Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, it's 5 o'clock. Good evening everyone. I want to welcome to you to the uh planning commission meeting of the city of Victorville for July 9th, 2025. I will call this meeting to order. Can we have roll call, please? Commissioner Marsh, here. Commissioner Thomas here. Commissioner Marshall is absent and vice chair Messen is absent. Chair Kurt here. We have quorum. Thank you. Next up, if you'll please rise for the invocation that'll be led to us by Commissioner Thomas, followed by the pledge of allegiance by Commissioner Marsh. Heavenly Father, we come to you today first thanking you for just your bounty of goodness and gifts and uh Father, just being good to us. Father, we ask that you continue with your grace and mercy. Father, please cover us as we uh as we move along doing the duties that we've been assigned. Father, we ask your blessings on the uh council and mayor, the commissioners, city staff, citizens of this great great city. And Father, we ask that you just have us all act in a manner that will improve this city. Father, we again thank you for your blessings. We ask that everybody here is blessed. In Jesus name I pray. Amen. Everybody, please begin. United States. Next up is a general uh public comments for anyone to speak on items that are

not on tonight's agenda. I'll open the public uh hearing comments section. Do we have any speaker cards? We do not. Is there anyone would like to speak to us tonight on general public comments? Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing on general public comments. Moves us to uh item number one, which is the approval of uh two sets of minutes from our March 12th, 2025 meeting and also our April 9th, 2025 planning commission meetings. I'll make a mo I make a motion to um approve March uh March 12th, 2025 and April 9th, 2025 regular planning commission meeting. I second. I have a first by Commissioner Marsh and a second by Commissioner Thomas. I'll take a roll call vote. Commissioner Marsh, yes. Commissioner Thomas, yes. Chair Kurt, yes. Motion passes with Commissioner Marshall and Vice Chair Messen being absent. Yes. Thank you. That moves us to uh public hearing items. Uh item number two. This one looks like there is a request for continuence. Um but we should hear from staff on this at any rate. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Agenda item number two is a continuence request for case number PLN 24-000021. It is a site plan modification with an initial study and proposed mitigated negative declaration to address new biological findings associated with the previously approved retail auto parts store on a general commercial zone parcel. Uh this project is located approximately 350 ft west of the northwest corner of Mojave Drive and Elato Drive. Uh as the planning commission may recall at the September 8th, 2021 planning commission meeting uh site plan K summer PLN uh 21 000012 was

approved allowing for the development of an approximately 7,300 foot AutoZone retail store. At this time, the project was considered categorically exempt from SQA pursuant to section 15332 of the environmental quality act uh entitled infill infill development projects. Uh following that approval, a biological survey in conjunction with the construction process was prepared and identified a Joshua tree situated in the footprint of the proposed building uh which requires u an incidental take permit to be obtained from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Wildlife and subsequently requires SQA compliance as well as an initial study. Um while no project changes are proposed at this time, the ne necessary SQ analysis requires approval of a site plan modification as you have before you tonight. While the public review period for the SQA document has commenced, there were some submittal delays um and ended up that this review period did not conclude prior to today's hearing and a continuence uh of this item is necessary. Uh therefore, staff's recommendation on this item is that the planning commission conduct a public hearing, receive testimony regarding the proposed project, and continue the public hearing to the planning commission's August 13, 2025 hearing. And staff is available for any questions you have. Okay. Thank you. Uh any questions for staff on this one? So other than the change environmental change uh biological issue out there it is uh virtually the same project. No no no changes. Thank you Commissioner Thomas. Correct. That is correct. And I was just uh curious when I read through that it looked like it was, you know, the Joshua Tree thing and then looked like there was some on a neighboring parcel that triggered that uh mitigation or taking or whatever they have to do. If they and it's been such a while since it was approved, it wasn't really clear to me if they would have

