[4:29] Okay, we're going to call this meeting to order September 16th, 2026, plan and commission, calling it to order at 604, roll call, please.

[4:41] Commissioner Eris.

[4:43] Commissioner Pombianco.

[4:44] Here.

[4:45] Chairman Calen.

[4:47] And Chairman Lanyan and Vice Chair Tensley are absent.

[4:52] Thank you.

[4:53] Commissioner Pombianco, would you lead us in the pledge of allegiance, please?

[5:14] Thank

[5:17] you.

[5:18] Okay.

[5:20] Good evening everybody. Thank you for coming to the meeting. Public participating

[5:24] at the meeting is invited to comment on any items on the agenda or during public comments.

[5:29] Please complete a request to speak card and give it to the Commission Secretary down there.

[5:34] In accordance with Planning Commission resolution 2005-005 comments shall be limited to no

[5:40] more than 3 minutes per speaker. I am going to enforce this tonight since we have so many

[5:44] speakers. Anyone wishing to address an item not on the agenda or an item that is not scheduled

[5:49] for public hearing at this meeting may do so. California law does not allow the commission

[5:54] to act on those items that are not on the agenda except in very limited circumstances. Your

[5:59] concerns may be referred to staff or a place on a future agenda. So I'm going to go ahead

[6:04] and call for public comments. Things that are not on the agenda, if you got something on

[6:09] mind. Go ahead and speak. I think we have one that's under public comments. Oh, man,

[6:15] this is hard to read. Looks like Kimba Houston,

[6:23] you're on the agenda item. It's Linda.

[6:26] Okay. Thank you. Okay. So she's with the rest of the cards that I have. Anybody want to

[6:31] talk about any topics that are not on the agenda? Okay. Seeing nobody jump up, we're going

[6:37] go ahead and move on.

[6:39] Our first item is the approval of the minutes.

[6:43] So you guys get a chance to look at the minutes?

[6:49] Make a motion to approve.

[6:51] All seconds.

[6:52] OK, we've got a motion a second.

[6:53] All in favor?

[6:54] All right.

[6:56] OK, public hearing items.

[6:57] We're going to go to the condition of use permit, 2026-001.

[7:03] It's continued to October 7.

[7:06] So this one item that we have item number

[7:09] five is continue to October 7th, development permit 2026-008, so do we need to do anything

[7:17] with this?

[7:21] You can make a motion to continue.

[7:23] Excuse me, Chair, if there is anyone here that would like to speak to the item, you should

[7:28] allow them to provide.

[7:30] Okay. Anybody here to speak to item number 5, the first public hearing item, CUP 2026-001? Nobody?

[7:40] Somebody want to move to continue that item, October 7th?

[7:45] There's no public comment cards for that one. There's no comment cards.

[7:48] No. Yeah, I'll make a motion to table in that thing what we've done.

[7:54] We're continuing it.

[7:58] Okay, development permit 2020-26-008, we're going to open up the public hearing at 608 with Giovanni Sogato.

[8:23] Good evening, Chairman and commissioners.

[8:26] This project is a request for approval of a development permit for a high increase of a proposed garage slash shop totaling 1,584 square feet.

[8:36] for the property owner, Cody Mead.

[8:39] The project sign is located at 10802 Cochidi Road

[8:44] and consists of a 0.44 acre lot

[8:47] and an existing 13-foot high 2112 square foot

[8:52] single family residents.

[8:54] Within the question of residential zoning district,

[8:57] the project sign is also surrounded

[8:58] by single family residences.

[9:02] The site, the proposed garage slash shop

[9:05] will be located on the northern portion

[9:07] of the parcel within the rear yard and will comply with the minimum required side

[9:11] development standards of 10-foot rear and side setbacks, 10-foot rear dedicated

[9:17] easement, 30% lock-overage, and a six-foot separation distance between primary and

[9:23] accessory structure.

[9:28] The size, the shop slash garage proposes a total square footage

[9:32] of 1,584 square feet, exactly 75% of the primary structure's total square

[9:38] footage of 2,100 and 12 square foot and is in compliance with the maximum allowable square

[9:45] footage, a lot of by the development code and as identified in page 4 regarding size of the

[9:52] staff report.

[9:55] The height, the shop slash garage proposes a total height of 22 feet at the ridge, exceeding

[10:02] the maximum height of the existing primary dwelling of 13 feet and or 16 feet whichever

[10:07] is less, as allowed for accessory structures by the development code for lots of zoned as

[10:12] Equestrian residential and as identified with in page 4 of the Sanford port regarding height.

[10:21] The visibility of the ninth height difference of the proposed garage flash shop from the

[10:25] right-of-ways line of sign-off could coachy road and Nambi road is reduced through the architectural

[10:30] compatibility and the use of Stucco exterior walls painted blue gray, wood-facious painted

[10:36] white, asphalt shingles, which use a mountain-site color, incorporating various shades of gray,

[10:42] and a gable to roof line that matches the primary structure as close as possible, and

[10:46] is in compliance with the architectural standards of the development code.

[10:51] Staff recommends that the Planning Commission moves Staff's recommendation as provided in

[10:55] the staff report.

[10:58] This concludes Staff's presentation.

[10:59] Staff is available to answer any questions, and the applicant is also present and would like

[11:05] address the commission.

[11:06] OK, thank you.

[11:07] Questions and staff?

[11:14] So the question I have is, in the staff report,

[11:17] it's asking for six feet above what the development code

[11:20] allows,

[11:23] is there any exciting circumstances

[11:25] that this needs to happen?

[11:27] Or are we just saying we want it done that way?

[11:30] So I will go ahead and defer that question

[11:32] to the property owner and property owner.

[11:34] I'm not ready for the property owner yet.

[11:35] Okay, the other question I have, the staff report that we were given has a lot of photos

[11:44] of the existing house and I'm assuming they already, if they haven't poured the slab yet,

[11:49] they're already getting ready to their forms there, everything's ready to go.

[11:52] So did this come in later, is it something that came in after the fact there was no permit

[11:58] poll?

[11:58] Is that the reason?

[11:59] So that's a good question and thank you for the question.

[12:01] the structure was identified through plan check. It went through the appropriate channels of building

[12:09] permitting and the 22 foot height difference and door proposed height was identified by planning

[12:15] staff and notified the applicant that a development permit would be required. No construction has

[12:20] happened on site, it's just site work and prep. Okay, so we have a lot of pictures. Only one that I

[12:30] normally, and I go back a long ways in this planning commission, we get a lot of photographs

[12:35] that show us what we're going to look at, and, essentially, or what it's going to be.

[12:40] We just have one.

[12:41] The other thing that we've got in our package is the diagram that I assume was done by the

[12:47] applicant.

[12:47] It's not to scale at all.

[12:49] I mean, it's not even close.

[12:50] It was received and accepted.

[12:52] So I don't know if anybody's noticing these things, but at least in my opinion, the staff report

[12:57] and what we have in front of it is incomplete for me

[13:00] to make any decisions on this one.

[13:02] I appreciate the fact that the applicant's here,

[13:04] but we need a better staff report to be blunt.

[13:08] I don't know what you guys think.

[13:09] You took a look at it.

[13:11] You guys can chime in if you want,

[13:12] but that's just my impression.

[13:18] Yeah, I mean, for me, I mean, again,

[13:20] it built the construction homes.

[13:22] I built RV grudges on the new construction homes.

[13:27] You know, my question that I was going back and forth with,

[13:30] Because usually it's a 16-foot max-height on a detached garage and it's 22-foot on an attached RV garage.

[13:42] So, when I looked at this, I was just going, okay, well, you know, we got...

[13:47] What was the purpose of the 16-foot? Obviously none of us were none of the planning stuff.

[13:52] What's here to make those decisions when they came up with that 16-foot detached and 22-foot attached?

[13:57] So, to me, as a builder, it never made sense to me, either.

[14:01] I don't have a problem with that 22-foot, personally, I feel like I am equipped to make a decision

[14:09] on this thing.

