner morales currently that roadway as it stands now is a dead end roadway it serves just effectively back of the house for home depot target was recently approved just west of the site that does include improvements to this roadway to connect to amargosa Uh, should they wish to maintain those if there's any changes proposed that would require approval by the planning commission to those current design standards that are already approved. But currently it is improved as a dead end roadway again back of the House to Home Depot as it stands now with approved entitlements that roadway would be extended west to amargosa but in as much as it doesn't provide as it doesn't function as a through street it's only functioning to serve loading and delivery type functions there wasn't a need that staff saw either in 2014 when the specific plan omitted it or currently by the city engineer to maintain that roadway perfect i thought it was a dead end i just wanted to double double check so thank you okay uh vice chair thomas no

okay and and that was pretty much my question was uh as far as that um that access way or that roadway right now there's no businesses really using it so it's like it's not like an entryway to different businesses or anything it's just there thank you mr chair it's it's on a primary access for any business it's again it functions more of loading delivery um

I don't believe any patrons utilize that as a primary point of access to the site when they can come into the main parking lot to the front of Home Depot. All right. Thank you.

OK. And then I'll open the public hearing. Madam Clerk, are there any requests to speak?

We have no speakers.

OK. And I'll close the public hearing and invite a motion for this item.

I move for approval of a staff recommendation.

And I'll second. OK, so we have a motion made by Vice Chair Thomas and second by Chair Marsh. Are there any comments on this pending motion, Vice Chair Thomas? No. And I don't have any. Commissioner Marshall?

No.

Commissioner Morales?

None.

OK. Madam Clerk, will you please take the vote?

Commissioner Marshall?

Aye.

Commissioner Morales? Aye. Vice Chair Thomas?

Aye.

Chair Marsh?

Yes.

Motion passes with Commissioner Messon being absent.

OK. So we have now taken action to approve staff's recommendations as presented on the agenda. Our next item is a site plan with a proposed mitigated negative declaration to allow for a development of a tractor supply retail store to include an approximately 24,000-square-foot building and an approximately 20,000-square-foot fenced outdoor display sales area, as well as a conditional use permit to allow for the sale of utility trailers and utility vehicles on an undeveloped property zone C2 general commercial. Mr. Heidegger, will you kindly introduce this item?

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SENIOR PLANNER TRAVIS CLARK IS THE AUTHOR OF THIS ITEM AND WILL PROVIDE A PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN MARSH, FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. ITEM NUMBER 5 IS PLAN CASE PLAN 25-00014. AS NOTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROPOSAL TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW TRACTOR SUPPLY RETAIL STORE WITHIN THE DESERT SUN PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER. The project consists of a 24,000 square foot enclosed retail building and a 20,000 square foot fenced outdoor display and sales area totaling approximately 44,000 square feet on a 3.6 acre parcel. The site is located east of Winco Foods, north of Roy Rogers Drive and south of Midtown Drive. ACCESS TO THE DEVELOPMENT SITE HAS BEEN PROPOSED THROUGH EXISTING AND NEW SHARED DRIVE AISLES CONNECTING THE PROPOSED ROY ROGERS DRIVE AND MIDTOWN DRIVE. WHILE THE PROJECT INCLUDES A NEW EAST WEST SHARED DRIVE AISLE TO SERVE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE SHOPPING CENTER, STAFF DID IDENTIFY THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS TO CONNECT THE DEVELOPMENT MORE EFFECTIVELY TO THE REMAINDER OF THE CENTER AND THE NEARBY RAISING CANE SITE FOR WHICH STAFF HAS CONDITIONED THE PROJECT ACCORDINGLY. The overall proposal has been well designed. The developer has ensured the building meets and exceeds the city's commercial design guidelines while also adhering to the design guidelines previously established for the Desert Sun Plaza. The building includes design elements such as varying roof lines and elements, wall plane changes, and various materials including smooth finish stucco, stone veneer, metal pergolas, and Spanish tile. The site Plan also includes improvements in accordance with the noted guidelines, including organized vehicular circulation screened loading and service areas and enhanced landscaping paving treatments and parking improvements that meet or exceed our minimum standards. In conjunction with the site plan request the applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to allow for outdoor display and sale of utility trailers and recreational utility vehicles. within an approximately 2,100 square foot designated display area. Given the outdoor sales are accessory to the primary retail use and are conditionally permitted within the C2 zone district, staff has found the proposed conditional use permit complies with the city's development code with the necessary findings included within the applicable resolution. Regarding the environmental review, an initial study and mitigated negative declaration have been prepared for the project in accordance with Section 15070 of the California Environmental Quality Act. And all of the proposed mitigation measures have been included within the proposed conditions of approval. Mitigation measures for biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, and geology and soils WORK INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THAT WILL ENSURE THAT ANY POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT ARE CONSIDERED LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. THE PROPOSAL AS PRESENTED IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE SUBJECT TO THE ATTACHED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING, RECEIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS. ADOPT THE ATTACHED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE PROJECT. ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER P-26-012 APPROVING THE SITE PLAN PORTION OF CASE NUMBER PLAN 25-0014 SUBJECT TO THE ATTACHED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER P-26-013 APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PORTION OF CASE NUMBER PLAN 25-00014, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Staff and the applicant are available should the Planning Commission have any questions.