moved forward and developed right away. Would they have made it through or is it because of the the lag in time something triggered the Joshua Tree thing at this later date? Uh thank you, Chuck. the the tree was actually um missed on the initial biological survey. So when the planning commission uh made their finding of the categorical exemption, it was under the assumption that there was there was not a tree that would necessitate a take permit. Um so upon their final clearance biological survey that they uh review they do of the site, they identified the tree picked up. Okay. Right. And then we we noticed that at that point the categorical exemption is no longer applicable in this case. So the the the environmental um exemption that was utilized to originally approved the project was no longer valid now that there was a tree special status tree which then necessitates the full SQL review complaint meaning the infill status went away. Okay. Correct. Thanks. Okay. There's no more questions. I'll um I'll open the public hearing on uh on this item. Is there anyone uh to speak to us on this item? We have no requests. Okay. Thank you. Um I will then leave this uh hearing item open and I would make a motion to continue this item to the planning commission's August 13th, 2025 meeting. I second. I have a first by Chair Kurt and a second by Commissioner Thomas. I'll take a roll call vote. Commissioner Marsh, yes. Commissioner Thomas, yes. Chair Kurt, yes. Motion passes with Commissioner Marshall and Vice Chair Messen absent. Okay. Thank you. Uh we have a new business item. Uh item number three, uh state uh mandated housing uh directives. It looks like we have um a presentation.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Uh this item uh dives into Senate Bill 9 and Senate Bill 684. Uh as you may recall, Senate Bill 9 was presented as a new business item quite a while ago by staff at that time. Um the state law required uh urban lot splits, which is um splitting of single family lots as well as second dwelling units on single family lots. These were directives of Senate Bill 9 and subsequently um Senate Bill 684 was adopted uh which addresses small lot subdivisions. Um, and as much as both of these items, uh, the city's required to comply with, and we do comply with it, but our housing element, uh, actually notes that these need to be updated into our municipal code and reflected in our policies and procedures as it relates to a standard uh, uh, processing of of these items. So, uh, a future code amendment will be forthcoming to the planning commission, but because of the intricacies of these bills and the amount of information that they entail, uh, staff thought it was best to prepare a new business item just to review those to to give, uh, the planning commission a preview of what's to come, so to speak, with with a code amendment. And with that, senior planner Daisy Kawasaki has prepared a PowerPoint presentation that she will give now. Thank you. Over the past few years, California lawmakers have enacted legislation intended to accelerate the production of more affordable housing types as means of addressing the state's ongoing housing shortage. The purpose of this workshop tonight is to discuss these two bills in particular, Senate Bills 9 and 684, along with their respective updates and how they affect the allowances and review processes of certain types of housing developments in residential zone districts so that they can be incorporated into a future

amendment of the Victorville Municipal Code. A code amendment will ensure that the municipal code remains consistent with these state mandates, will allow the city to preserve local control of development standards where applicable. We'll provide clarification on these laws and how they apply with um within the city to staff and potential developers alike. And we'll also continue in the implementation of the housing element of the city's general plan. So I'll start off by providing an overview of each of the subject Senate bills. Then we'll get into the regulations of each bill and provide some examples of the types of housing developments that can be accomplished under the allowances provided by this legislation. Then we'll finish it out by discussing the path forward to formally incorporating these requirements into the city's municipal code. Then we'll leave some time at the end for um staff to answer any questions that the commission may have. So, the three bills we'll be talking about this evening are SB9, SB 684, and SB 1123. Um, Senate Bill 9, known as the California Home Act. As um, city planner mentioned, might sound familiar to those of you that were on the commission in late 2021. We presented a workshop on SB9 at this time, but it has since been updated. So, we wanted to revisit it tonight and explain the recent changes. This was approved by the governor on September 16th, 2021 to address the state's housing shortage. It applies only to properties located within single family residential zone districts and it allows for the subdivision of a single lot or the development of two primary residential units on a single lot. Senate Bill 684, the Starter Home Revitalization Act. The state law took effect on July 1st, 2024 to streamline the approval process for qualifying

projects, applied only to properties located within a zone district allowing for multif family development, and allowed for the creation of small lot subdivision of no more than 10 residential units to be approved ministerally without discretionary review or a public hearing. Um, Senate Bill 1123 is a revision to Senate Bill 684. Was approved by the governor on September 19th, 2024 and went into effect just last week on July 1st, 2025. In addition to property zoned for multif family developments, certain single family zoned properties may also qualify. account. This update also clarified local limitations on requirements for objective design standards and modified the density requirements that can be placed upon these types of projects. So, Senate Bill 9 permits two types of ministerial projects on lot zoned for single family use. Two unit developments and open lot splits. For two unit developments, it allows for the construction of up to two primary residential units on a single family parcel or on each parcel resulting from a lot split. As shown in this graphic, we have one property developed with a single family home in a detached garage that can utilize the allowances of SB9 to build a second single family home on the property. There are certain development standards that can apply to an SB9 project, including setback requirements. SB9 limits the side and rear yard setbacks to a maximum of 4 feet, similar to accessory dwelling unit allowances. Front yard setbacks must comply with the underlying zone district and there is no setback required for existing structures or for the replacement of structures built in the same location and to the same dimensions.