[14:10] But again, there's only three of us, so that's the problem here too, as we don't have the full

[14:13] five planning commissioners either, so I don't know where we go from here.

[14:18] My only question is, am I all confused, is this an attached garage or a detached garage?

[14:26] because it looks like from the pictures, it's detached.

[14:29] Correct. Yes, and it's a stated on the staff report under the site analysis that is detached.

[14:34] All right. Yes. So it is a detached garage.

[14:37] And the big question is whether or not we want to allow the 22-foot elevation for the garage.

[14:43] Right. Okay. So that would be something I would want to hear from the applicant to see what the reasoning is to be that far over what's allowed.

[14:53] But we're going to go ahead and move forward and talk to the applicant.

[14:58] We'll go ahead and if you would take the podium please.

[15:00] Please let us know who you are.

[15:02] My name is Ron Meade, I'm a general builder here. I'm just a small guy in the big town here. I appreciate

[15:06] you guys taking the time to listen to us. This is my son, where he lives right around the corner

[15:11] for me. Purpose of the depot, the detached garage that that height is because he has bought a motor

[15:15] home for him and his family to enjoy. As we all know, the height of a standard motor home with the AC

[15:20] and that will not fit in a standard 10 foot high garage. You can't fit a door over 10 foot. So that's

[15:26] So we'd purpose of why we would like to have these 16-foot garage, you know, the height

[15:30] of the walls in order to be able to get a 14-foot door and order to put the motor home in,

[15:34] as far as the construction, the construction was not started until after I had the pre-site inspection

[15:39] done, once they come out, they looked, they assumed that it would not be a problem to proceed.

[15:44] So as I normally do, I'm waiting for all my permits and that to come back, I go ahead,

[15:48] I break ground, I get everything ready.

[15:50] Once it went through the appropriate steps over here for the building of safety, it was shifted

[15:55] planning, planning, then determined that the height, I needed to apply for a special permit.

[16:00] That's why we're here to see you guys there, but no penalties, no red tag, no nothing

[16:05] it started until after we had filed here pre-site inspection.

[16:09] So back to the question, why we're asking is simply to put my son's motor home in

[16:14] to get it out of the weather?

[16:15] jump attack is investment. Simple as that for us. So again back to the one right behind my house

[16:24] did the same thing. So they're 14 foot plate, 14 foot 14 foot 14 foot, 14 foot top plate for the

[16:31] RV garage and then the roof pitch is a very shallow roof pitch right two feet higher so to meet that

[16:37] 16 foot. So the 14 foot is relevant and it is you know it will hold almost every any coach

[16:44] that you have even with what the unit on top with all the

[16:48] ACs and everything on top.

[16:52] So, again, to achieve that being able to park an RV of any size in there,

[16:58] the 14 foot plate with a 16 foot peak elevation peak should be sufficient.

[17:04] Well, you only have his motorhome up to the top.

[17:06] I mean, if you put a 16 foot opening with the proper size header in that there,

[17:11] you don't have a full 14 foot opening.

[17:14] I mean it's very very well again because which I think but you're talking about is what they

[17:19] I don't we plan to put in a roll up garage door in there. Yeah, I'd be able to see a roll up

[17:22] And that's what the and that's what these guys are going to the full track door

[17:26] Okay, and they're able to make that clearance happen. I'm not saying that's the way you should go

[17:30] I'm just saying if we're talking about why you're trying to get the extra foot in there to get the extra two feet of height

[17:37] I mean

[17:38] The solution is

[17:40] Very easy without having to go through this thing, but again, you know we're gonna hatch all this out here

[17:44] If that's a solution, if we need to shrink the walls down to 14 and make the peak at 16,

[17:47] if you feel that we can get it in there and that standard, I have no opposition to that.

[17:51] But we would like to go to the 16 since we've already done it, if you guys get out of those two that.

[17:56] Yeah, I'll get it.

[17:59] Well, I think, and of course, I'll have comments afterwards, we're not against the height.

[18:04] We've done it before we've given variances, we've given other heights.

[18:08] So it's not, it's not really the problem, it's just normally like when the lot drops down,

[18:13] And you wind up with a higher height, the image of the house and the garage makes more sense.

[18:18] So we do allow a higher, in this case it's all about the same grade.

[18:24] So, you know, the problem we have is we have a development code that clearly states what we're willing to do as a town.

[18:33] And a lot of people have done it and done it fine.

[18:35] We've had a lot of people come in with RV garages, they meet the height requirement, it's not a problem.

[18:41] So the problem I have is if we say yes, like staff wants us to do as far as a recommended

[18:49] approval, then we're sending a precedent for all kinds of people to come in and say,

[18:52] well, I want my garage to be 22 feet or 25 feet or I mean, where does it end?

[18:57] So that's the problem.

[18:58] So did anybody tell you when you went in on your permit, the code as far as the height of

[19:04] the garage?

[19:05] Yes, well, no.

[19:06] I didn't know when I went in when I originally put everything to plan in, went through

[19:09] the building safety.

[19:10] But you showed him your plans.

[19:12] Yeah, we didn't realize that until the win over into the planning department, and then on their second round, they had a coffee height.

[19:17] That's where the height was caught.

[19:19] So in the right at the end of our street, we have another gentleman that has a detached garage.

[19:23] Same thing. He's got the 16 foot walls with the peak.

[19:25] I submit a pictures of that.

[19:26] We've got another one of street over from us.

[19:28] That's the same thing.

[19:29] It's the detached. It's 16 foot walls.

[19:32] So I submitted all that stuff into here.

[19:34] Yeah. Like I said, I don't think any of us up here against it.

[19:37] Okay.

[19:37] It's just we got to do this the right way.

[19:39] And they're usually as a reason other than you just want it that way.

[19:42] Yeah, well, no, the reason is definitely I would like to protect his $60,000 investment

[19:45] put it indoors.

[19:47] What I think we've kind of identified is maybe a potential flaw in the code, where if the

[19:53] council decides, you know, that we need to change the development code to meet these bigger

[19:57] motorhomes that have air condition on top, then maybe our code is out of whack, but in

[20:04] time we've kind of got to do our job on this end. So all the conditions is staff

[20:12] gave you your good with everything. Okay. Anybody else you got any more questions

[20:17] form? That was excellent. Okay. Go ahead.

[20:21] We're just to clarify, your walls are going to be 16 foot.

[20:24] The peak will be 22. Sorry. Sorry about that.

[20:28] So the peak could be 22. Yes. Because you're going to have a gable end.

[20:31] Yes, all right, which is under the height of 35 feet in that area, right, the maximum of 35 feet in that area, so it's under it.

[20:40] I understand what you're saying because because you need 16 foot and because of your head or requirement for your garage door opening, you have to make your peak appropriately from that top of that wall.

[20:50] Yes sir.

[20:51] Top plate.

[20:52] Thank you.

[20:53] I'm assuming you did this.

[20:56] I guess.

[20:58] for the town.

[21:01] Yes, and I'm sorry my apologies.

[21:03] I'm just a small guy.

[21:04] I'm not talented enough to do skill drawings.

[21:06] I've been doing it this way for 20 years.

[21:08] I've never had a problem.

[21:09] Well, it's, yeah, I mean, it's fine.

[21:12] It's, it's not really you, but when we're talking about sizes and heights and setbacks and everything to give any kind of a variance to whatever our code is, then it'd be good to have it to scale.

[21:23] Because the first thing I did was look at it and I thought, well, I don't know which planner got this, but that would have been my question or comment to you is to get it right.

[21:31] My apologies.

[21:32] I just a big ZMS to bedroom.

[21:35] Yeah.

[21:35] I asked if we're giving this on that.

[21:37] My apologies.

[21:37] Thanks accepted this time.

[21:39] If you can, it will go from there on the next one.

[21:42] Okay.

[21:42] So anybody else?

[21:44] You're good.

[21:45] So we're going to go ahead and call for public comments.

[21:47] We're good.

[21:47] We're good with you.

[21:48] Thanks for everything.