All right. Thank you. Are there any technical questions from the Planning Commissioners regarding this item? Commissioner Marshall? I have no questions. Commissioner Morales?

I have none.

Vice Chair Thomas?

Just a question, will they, and I was looking at the map here, but I didn't catch it quick enough. Will the entrance be off of Roy Rogers and the turn in there by Winco, what exactly?

Thank you, Commissioner Thomas actually the access will be provided from the existing signalized intersection for the window shopping Center as well as midtown drive drive on the north. One of the the condition that was mentioned in the report in the presentation about an extension of the east, west drive aisle will also extend that drive aisle to connect to the current driveway. on Roy Rogers Drive that was installed with raising canes. So in fact, the project site would have three potential access points to the tractor supply site. Thank you.

OK. I guess the only not really a well question that I have is, there's some apartment complexes over there, right, in that area? A facility like this would that be intrusive to are they far enough away from the park from the residential areas sure good question the project site actually contains a.

CMU block wall that will be built along the rear or north side of the project site that will be offset from Midtown Drive. So they'll be constructing a minimum eight foot tall CMU wall with landscaping to provide screening of the proposed operation and any of the back of house type uses. So there's not anticipated to be any negative impacts as far as the site circulation. Overall the expectation also for truck traffic is for that to utilize Roy Rogers Drive. OK. All right.

Thank you for that. OK. So at this point, I'll open the public hearing. Madam Clerk, are there any requests to speak?

We have no speakers.

OK. And I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for a motion, please.

I'll motion for the staff recommendation

Second. Okay, so we have a first by Commissioner Morales, a second by Commissioner Marshall. Are there any comments on this pending motion?

Commissioner Morales, is that to approve the staff recommendation? Yes, to approve the staff recommendation. Thank you. Does that go along with the second as well?

Yes, it does.

Thank you so much.

Okay, so we have a first by Commissioner Morales, second by Commissioner Marshall. Are there any comments on the pending motion? Commissioner Morales?

None.

Commissioner Marshall? No questions. Vice Chair Thomas? No. And I don't have any comments. Madam Clerk, will you please take the vote?

Commissioner Marshall?

Aye.

Commissioner Morales? Aye. Vice Chair Thomas?

Yes.

Chair Marsh?

Yes.

Motion passes with Commissioner Messon being absent.

all right we have uh we've now taken action to approve staff's recommendations as presented on the agenda okay and now we'll move to uh continue public hearings okay so item number six uh this is the fifth continuance uh request for case number plan 23-00023 a site plan with a proposed Mitigated negative declaration to allow for the development of two industrial warehouse buildings totaling approximately 174,000 square feet on two vacant m1 light industrial zone parcels totaling approximately 8.5 acres Thank You mr.

Chair Travis Clark again is our senior planner is the author of this item. He will be providing an update We do understand. This is a fifth continuance. So I believe Mr. Clark will have an update to avoid further continuances on this item.

Yes, and thank you, Chairman Marsh, fellow commissioners. Item number six is a continuance request for case PLAN 23-00023. As noted by the chairman, is a proposal to allow for the development of two industrial buildings totaling approximately 174,000 square feet for warehousing and distribution, with each building comprised of 80,085 square feet of warehouse space and 6910 square feet of ancillary office space, the project site is located north of and abutting the logical extension of cactus road. And bordered by the extension of mason Linda avenue on the east, as well as lassen road on the West. This case is being presented to the Planning Commission tonight as a fifth continuance request. As the Commission will recall, this item has been continued several times to afford staff and the applicant time to address the comments received during the CEQA review period and to prepare a response for the Planning Commission's review. At this time, the applicants consultant is continuing to work with city staff to prepare a formal response to the comments received. And while they've made progress in addressing some of these comments, the review and resolution processes taken a little longer than anticipated. SO THE APPLICANT AND CITY STAFF HAVE JOINTLY REQUESTED THAT THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO AN UNDETERMINED DATE TO ALLOW THEM SUFFICIENT TIME TO COMPLETE AND FINALIZE THE RESPONSES TO ALL THE OUTSTANDING COMMENTS. SO TO AVOID THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL CONTINUANCE REQUESTS, BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF COURSE THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THIS PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED WITHOUT ACTION. THE PROJECT WILL BE READVERTISED AND SCHEDULED FOR A FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION ONCE THE OUTSTANDING COMMENTS HAVE BEEN SATISFACTORILY ADDRESSED. THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING WITHOUT ACTION, ALLOWING THE APPLICANT TO READVERTISE AND RENOTICE THE PROJECT FOR AN UNDETERMINED PLANNING COMMISSION DATE IN THE FUTURE. AND THEN STAFF IS AVAILABLE IF THE COMMISSION HAS ANY QUESTIONS.