So, if that detached garage in the image there um was originally permitted with just a one foot setback from the rear property line, it could be converted to a second dwelling unit under SB9's provisions. As far as parking requirements go, SB9 requires one off- streetet parking space per unit. However, no parking is required if the parcel is within half a mile of a major transit stop or highquality transit corridor or if it's located near a car share pickup or drop off location. Now, there are areas of the city near the mall, BBC, and in Oldtown that may qualify for this parking space exemption due to their proximity to major transit stops or a high quality transit corridor that would not require any parking. Um, one additional note about SB9. Projects must comply with objective standards, but cities must wave or modify any standards that would physically preclude two units of at least 800 square ft each or if it would preclude the qualifying lot split. The other type of project that SB9 allows for is referred to as an urban lot split on a property zoned for single family residential use. Urban lot splits are the dividing of one single family parcel into two separate lots. The lots must generally be equal in size and each new lot must be at least 1,200 square ft in size. Once the resulting lot split is recorded via a final map, SB9 allowances for two units may be utilized. This essentially means that one single family zone parcel could result in four dwelling units where the original lot is divided into roughly two equal lots and each new lot now contains two residential units.

And as a note, ADUs and JADUs can be allowed on SB9 projects, but a city can prohibit them when a project includes both an urban lot split and the development of two units on each lot. Under the allowances of SB4, the combined total dwelling units, including any proposed ADUs, cannot exceed four units. Um, urban lot splits do have owner occupancy requirements. The property owner must sign an affidavit stating that stating that they will occupy one of the units as their primary resident residence for at least three years. This requirement does not apply, however, to twitunit developments that do not involve a lot split. Senate Bill 450 took effect on January 1st, 2025 and is in and and is intended to qu clarify the provisions of SB9 and limit local restrictions on these types of projects. Under SB450, cities can no longer impose objective zoning, subdivision, or design standards on SB9 projects unless those standards apply uniformly to the underlying zone or are more permissive than the existing standards. A city cannot create separate standards for SB9 units that are more restrictive than those standards that apply to a typical single family residential development. SB9, I'm sorry, SB450 also introduces a timely review. Local agencies must approve or deny SB9 applications within 60 days. If no action is taken, the application is deemed approved. And if denied, cities must provide written explanation detailing deficiencies and how to correct them.

Additionally, cities may only impose standards on lot splits that relate to design or parcel improvements, meaning a city cannot deny a lot split based on environmental impacts unless those impacts affect public health or safety. And finally, this bill introduced state oversight of these types of developments. The Department of Housing and Community Development or HCD now has the authority to enforce SB9 compliance in jurisdictions that attempt to block projects. This graphic is intended to visually show the comparison between SB9 as it was originally adopted and the updates that were granted by SB450. Right. Moving on to Senate Bill 684 and its subsequent update via Senate Bill 1123. These bills aim to expand home ownership beyond what SB9 allows for by streamlining small lot subdivisions. SP 684 went into effect on July 1st, 2024 and allows for ministerial approval, again meaning no public hearings or discretionary review allowed for housing projects that subdivide a parcel into 10 or fewer lots and are located in multif family zones. Qualifying parcels must be 5 acres or less in size and surrounded by urban uses. The resulting subdivisions can include up to 10 residential units with minimum parcel sizes of 600 square ft. It also limits governments from imposing restrictive standards that would block these projects such as excessive setbacks, parking requirements, or minimum lot dimensions. Setbacks are the same as SB9 with 4 foot rear and sideyard setbacks and front yard setbacks that comply with the underlying zone district.