[21:49] Thank you.

[21:50] Anybody I don't have any goal cards on this particular item is anybody want to comment on this

[21:54] You can if you want to come up to the podium

[21:57] Okay, nobody's doing that. So we're gonna go ahead. I've already asked a fee agreed

[22:03] And he's agreed to the condition as a approval. So we're gonna close the public hearing at

[22:09] 622 and

[22:10] Commission discussion talk about it

[22:13] What you guys want to do?

[22:16] Yeah, I said my piece like I said I'm I'm totally fine with it. It's uh, it's something that I've thought about too

[22:20] got sold one right on the corner same thing the guys going forward and going to put a

[22:24] detached grudge and I'm sure he's going to be asking for 22 feet now too.

[22:27] So I think

[22:30] Exense, I don't think it looks bad, especially when the peak is already pretty close to that.

[22:33] Anyway, the peak of this house is probably 20-ish feet.

[22:37] So, like I said, I don't have a problem with it.

[22:40] Quick question for staff, I guess, David, you could probably answer.

[22:43] Did we not get any, we've got no responses from neighbors?

[22:47] Well, now we did receive one public comment on this item.

[22:51] Why don't we, has that been provided to the commission here?

[22:53] I don't think so. Unless I'm overlooking it.

[22:56] If I may ask if Mr. Salgado can step back up,

[23:01] he has a copy of the public comment that came through.

[23:05] If you don't mind just walk in as through with some of those comments were,

[23:09] and provide a response to how the project and the code,

[23:15] you know, comply with the proposal before us tonight.

[23:18] Of course, give me one moment.

[23:28] Okay, so the comment made by a neighboring adjacent home expressed concern about height,

[23:40] visibility, architectural compatibility, neighborhood compatibility.

[23:44] That's all addressed in the staff report with the colors, the matching architecture of roof peaks,

[23:49] similar gable roof types, lighting was an issue as well that she brought up as well as noise

[23:57] impacts, there's provisions in the conditions of approval that essentially hold it to the

[24:02] performance centers for noise and lighting. So everything is at least regulated by the code.

[24:10] The other concern the individual had was a potential use for non-residential uses, which

[24:16] commercial use of a shop for automotive. There's also a provision in the conditions of approval

[24:22] prohibiting that and limiting it to the uses for a Home Occupation under development code

[24:30] 1919.

[24:44] There was additional comments with drainage and runoff and for that I will defer to engineering

[24:52] and or grading plan as they requested information that as well. Everything else seems to be covered

[24:58] by the staff report, the only other thing was the financial aspect in case the larger structure

[25:05] impacted that.

[25:06] We don't make any comments on financial aspects.

[25:10] So this was then, this is a neighbor within 300 feet.

[25:13] Yes, the property slightly adjacent next to our neighbor to the west.

[25:19] So you mentioned engineering issues and drainage issues and that we're those addressed.

[25:24] I don't know that they're in the staff report.

[25:26] You said you referred it to the town engineer?

[25:29] Yes, so any questions I will defer to the town engineer,

[25:31] but there were no comments provided,

[25:33] there were no comments needed for this lot.

[25:35] Okay, and then my only question is,

[25:36] you mentioned this, I'm really having a hard time

[25:39] with, to be honest.

[25:41] You mentioned that the color combination

[25:42] and the compatibility with the one next door

[25:44] takes care of the height problem, correct?

[25:47] I don't know how you get to that conclusion.

[25:50] So the visibility from both right of ways,

[25:52] the architectural compatibility of the roof line

[25:54] and the similar architectural style allows it to sit a little bit

[25:58] further back as well, just by the setback.

[26:02] So at least it'll be compatible enough

[26:05] with existing neighborhood if that answers your question.

[26:11] OK.

[26:11] I'd like to share a chair, Carolyn.

[26:14] So the comment that he mentioned arrived.

[26:17] I received it by email 30 minutes before the meeting.

[26:20] This is the one that he summarized.

[26:23] Okay. However, he provided a very brief summary and he also commented on that as he was ready to get my preference would be that he read the the public comment just to ensure that

[26:34] That you have received that and it's part of the record of the city. Okay. Absolutely. Yeah, kind of put your microphone where we can clear you.

[26:44] Okay.

[26:48] So dear town of Upper Valley planning commission. I am writing to formally express my strong opposition to the development permit

[26:54] DP-2026-008, concerning the proposed 22-foot tall,

[27:00] detached residential shop slash garage at 108-03 Cochidi Road.

[27:06] I am the next one neighbor to the subject property, and as one of the residents who will be most directly impacted by this proposed development,

[27:13] I respectfully request the Planning Commission carefully consider the significant effects that structure of this high and scale could have on my property,

[27:22] privacy, my enjoyment of my home and the overall character of our neighborhood.

[27:30] My primary concern is that the proposed height of 22 feet, a detached accessory of this

[27:35] magnitude, has the potential to substantially alter the residential character and the

[27:40] visual appearance of the immediate area.

[27:43] The scale and high of the proposed building appear excessive for an accessible residential

[27:47] shop or garage, particularly viewed when viewed from directly adjoining residential properties.

[27:53] I purchased and maintain my property within reasonable expectation that the surrounding

[27:58] neighborhood would retain its established residential appearance and scale.

[28:03] The introduction of a 22-foot detached structure immediate legislation to my property could

[28:07] create an imposing visual presence that is inconsistent with the existing neighborhood aesthetic.

[28:14] I respectfully asked the commission to consider the following concerns.

[28:18] Neighborhood compatibility and aesthetics, a 22-foot garage, a 22-foot detached garage,

[28:24] slash shop, maybe visible, or visually disproportionate to surrounding residential

[28:28] structures and accessory buildings.

[28:31] Allowing the structure of this site, size could negatively alter the appearance, openness,

[28:36] and established character of the neighborhood.

[28:40] Visual mass and scale, high alone does not fully describe the impact of the building,

[28:44] the commission should consider the total dimensions roof design wall height square footage

[28:50] setbacks and overall building mass. A large structure located near a neighboring property

[28:55] line can feel significantly more intrusive than it is numerical height may suggest.

[29:02] Laws of privacy as the immediate adjacent neighbor I am especially concerned about the height of the structure

[29:09] may affect privacy within my home.

[29:12] backyard and other outdoor areas.

[29:14] Any elevated openings windows doors loft areas, second storage areas, or other features

[29:20] could potentially create direct line sight lines onto neighboring residential property.

[29:26] Reduction of open residential character.

[29:30] One of the qualities of residential neighborhood is the sense of openness between properties.

[29:35] A structure reaching 22 feet could create a wall light feel and substantially change the

[29:40] feeling of the neighborhood outdoor environment.

[29:43] Sunlight and shadow impacts,

[29:45] depending on the location orientation of the proposed building.

[29:48] A structure of this height could create additional shading

[29:51] on my property during the portions of the day

[29:54] and throughout this different seasons.

[29:56] I respectfully request that potential shadow.

[30:00] Thato impacts on adjoining properties be evaluated. Lighting impacts. I am concerned about exterior lighting associated with the large shop or garage, security lighting, flood lights, wall mounted fixtures and lighting above large garage, doors could potentially shine onto adjacent properties or create night time glare. Any approval should thoroughly address light spill and require shielding away from neighbouring homes.

[30:28] noise impacts. 80 test shop slash garage can potentially generate considerably more active

[30:34] activity than a conventional residential garage. Power tools, compressors, equipment, vehicles,

[30:41] mechanical systems, garage doors, generators or other activities could create additional

[30:46] noise immediately adjacent to the neighboring residences. I would like to keep it to three

[30:53] minutes if you could quickly summarize the repeating page. Thank you.

[30:56] Okay.