Are there any technical questions from the planning commissioners regarding this item? I have no. Sorry. Commissioner Marshall?

I have no questions.

Commissioner Morales?

So the continuance is just at the request of the customer, then, is what we're waiting on, correct?

That is correct. It's a request of the applicant and staff just to have opportunities to review the response to comments before we present that to the planning commission. And if I may Commission Marsha Marsha Marsha excuse me, I may have misspoke maybe having to keep this item open. Rather than close, but to leave the option to re advertise in the future.

I didn't understand that again.

Staff's initial recommendation was to close the public hearing, but I believe the direction needs to be to actually keep the hearing open but leave the opportunity to re-advertise at a later date.

Actually, I think we would open it to see if there's anyone here to speak on it tonight, and then go ahead and close it and leave it open to re-advertising. I think that's the way we've handled those in the past.

OK, my mistake.

Okay, Vice Chair Thomas. No questions. Okay, and I don't have any. Okay, so I'll open the public hearing. Madam Clerk, are there any requests to speak?

We have no speakers.

Okay, then I'll leave the public hearing open. And if this...

Chair Marsh, you can go ahead and close the public hearing. But then once the vote is taken on the recommendation, we'll just say into the record as revised to remove that piece of closing the meeting.

OK, thank you. OK, so I'll now close the public hearing and bring it back. I'll invite a motion for this item.

So I'll motion to close it, correct, and then You're going to add at the end of it to revisit it.

If you'd like to just approve staff's recommendation as revised, then that would be sufficient. Sure.

So I'll motion to approve staff's recommendation as revised.

I second. So we have a first by Commissioner Morales and second by Vice Chair Thomas. Any comments on this pending motion? Commissioner Morales?

None.

Vice Chair Thomas? No. Commissioner Marshall? I have no comments. And I don't have any. Madam Clerk, will you take the vote?

Commissioner Marshall?

Aye.

Commissioner Morales? Yes. Vice Chair Thomas?

Aye.

Chair Marsh?

Yes.

Motion passes with Commissioner Messon being absent.

Okay, so we have now taken action to approve staff's recommendations as revised on this agenda item. Okay, at this point, we'll have presentations of reports by commission members and staff, beginning with commissioners. Anything to report on, Commissioner Marshall?

I've got nothing to report on, but we have a big birthday coming up for the 250th anniversary of the country, and so I'm wishing everyone a very happy 4th of July.

All right, cool. Commissioner Morales?

No, I have nothing.

Vice Chair Thomas? Just want to continue thanking staff for all the good work that you do and having patience with us sometimes. I do appreciate it. Thank you.

And I echo those same sentiments. ANY UPDATES?

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. WE HAVE A FEW EVENTS COMING UP CITYWIDE. We have the victory a one on one bus tour going along again this year, this is a becoming annual event, so we have seats available still. The net first tour is actually tomorrow on June 11 we have a tour on June 17 and we have a final tour of the year on August 1 so any Commissioners would like to attend please feel free to reach out to me any members of the public listening in that would like to attend. You can sign up on our website for that tour. one of the tours that are available. We also the city is also hosting a anniversary celebration for America's 250th. This takes place on July 4th from 6 to 9 30 p.m at Silverado High School. Again if any planning commissioners would like to attend please let me know reach out to me directly. Many members of the public I believe signups will go live later this month online on the city's website. And lastly We have the California APA conference coming up October 3-6. This year is in Los Angeles, California. That is a Saturday through a Tuesday. And staff will be reaching out to the planning commissioners to gauge your interest if you'd like to attend. That's all I have.

All right, cool. All right, thank you for that. Again, at this time, it is 535, and this meeting is adjourned.