Cities can require one parking space per unit if not located within a half mile of a major transit stop or high quality transit corridor or if near a car share location. However, with SB 684, cities cannot require that the parking space is enclosed in a garage or covered at all. There are no occupancy requirements for SB684 project and a city cannot require the establishment of an HOA for these small lot subdivisions. While the zoning for projects these types of projects is multif family, SB 684 is intended to promote lower density infill like small lot single family homes, town homes or duplexes projects basically with up to 10 units in total. Even though these parcels are in multif family zones, the goal is to create modest ownership oriented homes, not large apartment complexes. As an example, an R3 zone site requires 20 dwelling units per acre. A 1 acre parcel should equate to 20 units, which might be possible with 10 duplexes. It's a creation of 10 lots, each with a duplex to achieve those 20 units. Flexible ownership models allowed by SB684 could result in each duplex being owned independently. Senate Bill 1123 is a 2024 housing reform law that builds on the foundation of SB 684 to expand small lot subdivisions into single family residential zones. SP 1123 allows ministerial approval for housing projects that subdivide vacant lots zoned for single family residential use to create up to 10 residential units. Qualifying properties must be 1 and a half acres or less in size and are

surrounded by urban uses. Properties must be at least 1,200 square feet to qualify for a project under SB 1123. Additionally included in this bill, projects must meet at least 66% of the maximum allowable residential density under local zoning. The example I used in the previous slide for 20 unit project on a 1acre R3 zone property would now require only 13 units. Additionally, local agencies may impose reasonable height limits, but cannot block projects with excessive frontage, setback, or lot dimension requirements. Something like a requirement for recreational space for these types of projects could be imposed if it would otherwise be required within that zone district, but not if it would physically present, I'm sorry, physically prevent achieving the minimum unit count or parcel sizes, which again are 600 square ft under SB 684 for multif family and 1,200 square feet under SB 1123 for single family. And just like with this update to SB9, the bill clarifies the cities must approve or deny applications within 60 days. And the same um goes that no actions taken, the application is deemed approved and denials must be based on unmititigatable public health or safety impacts. Um cities may prohibit ADUs on both SB 684 or SB 1123 projects. Um, and as a note, because this includes recordation and development of of units, um, a developer may record first and build later as long as the subdivision meets all eligibility criteria. Um, the law does not require concurrent

construction of housing units with the map approval. or a developer can obtain building permits before the final map is recorded and the city can require that final map approval is required prior to final construction of the units. Just as a final note on this bill, Governor Newsome's June 30th budget trailer bills, um, AB130 and SB 131 added modifications to SB 684 that we did not have an opportunity to address in the staff report provided or within this presentation. Um, a future code amendment for these bills will address any applicable changes. So there are several instances where properties are not eligible for SB9 projects. Some of these exclusions would include properties that are located on prime farmland, wetlands, or under a conservation easement. Properties that are habitat for sensitive or fully protected species such as the western Joshua tree. Properties that are located within a very high fire hazard severity zone, flood plane, floodway, or earthquake fault zone unless they are mitigated or properties that are located on historical parcels or properties containing tribal cultural resources. Um projects can also be excluded if the project would require the demolition or alteration of affordable housing. This is deed restricted or rent controlled housing or housing that has been occupied by tenants in the last 3 years. Other exclusions would include parcels that were previously split under SB9

or parcels that are adjacent to a parcel that was previously split by the same owner or someone acting in concert with that owner. Projects that are ineligible for SB 684 are um excluded on the same basis as those under SB9. If projects not meet these requirements. Um, and again, this is if they're on certain types of farmland, wetland, fire zones, have a Joshua tree. Um, if they were previously split under SB9 as well, these projects would not be um, applicable to the allowances under SB 684 or its update bill SB 1123. Um, not to say that the projects couldn't take place, but they would require discretionary review or environmental clearances. All righty. So, next steps. After this workshop, staff will be analyzing portions of the Victorville Municipal Code that require updating based on the provisions of the Senate bills we've discussed today. Um they anticipated that future code amendments will include revisions to sections related to multifamily residential developments, single family residential developments, and approval of subdivisions. A formal code amendment will be presented to the planning commission at an upcoming hearing for your recommendation. and the amendment would then go before city council for approval and subsequent adoption and staff is available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Yeah, thank you for that presentation.