[30:59] For future use of the structure, I respectfully request clarification regarding exactly

[31:03] what activities will be permitted within the proposed slash garage. Consider whether the

[31:08] sizing configuration of the building could facilitate activities beyond ordinary residential

[31:13] storage parking that could negative impact a joint residences. Potential or intensive use,

[31:22] while I'm not alleging that the applicant tends to operate a business, I believe the town should

[31:26] ensure that a building of the size is not used for future in a manner that creates commercial

[31:32] traffic, employee activity, customer visits, excessive vehicle storage, repair operations,

[31:37] or other users in consistent with the residential nature of this neighborhood. Vehicle equipment

[31:42] activity, a large detached shop could potentially accommodate multiple vehicles, recreational

[31:47] vehicles trailers, machinery or other equipment resulting vehicle movements, loading, unloading,

[31:54] engine noise and activities should be considered when evaluating compatibility.

[31:58] It's worth it.

[31:59] It's worth it.

[32:01] I think we get the idea.

[32:04] Yeah.

[32:04] Okay.

[32:06] He's opposed to it.

[32:09] Never as opposed to it.

[32:11] Okay.

[32:13] We still have time.

[32:14] Mr. Chair.

[32:16] Two things I noticed going back and looking at the plan that was drawn.

[32:20] That's a little bit of concern to mind.

[32:22] Number one is the square footage and the fact that there's two bay.

[32:25] And the one that really jumps out at me is a 400 amp panel.

[32:30] So on your drying, you said new shop garage, and you have a 400 amp panel, which is not

[32:35] necessary to park the motor home.

[32:38] So that tells me that there's going to be more to this.

[32:43] Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on.

[32:44] We should have discussion back at 4th floor going, Tom.

[32:47] So that is a different definite concern of mine also, is not only the height, but the fact

[32:55] So we're looking at adding a 400 amp panel and it's not only a garage but it's a shop, so that's my comment.

[33:05] David, you got something?

[33:07] Yeah, if you're under a commission comments right now, but if you want to open the public hearing again and have a response to your question, I suggest you do so.

[33:17] And I think I respond to that neighbor's concern.

[33:20] So we're going to go ahead and open up the public hearing again at 633.

[33:25] Thank you, and we're going to go ahead and have the applicant go up again to talk about

[33:30] those items.

[33:31] Once again, I'm very sorry I labeled it, shop slash garage.

[33:35] The most guys, if you say shop, you said garage is like, so that was totally my fault.

[33:40] All the reason that we were going for a 400 amp panel is he's going to be having a motor

[33:44] home that's in there. He asked to test those. We were going to be with two charges in there.

[33:47] That was the only reason that we had asked for the 400 amp upgrade for the garage. It was

[33:53] easier to do a 400 amp upgrade to the garage in the back feed house. That was the only reason

[33:57] that there was a 400 amp panel asked for was for the RV in for this test was. So other than that

[34:03] there was there's I'm not smart enough to work on a car. My son's an engineer on the freeway

[34:07] in San Diego. We leaves it two in the morning. It gets home at nine a night. He got home rather than to

[34:11] here. So believe me there's no shop. I'm not, that's not my thing. I'm a builder. So that's

[34:17] the justify the 400 amp panel. And they can take that off of them when they, they

[34:20] we don't have to have that. So in no way shape or form, do we have to have it? It was simply

[34:26] there for his motorhome and his, there's two Tesla's. So. And the neighbor, there's no windows

[34:33] up above six foot eight. So we've got a six foot block all the way around. You're not going to

[34:38] into the neighbors and neighbors aren't going to see us, so we're not going to be shading anybody or anything like that.

[34:44] Looking in people and Tom and nothing like that.

[34:46] He's just simply asking us for a garage.

[34:49] That's all I just say.

[34:50] Thank you.

[34:55] I mean all those comments are very interesting because the great and the less stuff, I mean there's

[35:00] so many things we got to go through the hoop, especially in the state of California, I mean

[35:03] the great, you know, that stuff is done, the lighting and the town of up Valley, we, you know,

[35:07] we don't allow bright lights, downlight and only all that stuff.

[35:09] So all that stuff's already addressed.

[35:11] I mean, it's really not even a concern.

[35:13] There's no site.

[35:14] They're not, they don't have an ocean views

[35:15] that they're looking to the side of the yard.

[35:18] It's kind of a ridiculous, but again, we're talking

[35:22] about a garage that if he wants to weld something of his own,

[35:25] he should be allowed to weld a freaking piece of metal

[35:27] on his own.

[35:28] Four hundred amp handles should be a zero concern.

[35:32] Again, we're talking about some very elementary stuff

[35:36] here, I believe.

[35:37] So, you know, again, we're going to stick with the thing.

[35:40] We're not talking about, okay, hold on a second, Mike.

[35:44] If we're back in a commission comment, I'm going to close up.

[35:46] Okay, so we're not, we're not going to get in all of that with this open.

[35:50] So, right now, we're going to go ahead and close up public hearing

[35:54] back to commission discussion at 6.35, so keep going.

[35:57] Yeah, so anyways, I don't even know where I left off, but bottom line is the use of it

[36:06] is going to be regulated by the bill in his safety.

[36:08] If somebody's out there, wrenching on cars every day,

[36:10] that's going to get handled.

[36:12] If you want to wrench on his own car,

[36:13] that's his freedom to do that.

[36:16] Again, we're talking about the height.

[36:19] We're not talking about amp panels.

[36:21] We're not talking about drainage.

[36:22] All that stuff is handled through the jurisdiction

[36:24] that we're sitting in here.

[36:26] We're talking about the height.

[36:27] Are we okay with the height?

[36:27] They're not the stick to the thing and let's move on with this thing.

[36:30] Again, I feel like I have enough stuff to make a decision.

[36:33] If we're going from 16 feet to 22 feet, that's my take.

[36:37] Yeah, I mean, you know, Mike's right, that's pretty much the topic at hand, and I, again,

[36:42] I don't have a problem with the height, I know that that's kind of the way things are

[36:46] going.

[36:47] We do need to notify Council of the discrepancy code with the garages that we keep getting

[36:54] forward, because to me, I don't see a big difference between why an attached garages

[36:59] 22 feet allowable, and the detach of 16, it doesn't really make sense.

[37:04] So I think there's a defect in the code.

[37:06] Again, my beef is with staff on this one.

[37:09] I hate to say it.

[37:10] And it's not, it just was not a very good staff report.

[37:15] In general, the photos, the drawings, the map, the description,

[37:20] and unfortunately, even the staff report at the commission.

[37:25] So that's my problem.

[37:26] I got to go with Mike and again

[37:30] I give the neighbor, but, you know, we have half acre lots minimum. It's enough to put a garage, it's enough to put ADU. There's a lot of other things going on that are more of a concern if there is something happening that shouldn't be happening in the way of business uses than the neighbor can call code enforcement. We can get a taken care of it at that time. So I don't want to say I'm fine with it because I'm not, but for what we haven't found of us, I'm good enough.

[37:56] And my only question is the question you raised earlier about, what does it stop?

[38:03] So is this the maximum elevation for any future garages or could it be higher?

[38:08] I don't know that answer.

[38:09] I don't either.

[38:10] It seems to be because the attached is allowed at 22.

[38:14] If you read through the Stafford port, we are allowing 22 feet with an attached garage.

[38:19] Detached garage is at 16 feet, which is kind of contradictory.

[38:23] I don't really know why that is.

[38:24] other than if it's a visual thing and it's away from it it could look kind of out of place

[38:30] because it's not attached to the house, but that's all stuff that we can probably massage the

[38:34] code with. We've approved a lot of garages that are that height, especially with the newer

[38:41] motorhomes. But I would be concerned about commercial uses, shop uses, electrical, so hopefully that

[38:50] is his vigilant, but other than that, I'm ready to move on on.

[38:55] Please speak it over the wall every second.

[39:01] So somebody wants to make a motion one way or the other.

[39:03] Make a motion to approve.

[39:06] Okay, we've got a motion area.

[39:13] This is really killing me.

[39:16] All second it.

[39:19] So we've got a motion area, second, calen.

[39:22] We need a roll call vote.

[39:23] I need to do, oh yeah, good.

[39:25] Mission area?

[39:26] Yep.