Um the commission have any questions on um the information that was just uh given to us on excuse me on page three uh Senate Bill 450. uh the area down I guess next to last uh point there where cities are pre prevented from denying lot splits based on environmental impacts unless tied to a public health or safety issue. So I need a little little explanation on that. I'm not clear. So if the property if the city said perhaps there was a Gosh, trying to think something related to the environment of that particular site and that would not include a Josh tree since that's separately protected. Um, we could only deny the project if it was related to public safety. Um, sure. If I if I may help. um an objective standard that we have in place would be something perhaps um fire response if if we if we have um noted that there's a specific fire response or fire access requirement that this property just cannot meet then that would be the type of standard that the building official I believe is who is is authorized to make that finding could um deny that project based on that specific adverse impact based on an objective standard that's public health or safety but uh I guess I was trying to figure out what environmental impact this mentioned Josh perhaps if it was a hazardous hazardous site there was a hazardous um material

found on site or it was found through an environmental assessment that there was the soil was contam contaminated something like that would would likely qualify. So the city would be prevented from denying the uh application based on I'll talk to you one. So so in essence other than the Joshua tree if there happened to be like a burrowing owl couldn't deny it. That's not health and safety. U that's a special status species. So that would fall under a separate section. So under if there's it's found to be habitat for a burring out or Mojave ground squirrel or Joshua tree, um those right off the bat make SP9 and 684 not applicable. So uh potential developers could not utilize the allowances provided by these bills if they found one of those on site. I'm with you, Commissioner Thomas. Too complicated for now. Kind of a I can't agree. kind of a followup to uh Commissioner Tom uh Thomas's question um because you had mentioned fire response as being an example and the way these illustrations show I mean wouldn't that be pretty much applicable to just about anybody that tries to mod uh modify their their property. I mean if you're stacking one house on top, you know, right behind the other and you only have one access way, is that taken into consideration as Okay. Well, in the case of emergency, a fire or anything like that, you know, what's the what's the uh evacuation process and what's the entry process for the fire department? Uh, sure. Thank you for that question. It it would have to be a essentially a codified requirement objective to be an objective standard. So, uh, to my

knowledge, um, I'm not up to speed exactly on the fire requirements in terms of fire code, but I know within the municipal code there's standards on how long a culde-sac has to be, how wide the street has to be. Um, but that's within the public rightway, not taking it up past the property line. Um I I think a takeaway from this is that what the state is effectively doing with the new bills and the cleanup bills is to um take away portions or ambiguities in the initial bills that some cities were utilizing to prevent development under these bills. So when the state realized that those ambiguities were being utilized by cities who did not want this development and they were being utilized to to block development under SB9 SB 684 that they've taken steps with the adjustments to remove that ambiguity and just clearly defined the state's intent is to allow these it's to it's to do it ministerally. student staff level as quickly as possible um and without giving opportunities to for cities to deny them based on anything other than objective objective standards. And even to the extent that if the objective standard uh would prevent the development um then then that objective standard is not valid in itself either. Oh, I appreciate that. Thanks. No problem. I didn't know if you had I've got a um a just a couple of quickies here. Um on slide number eight, we were talking about the um small lot subdivisions in an exact in that example there's a um a 10 10 structure culde-sac there. And did you I thought I heard you mention that the minimum uh lot size for each of these would be 600 square feet. That's correct. What kind of house can you put on?

So, is this even real? You know, you got to think it would be like maybe a shed or something with a bunk bed in it. Okay. And then um just curious and I don't know if you if you have these stats or not or or just in general um with everything from any of these options or just the the simple one dwelling unit, you know, um how how much of that activity or inquiries from the general public in Victorville do you think we've we've kind of seen with people exploring those ideas or actually doing it? Thank you, Chair K. Um with regards to 684, we've had exactly one serious inquiry where where we met with the developer and went over the options. Ultimately at that time they decided not to proceed forward um for various reasons. Um I I believe the Joshua Tree came into play and um our development standards being in that they are very developer friendly came into play. basically looked at other options um to either do true multif family development um or a subdivision in lie of utilizing these these allowances. When that particular developer came to speak with us regarding 684, their experience was largely in large metropolitan cities down the hill, um I believe he mentioned LA and and that working with those departments and when it was presented how different our processes from those cities, um they didn't see the need to proceed with the SP 684 small lot subdivision. Um with regards to SB9, we've seen a handful of requests um not for the urban lot split as much, mostly the second dwellings. um what has been prohibitive. I don't believe we've entitled that I can recall an SB9 uh second dwelling because um when when they build these second units they're still required to pay development impact fees. Um so when presented with the development impact fees for a second single family home um most of the instances a handful I would say five to