[39:27] We need to read the motion into the record.

[39:31] That's what I was just looking for.

[39:32] What is it on page 15 or something like that?

[39:34] I thought that was if we if we if we motion staff's approval

[39:38] then you'll read it into the records.

[39:39] I can do that.

[39:41] I would like to provide a reminder today.

[39:45] So to affirmatively approve any item at tonight's meeting

[39:48] requires an affirmative vote from all three commissioners tonight.

[39:54] because approving an item requires a majority of the entire planning commission, not just

[40:02] the planning commissioners that are present.

[40:03] Right, and so to further that point, if let's say one of the commissioners doesn't want

[40:10] to vote in favor and would it be continued without any prejudice or is it over at that point?

[40:17] That would be a discussion for the commissioners to have.

[40:19] How they would like to, would you like me to go through the options?

[40:25] That'd be great.

[40:26] Okay, so the options now, before you, are one to continue the item to the next meeting,

[40:32] providing additional time for the applicant to discuss the issue with staff and make any necessary changes.

[40:39] Two, you can deny the item, or three, you can approve the item as written by staff,

[40:44] for, you can also approve the item, subject to a maximum height of 16 feet.

[40:50] So those are your four options for this item.

[40:53] Okay, I got another question on an option, the different option.

[40:56] If we don't get a full commission approval, does that deny the project?

[41:05] Okay, that changes things a little bit, and I don't know how Tom's going to vote.

[41:10] So, I mean, I don't know Mike, if you want to continue this, it might be better for the applicant.

[41:16] because it could go down completely.

[41:18] This was chair.

[41:19] There's a motion in a second to approve the

[41:22] kind of recommendation.

[41:24] So, I can read the staff recommendation.

[41:27] So, let me ask you another question in.

[41:30] If Commissioner Pombianco abstains,

[41:32] what becomes of the vote?

[41:34] The item does not pass.

[41:36] It's denied.

[41:37] Would it be denied or would it be?

[41:39] It's denied.

[41:40] So, either way.

[41:40] We've got the three of them.

[41:41] Anything except a yes vote?

[41:43] It gives it denied.

[41:43] All right, yeah, and what's again? We have a motion in a second may I read that well I want to I want to I want to

[41:52] Retract my second so I don't like the options. I kind of want to

[41:56] I want to have a fair shake for this applicant. I don't know if it's going to happen with three people

[42:04] You are is is the the commissioner that made the first

[42:11] recommendation, or are they fine with you withdrawing your second?

[42:14] So, do I have to decide that now to withdraw?

[42:22] This is my opinion.

[42:23] With the options presented, anything except for all three of us voting for it makes it denied.

[42:29] And I think that it should be something that the rest of the commission looks at.

[42:33] And we get a better staff report.

[42:35] Again, we've approved these kinds of things before.

[42:37] I'm not going to speak for Commissioner Pombianco, but it's probably in the applicant's interest if we move this on to a different date.

[42:45] Look at it again.

[42:46] Well actually I can solve the problem because I can make the motion.

[42:50] Good.

[42:50] We need to withdraw.

[42:52] We need to retract my motion.

[42:55] Okay.

[42:56] You make the motion.

[42:56] I thought he already did.

[42:58] So I'll make the motion.

[43:00] We approve the staff report.

[43:02] The attorney.

[43:03] Well, we need a second.

[43:04] Are you need to read the motion?

[43:06] If you can make the motion, Mr. Attorney, the staff recommendation is one, find that

[43:13] pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, CQA, Section 15303, new construction

[43:19] or conversion of small structure. The proposed structure is exempt from further environmental

[43:23] review, and two, recommend the adoption of a resolution, approving development permit, DP 2026-008,

[43:33] subject to the attached conditions of approval.

[43:38] I second.

[43:39] OK, roll call vote.

[43:42] Commissioner Areas?

[43:43] Yes.

[43:44] Commissioner Pombianco.

[43:45] Yes.

[43:47] Herman Kalin.

[43:49] Motion passes with Commissioner Lannion

[43:51] and Vice Chairman Tinsley Absent.

[43:54] OK.

[43:59] He wasn't that exciting.

[44:02] I didn't have to.

[44:03] Hold on, because this was worse than all that.

[44:05] Sorry, everybody.

[44:06] Well, everybody understands ramifications of only having three plan commissioners here tonight. Usually it's majority

[44:12] Usually it's a majority, but when there's only three it has to be unanimous

[44:21] Yeah, we're gonna we're gonna continue now with tentative track map

[44:27] 2304 extension number two and we are gonna have Stephanie wheel give us a presentation at opening the public hearing

[44:36] 644. Good evening, Chairman and commissioners. The item before you is a request for extension of time number two,

[44:45] or tentative track map, 20304. The applicant is requesting a final one-year extension for a previously approved tentative track map,

[44:55] to subdivide approximately 55 acres into 93 single family residential.

[45:00] A lot's within the Equestrian Residential Zoning District. The property is located on the east side of Choco Road, approximately 400 feet north of Boot Hill Drive.

[45:11] Tendative Track Map 20304 was originally approved by the Planning Commission on July 15, 2020.

[45:20] The original map was valid through July 15, 2023, and the applicant received a three year extension through July 15, 2026.

[45:32] The applicant is now requesting one additional year, which would extend the map through July 15, 2027.

[45:38] Under the town's development code subdivision section,

[45:42] a tentative map may be extended up to four years

[45:45] beyond its original expiration date.

[45:48] This would be the final extension available for this tentative track map.

[45:53] No housing product is proposed at this time.

[45:56] Prior to the construction of the future homes,

[45:59] a separate development permit will be required

[46:01] and will return to the planning commission for review of the residential architecture.

[46:05] The original project was evaluated under CQA, three initial study and mitigated negative declaration adopted on July 15, 2020.

[46:16] Staff determined that there have been no changes to the project and no new information that would result in new significant environmental impacts.

[46:23] Therefore, pursuant to SQL Guidelines Section 15162, no further environmental review is required.

[46:30] All previously applicable conditions and mitigation measures remain in effect.

[46:36] Staff recommends that the Planning Commission moves staff's recommendation as provided in the staff report.

[46:42] This concludes the staff's presentation.

[46:44] Staff is available to answer any questions.

[46:46] The applicant is also present virtually and would like to address the commission.

[46:50] Thank you.

[46:51] Questions of staff.

[46:53] I have none.

[46:55] I'm none for me either.

[46:57] Okay, so the applicant is going to comment by phone.

[47:03] Yes, he is available on virtually the Microsoft Teams.

[47:08] Okay.

[47:09] Is the applicant there?

[47:12] Yes, I'm here.

[47:14] Chairman Kalin, fellow commissioners.

[47:15] Is this Tom Rubik?

[47:16] Can you hear me?

[47:18] Yes.

[47:19] Yes, I appreciate.

[47:20] I'm out of town.

[47:21] I appreciate you considering this final extension of one year.

[47:24] And I went over the conditions with Stephanie and I agree 100% with those and I agree to those.

[47:32] And hopefully our economy will pick up so we can get this project moving forward.

[47:37] I appreciate your approval of this one year extension.

[47:41] Okay, thanks Tom.

[47:42] We're going to call for public comments on this.

[47:46] Do you have anybody here that wants to comment on this extension?

[47:50] Seeing nobody.

[47:52] Tom, you've already agreed to the conditions from staff?

[48:00] Okay.

[48:01] So we're going to go ahead and close the public hearing at 6.48 and have commission discussion?

[48:07] My fingers across too for the economy.

[48:11] We've done a lot of extensions for track maps, and it seems like we're running out of time on a lot of them.

[48:17] But hopefully you're right, it'll get better.

[48:20] So I'm all for it.

[48:22] anything. The same thing you answered my question, whether you're planning on pulling a

[48:26] development permit. So the economy allows hopefully he'll get this off the ground

[48:31] and running. So I'm hoping for that.

[48:34] So I'm going to go ahead and call for motion on this. I'll make a motion. We approve.

[48:40] A second.

[48:42] Okay. Staff's recommendation is one. Determine that based on the evidence and the record.

[48:48] There is no substantial change in the project or new information that would result in new, significant environmental impacts

[48:55] beyond those identified within the mitigated negative declaration that was prepared for this project

[49:00] and adopted by the Planning Commission on July 15, 2020.

[49:05] Therefore, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act,

[49:08] Sequel Guidelines sections 15162.

[49:11] The proposed request is not subject to further environmental review.

[49:15] 2, adopt resolution number 2026-011, approving a final 1-year extension of time for

[49:25] tentative track Mac map TTM 20304, subject to the attached conditions of approval, and

[49:33] 3, direct staff to file the notice of determination under SQL Guidelines section 1-5-075.

[49:41] Thank

[49:44] you. So we have a motion it.

[49:47] Pombianco second areas we need a roll call vote.

[49:50] Commissioner areas.

[49:53] Is it okay that he called it I motion first as a matter.

[49:55] Oh, I'm sorry. So the motion was areas second Pombianco.

[49:59] Sorry about that.

[50:00] Roll call vote.

[50:01] Commissioner areas.

[50:02] Yes.

[50:02] Commissioner Pombianco.

[50:06] Motion passes with Commissioner Lannion and Vice Chairman Tensley Absent.

[50:10] Okay.

[50:10] Moving along to the next tentative track map.

[50:13] different from this one, but similar,

[50:16] 23.06, extension number two,

[50:19] opening up the public hearing,

[50:21] at 6.50, again with Ms. Leighel.

[50:26] Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners.

[50:28] The item before you is a request for extension of time number two,

[50:31] for tentative track map 20306.

[50:35] The applicant is requesting a final two year extension

[50:38] for a previously approved tentative track map

[50:40] to subdivide approximately 100 acres,

[50:42] into 160 single-family residential lots and three-letter lots within the

[50:48] Equestrian residential zoning district. The project is located at the

[50:52] southeast corner of Corwin Road and Waller Road. Tenet of Track Map 20306 was

[50:58] originally approved by the Planning Commission on September 1st 2021. The

[51:03] original map was valid through September 1st 2024 and the applicant received a

[51:07] your extension through September 1st, 2026. The applicant is now requesting an additional

[51:13] two years which would extend the map through September 1st, 2028. Under the town's development

[51:19] code subdivision section, a tentative map may be extended up to four years beyond its original

[51:24] expiration date. This would be the final extension available for this tentative track map.

[51:30] No housing product is proposed at this time prior to construction of future homes,

[51:35] A separate development permit will be required and will return to planning commission for review of the residential architecture.

[51:42] The original project was evaluated under CEQA, 3 in initial study and medicated negative declaration adopted on September 1, 2021.

[51:51] Staff determined that there have been no changes to the project and no new information

[51:56] that would result in a new, significant environmental impacts.

[52:00] Therefore, pursuant to SQL Guidelines Section 15162, no further environmental review is required.

[52:07] I'll previously applicable conditions and mitigation measures remain in effect.

[52:12] Staff recommends that the Planning Commission moves staff's recommendation as provided in the

[52:16] support. This concludes staff's presentation. Staff is available to answer any questions.

[52:22] The applicant is also present virtually and would like to address the commission.

[52:26] Thank you.

[52:27] Questions of staff? Anything?

[52:30] I got nothing.

[52:32] Apocons still on the phone?

[52:35] You there? Yes. Yes, Chairman Collin. This is Tom Rubik.

[52:39] Thank you again for allowing this to move forward tonight.

[52:43] And I would request 100% agreement with these conditions.

[52:47] And, like I said, I hope that things will certainly be picking up with some of the good projects coming down the pike.

[52:54] And I would request and appreciate your approval this.

[52:59] Okay, thanks, and you've agreed verbally, so I'll note that on my report.

[53:05] Yes, I do.

[53:06] Is there anybody in the public here that would like to comment on this item?

[53:11] Seeing no one, we're going to go ahead and close the public hearing at 653 with Commission discussion.

[53:18] Same thing, I'll go ahead and make the motion this time.

[53:21] That we approve staff recommendation?

[53:24] No, second.

[53:26] You're up?

[53:27] Yes.

[53:27] Staff's recommendation is one to determine that based on the evidence and the record,

[53:34] there is no substantial change in the project or new information that would result in

[53:39] new significant environmental impacts beyond those identified within the mitigated

[53:44] negative declaration that was prepared for this project and adopted by the planning commission

[53:49] on September 1st, 2021. Therefore, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act,

[53:55] Sequa guideline sections 15162, the proposed request

[54:00] is not subject to further environmental review.

[54:03] Two, adopt resolution number 2026-012,

[54:09] approving a final two year extension of time

[54:11] for tentative track map TTM 20306,

[54:16] subject to the attached conditions of approval.

[54:19] Three, direct staff to file the notice of determination

[54:22] under Seqbo Guidelines section 1.5075.

[54:29] Thank you.

[54:29] We have a motion call in second areas.

[54:32] We need a roll call vote.

[54:33] Missionary areas?

[54:35] Missionary Pombianco?

[54:36] Yes.

[54:37] Chairman Callon.

[54:38] Motion passes with Commissioner Lannion and Vice Chairman Tinsley Absent.

[54:43] Thank you.

[54:45] Okay.

[54:46] Moving on to item 5.4.

[54:48] We're going to open the public hearing.

[54:50] This is the Lake Creek Logistics Center Agenda Report, opening the public hearing at 6.55 and we've got Mr. Richard Hirsch to give a presentation.

[55:19] Good evening, Chair Calon, in members of the Planning Commission, Richard Hirsch on behalf of the Planning Department.

[55:25] I'm with Interwest Consulting Group. I'm your consulting planner. I've been working with the town for almost four years now.

[55:36] Happy to be here. This is my second time live in Council Chambers presenting with you.

[55:43] I had presented a number of projects. Previously, we had been doing them virtually,

[55:48] but now we're going to start doing them live, so I'm very happy to be here with you.

[55:52] And thank you for the opportunity. The project before you this evening is the Lake Creek Logistics

[55:58] center warehousing project and let's get our bearings as to where the project is located.

[56:08] It is in the north half of the town, immediately east of Apple Valley Airport and just

[56:15] drilling down a little bit more to the precise location.

[56:19] As I said, east of the airport and it's bounded on the south by Corwin Road on the east

[56:26] by central road and on the north by gustine street.

[56:31] And you can see on the right there,

[56:35] where it's location, vis-à-vis the airport lands

[56:39] but immediately to the west.

[56:42] Surrounding uses the project status 227 gross acres.

[56:48] We do have the airport to the west and to the southwest,

[56:52] undeveloped high desert lands to the south.

[56:55] same to the north and to the east, we have a combination of undeveloped vacant high desert lands and a single family residential cluster of residential

[57:10] rural residential compounds, about 10 compounds to the east of central road, and another

[57:19] rural residential compound to the southeast approximately 700 feet away.

[57:25] This is a view of the site from Corwin, looking north-westernly towards Bell Mountain.

[57:35] The entire site looks like this.

[57:37] It's basically high desert scrub and a variety of small amounts.

[57:43] There are no Joshua trees present, no environmentally sensitive features.

[57:48] A little bit of evidence of human use, but really not much.

[57:55] It's really just raw, high desert land.

[57:59] Currently, the site has a general plan, and zoning designation of specific planet is within

[58:06] the North Apple Valley Industrial Specific Plan, and within that specific plan there are a variety

[58:12] of different designations, four of the five parcels that make up the site are already

[58:20] designated ISP, specific plan industrial, the far south east parcel on the site is designated

[58:28] general commercial CG, general commercial at this time.

[58:32] And this is a map showing the Navis P boundaries.

[58:38] The Navis P areas about 4,800 acres,

[58:42] and it's divided up into four designations.

[58:47] There is the airport industrial designation commercial general.