10 we've seen come through our office in the last few years since 21 with regards to a second unit. um when presented with a development impact fees, it would be would be due. And when uh we offer them the opportunity for an accessory dwelling unit in L of an uh a second true second unit um which has lower development impact fees because they're they're based off the multif family model. U most I believe if not all of those proposals have transitioned to an ADU uh proposal in lie of SP9 proposal uh given the fact that the the development impact fees are are are less. So the so the real difference between the just the generalized coming in and saying, "Hey, I want to build an ADU on my property." versus the SB9, where's the uh with an SB9 um you can build a larger product. So with an ADU, you're limited by our ordinance size to a,000 square feet. Um so with SB9 project, if someone had to have that second unit that was 1400 or 1600 or whatever the case may be, square feet in size, um they would default to they would utilize SB9 allowances and then in turn of that they have um higher development benefits because I was just looking at like the reality of Victorville average you know 7500 foot lots that might be the typical average um and if somebody needed to wanted to throw up another dwelling unit for an elderly relative something like that I um I I can see you know more than a thousand square feet is going to not look right anyways so I thought ADUs would probably be more more popular and that you have seen some of those I did year u maybe through the grapevine I don't know that um you know there is a an impact and and it could it could uh if if these came in you're doubling you know bathrooms so it could be any impact on our existing sewer capabilities is there any issues like that that would be looked at um if an application came in

uh yes thank you uh with with the review of any proposal um specifically if we're discing discussing SB9, sewer charges are still required to be paid. All the fees to connect to sewer based on number of fixtures, those are still applicable um as they are for accessory dwelling units. So any unit that the fee application, the state hasn't yet taken away our ability to charge fees. Um so we still have that ability to make up for any impacts that it has on city services and city infrastructure that may be a result of these through the collection of development impact fees or sewer connection fees and the and the sewer impact fees would could be enough if a lot of people came in and did this and overburdened the sewer because it was something maybe maybe Mr. Bonia has got him thinking on that for a minute but you know maybe if one whole street all of a sudden got some approved would would the city have the ability if it was needed to say we can't do the capacity somebody's going to have to redo the whole sewer line for this just and a development impact fee isn't going to, you know, take care of that. So, I was just wondering should that something like this explode and happen? We haven't seen it, but would that be a a reason for denial? Um, with regards to SB9, um, a developer can't come in and do an entire block um of of SP9 lot splits. There is requirements um that talk about uh contiguous lots and how many they can do in an area. So there is protection there from from someone coming in to say I want to do the six block of six lots. SP 684 is a little bit different um because that came later and all those protections were gone. Um I I would I would default to our city engineer on that. I I believe there is some extra capacity designed into our sewer collection lines in the rightway. To what extent? Um you're right. We haven't seen enough of these. Yeah, I don't think it's

going to happen in the in the near future, but just curious. Um, okay then. Um, I I think um that this this item does uh doesn't require any action. Um, so we'll just look forward to any future um code amendment information coming before us. Um then that brings us to uh any final reports from uh commissioners. Anything commissioner Thomas? No. Commissioner Marsh? I I have nothing either. Anything from staff? Uh yes. Thank you, Chair Kurt. A few items. Um the city concerts in the park are winding down. There's two left. Um, on July 11th, we have the Blue Breeze Band, which is a Mottown band. And on July 18th, we have Queen Legion, which is a Queen tribute band. Uh, all the concerts in the park start at 6 PM at Hook Park. Um, also, uh, I know we I brought it up at the last meeting, but just to to note again one final time, uh, the APA conference is coming up this September 28th through October 1st in Monterey, California. Um, and there's been a separate email out to planning commissioners requesting some input on that. just so we can take advantage of early bird pricing if that is something that the commission wants to attend. Okay. Thank you. What were those dates again? September 28th through October 1st. So any of us that are interested, let's get back to the city right away so we can um uh you know get the right uh early pricing. And I did have one other thing. I I did notice the um uh this year as usual I saw a lot of marketing from the city on um you know fireworks for Victorville and I saw some of the press releases and things on social media about you know previous fines that were given out that were pretty substantial and um you know I don't know about anyone else here but

in Victorville this year it seemed like um it was um a lot less and um you know on 4th of July you know that hey we're celebrating it's 4th of July but the weeks leading up and now the week after I would say is substantially less in my opinion from the few years you know last few years so something's working or or people are running out of money or both that's what I think so if that's it I uh I will thank everyone for being here have a great evening and meeting adjourned