[58:52] The industrial specific plan and the fourth, I believe,

[58:56] is an industrial designation, and uses that are allowed in the specifically in the ISP designation.

[59:06] This is the list of general list of uses that are more, but this is essentially the list of most common uses that would provide you with an example list of types of uses that would be permitted within the ISP designation.

[59:22] So, getting into the actual project proposal, this is the current site plan.

[59:30] Three buildings, lot one is for this east on the site.

[59:35] Lot one would contain building one, it is a 76 net acre site.

[59:40] The building would be about a million and a quarter, 1.24 million square feet.

[59:45] And it would be a cross-doc warehouse logistics building with about 200 roll-up dock doors and over a thousand standard parking spaces building two is identical to building one and

[1:00:00] And the lot is about 80 acres. Again, 1.24 million square feet, about 200 roll-up loading dock doors, approximately

[1:00:08] 100 doors on each side of the building, thus making it cross dock configuration, and over a thousand

[1:00:16] standard parking spaces to meet the demand for potential employment on site, which could reach up to

[1:00:25] 2,900 employees.

[1:00:27] Lot three, building three is the furthest west,

[1:00:30] and that is budding the airport.

[1:00:32] It's the smallest of the lots and the smallest building.

[1:00:35] It's 68 acres, 1 million square foot building,

[1:00:39] about 150 roll-up doors and 600 standard parking spaces

[1:00:42] overall.

[1:00:44] The facility is requesting 3.48 million total square feet

[1:00:48] on a 227 gross acre site.

[1:00:52] The project's intended use is, as I mentioned, as a cross-doc warehouse and e-commerce logistics center.

[1:01:00] It would be split up into three separate parcels with three separate buildings.

[1:01:05] So ideally for the applicant, there's probably an intent to have three, at least three separate tenants or less ease.

[1:01:15] To make it very clear, the project is not being proposed as a data center.

[1:01:20] It's being proposed as a warehousing and e-commerce logistic center, which basically has

[1:01:28] pallets of goods come in one side through roll-up doors and docks and then be reconfigured

[1:01:35] onto separate pallets and go out for final destinations on the other side of the building.

[1:01:40] It's goods that are being worked here at the logistics of sales of goods, not data

[1:01:48] with network servers, crunching data.

[1:01:54] It is not clear that data centers are actually permitted

[1:01:56] in the NavisP.

[1:01:58] If a project did come in for a data center,

[1:02:00] here or elsewhere, staff would need to perform additional code

[1:02:03] analysis to even determine if a data center would be allowed.

[1:02:08] Building elevations, this is a typical.

[1:02:11] I didn't put up elevations of all three,

[1:02:13] because the architectural style is essentially

[1:02:16] identical from across all three buildings.

[1:02:19] You can see that they have a nice blue glazing

[1:02:23] on the corners to provide accent on all the corners.

[1:02:27] And there are some very nice clear story windows

[1:02:31] bringing a lot of light into all three buildings.

[1:02:34] And the color palette is pretty neutral, palliative,

[1:02:38] tops, and grays, and then the blue glazing

[1:02:41] provides that kind of visual accenting.

[1:02:45] And we've got some renderings.

[1:02:46] This is the building, one rendering, viewing, building one towards the southwest from central and again building one viewing southwest towards southwest from on site and an overall kind of a bird's eye or angle view showing the whole site from gusting and central viewing towards the southwest, really direction with bell mountain in the background there.

[1:03:12] The project is also required to install a new water service line, and there will be a 12 inch line.

[1:03:20] About a half mile, maybe a little bit more, that would extend from an existing connection point west of the airport,

[1:03:27] I believe, at Ramona and Corwin, and it would extend eastward to hook up with a new line and Corwin road.

[1:03:36] And that new 12-inch line would be underneath the main runway of the airport.

[1:03:41] There's an easement agreement that's been agreed to.

[1:03:45] It's, believe it's in the process of being executed now and finalized by the county,

[1:03:50] airports department.

[1:03:52] And importantly, they would not have to trench up the runway here.

[1:03:56] This would be a boring, underneath the runway, so we'll disturb that runway configuration or surface.

[1:04:04] The airport overlay zones are notable here, the project is well within the airport zones.

[1:04:13] It's in zone A2, largely which allows a 50 foot maximum height zone A1 is the more

[1:04:21] stringent airport safety overlay zone and you can see that a very small portion of the

[1:04:34] safety zone within which the maximum height would be 35 feet. However, no portion of building

[1:04:41] one overlaps with the actual A1 zone boundary. So the building is allowed to be up to 50

[1:04:48] feet high because all three buildings, including all of building one, are in zone two, if that

[1:04:54] makes sense.

[1:04:57] Entitlements being requested, essentially four entitlements plus certification of

[1:05:01] EIR. There's a specific plan amendment here to change the Southeast

[1:05:06] parcel designation from CG to that industrial to be consistent with the

[1:05:12] other four parcels. There's a tentative map to reorganize five existing

[1:05:17] lots into three and to vacate two street segments for streets that are not

[1:05:21] intended to be built. Site-plan review, which is basically the equivalent of

[1:05:26] element permit elsewhere, but in the Navisp is called an SPR to develop the three warehouse

[1:05:32] building totaling the 3.4 million and a development agreement which is a legal instrument

[1:05:38] between the town and the developer to memorialize the development standards to memorialize

[1:05:45] the expected improvements and infrastructure that go along with the project and from the other

[1:05:50] side to establish the project entitlement investing periods, which I think are 10 years in this

[1:05:56] but we can, we have a staff member who can speak more to that.

[1:06:00] And then of course to certify the environmental impact report,

[1:06:04] which has to be done prior to approving any of the entitlements.

[1:06:09] So just drilling on just a bit on each of the entitlements,

[1:06:12] the Navisp specific plan amendment,

[1:06:14] it's that Southeast parcel,

[1:06:15] and the existing is above the proposals.

[1:06:17] Below, they're asking to align it with the other four parcels

[1:06:21] and turn it into the ISP,

[1:06:23] which is a more appropriate and compatible designation for a warehouse and logistics facility than CG.

[1:06:30] CG is more for big box commercial, large commercial operations, often uses the Go and CG

[1:06:37] or more impactful, environmentally impactful than what you'd find in a light industrial area like the ISP.

[1:06:46] The tentative parcel map request on the left, it's the existing on the right, is the proposed,

[1:06:51] it's five parcels now, being asked to do, they're asking to do three parcels, the furthest

[1:06:57] west parcel would stay roughly the same. The other two parcels, two would combine the two

[1:07:05] in the middle, the two squares, and parcel one would combine the two square parcels along central

[1:07:11] to create two rectangular parcels. And site plan review, of course, is what is allowing

[1:07:17] the actual physical construction to come up out of the ground.

[1:07:21] That's the vertical construction piece.

[1:07:24] Sequa, your environmental impact report, I'll touch on this very briefly because we do have the Sequa consulting.

[1:07:30] Any team, today in the chambers, who can speak more to the details and nuances of the

[1:07:35] sequel process and the document and any impacts. Any IAR was deemed necessary by the town,

[1:07:42] because of three significant unavoidable environmental impacts to air quality, noise impacts and

[1:07:48] transportation impacts. There are mitigation measures included, which reduce all other impacts to

[1:07:59] environmental impact report was circulated with the public for 45 days and we received 10

[1:08:04] comment letters on that DER and subsequent to that. A final EIR was published in mid-August

[1:08:11] and based on those comments. And finally, because we're doing EER and we have significant

[1:08:16] environmental unavoidable environmental impacts, the town must adopt what's called a statement

[1:08:23] of overriding considerations per state's sequel out where if the town chooses to approve

[1:08:28] the project and it has these significant impacts, it must state the specific reasons for

[1:08:33] approving the project under CEQA. The noticing process, we originally noticed this project

[1:08:41] for 10 days prior, subsequently found out Assembly Bill 2904, which was made effective in January

[1:08:48] last year, Trump's the 10 days and requires actually 20 days of public notice for any

[1:08:59] that would affect potential uses of a piece of real estate.

[1:09:03] So we have that here because of the specific plan amendment changes the uses that can be done there.

[1:09:10] So we first did the noticing for hearing on September 2nd.

[1:09:14] We had to postpone that hearing for tonight's September 16th to do the 20 day notice,

[1:09:18] which we've now done.

[1:09:19] We've cured the deficiency.

[1:09:21] We've done the 20 day noticing compliance with state and local laws,

[1:09:25] and all noticing was done by August 28th.

[1:09:28] We did receive, this is old now, we originally have received five comments from two residents, we found, we have a bunch, a number of additional comments that were discovered that you now have in your packet and are available online and we also received one comment letter from an outside organization called Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance that was received by the time of the hearing.

[1:09:58] We also received a letter just late to late today from the Mojave Desert Air Quality District.

[1:10:08] Staffs recommendations on this project.

[1:10:11] Well, to ask questions of staff as needed.

[1:10:15] And we do have a full team here tonight.

[1:10:17] Sometimes it takes a village.

[1:10:19] This is a large project.

[1:10:20] There's a lot of different aspects to it.

[1:10:23] I'm a planner.

[1:10:24] I can speak to planning zoning issues.

[1:10:25] and have SP, the project design itself, if there is environmental issues to be discussed

[1:10:33] or other, we've got a team that can address and respond to those.

[1:10:39] And to open the public hearing, take public testimony, close the public hearing, have

[1:10:43] Commissioner discussion, and then staff's recommendation would be to adopt the resolutions

[1:10:48] that are in your packet recommending that the town council certify the EIR, they adopt

[1:10:54] the SPA, approve the TPM, and the site plan review, and adopt the DA.

[1:11:00] So just to clarify, tonight, your role is to make a recommendation to town council.

[1:11:04] The reason the project needs to go to town council is explicitly because it's asking for

[1:11:10] a legislative change to the NavSP.

[1:11:13] It's asking for that specific blind amendment.

[1:11:16] So that kicks it up to the town council for final decision making.

[1:11:20] This concludes this staff report. If you have any questions or comments, I'm here to respond.

[1:11:26] Thank you.

[1:11:28] Okay, I think let me find out something. Question that was asked.

[1:11:39] So we just received all the letters that you discussed that were not in our packet.

[1:11:44] Correct.

[1:11:44] So in order for us to really do anything, we're going to have to look at this stuff.

[1:11:48] So I'm going to call a, what do you think we need?

[1:11:55] We'll go 15 minutes, hopefully that gives us enough time to at least review this stuff.

[1:12:01] So I apologize to everybody, this is late to the game.

[1:12:04] You guys take a bathroom break, talk amongst yourself, but we got to take a look at some of this stuff.

[1:12:10] Okay, thank you. Sounds like a good idea.

[1:12:13] So we're going to take a break right now.

[1:12:15] We're going to go back.

[1:12:16] At 7-12,

[1:12:24] we'll be back at 7-25.

[1:12:25] I think you're doing good.

[1:12:30] I think you're doing good.

[1:12:32] Thanks so much.

[1:12:32] I'm a nice project.

[1:12:34] Oh yeah, I know.

[1:12:34] Do you do a lot of these on the street?

[1:12:36] Just what you're saying.

[1:12:36] Yeah, I'm just saying.

[1:12:37] I don't know.

[1:12:39] That's what I'm talking about.

[1:12:41] Oh, okay.

[1:12:42] So that's why I recognized you.

[1:12:45] Yeah, I know.

[1:12:45] I'm a poor go, but the complex one.

[1:12:48] With Jessica.

[1:27:23] Okay, we're going to go ahead and resume the meeting. And we've got the staff report. So now we're going to go ahead and ask for questions of staff by the commissioners.

[1:27:38] I have a few, but Tommy, want to start it off?

[1:27:41] Go ahead first.

[1:27:43] So

[1:27:45] I guess a concern for me is the 40 acres. It's actually net 35 acres on the commercial CG. I don't know that I agree that it's a less intensive or more intensive use than the industrial.

[1:27:57] But that bottom southeast corner, being zone commercial, if you could pull up the map, that shows

[1:28:04] that's literally the only commercial parcel in that area.

[1:28:10] So if you have the bigger one,

[1:28:19] you know,

[1:28:24] we're talking about, you know, germ plan updates

[1:28:27] and all that kind of stuff.

[1:28:28] This is something that they plan for that area to have some commercial.

[1:28:32] And now if it's taken away then there's no commercial if more houses get over there.

[1:28:36] So yeah, that's the map.

[1:28:37] So if you look at the corner, the bottom corner,

[1:28:40] the southeast corner, correct.

[1:28:43] You know, that was designated as commercial for a reason.

[1:28:46] So I don't know if I like that.

[1:28:48] I'll see what everybody else has to say on that.

[1:28:51] But that was one of my questions.

[1:28:54] The other question is, are they going to phase this project?

[1:28:57] Is it going to be something they'd build all at once,

[1:28:59] or one building, then another building, then another building?

[1:29:03] Those are both good questions.

[1:29:04] Do you have other questions, or shall I have many?

[1:29:07] You do have many. Okay, and that's fine. But I won't remember them all because of my face.

[1:29:13] Question is it going to be a phase project or not?

[1:29:15] Um, that's a good question. They're not in their heads yet. So it'll be a phase project.

[1:29:21] It's a phase one of phase two and a phase three.

[1:29:23] So just something that throughout there for future reference, if you could do building three first and move your way east,

[1:29:30] that would be a lot better for all the people that live over there.

[1:29:32] just an idea you know it's a lot a lot of it'll be economy based I'm sure the other

[1:29:38] question I have for you or for the applicants like yes is if you have if they

[1:29:42] nod their heads is there any tenants signed up for these buildings that we're doing

[1:29:46] there are no tenants these are spec these are spec it's really speculative at this

[1:29:51] point okay the other question I have I read through the the traffic and the mitigation

[1:29:57] of the traffic, and I'm really not clear.

[1:30:00] Is there a way to not have truck traffic on Wally Road or no? Because it says that the traffic

[1:30:07] is going to go north and then over? Is there a way to ensure that that's the only direction

[1:30:13] that the trucks come and go? If that's a condition that we could do?

[1:30:18] The town does have approved formalized truck routes from this area to get out to I-15.

[1:30:27] We probably

[1:30:28] could consider adding a condition of approval, but to speak more at length about the truck

[1:30:34] routes, I would defer to my colleagues at T&B environmental who prepared this.

[1:30:42] That's fine.

[1:30:43] I'm concerned with all of these letters that we read or at least skim through, by the way,

[1:30:49] we just got them.

[1:30:50] It's hard.

[1:30:54] 99% of them are talking about truck traffic.

[1:30:57] Yes. So, along with the other environmental things that I'm sure we've taken care of,

[1:31:01] but I don't know that the truck traffic is something we can take care of.

[1:31:04] When we don't know what kind of tenants we have.

[1:31:07] So, it's way off in the future.

[1:31:09] So, that's a concern.

[1:31:12] Let me look at my notes here.

[1:31:18] I think that's maybe.

[1:31:20] So, one of my notes was responses from the property owners

[1:31:24] because I didn't have anything in my packet referring to that.

[1:31:28] So that solved that problem with this.

[1:31:31] And I imagine some of the people here.

[1:31:33] So on the overlay for the airport, district A1 and A2,

[1:31:37] I know there's height requirements.

[1:31:38] Are we good with that?

[1:31:41] As far as the cross wind runway and all of that for the height?

[1:31:45] We are.

[1:31:46] Let me bring that graphic back up.

[1:31:50] So, so this graphic shows the airport safety overlay zones in blue is the A1 zone, which

[1:31:59] is the more restrictive one in the airport land use compatibility plan, and that the main

[1:32:06] feature of that zone is maximum height of 35 feet.

[1:32:11] Zone 2 is the less restrictive in maximum height of 50 feet.

[1:32:18] The building is roughly 50 feet, and the majority of the building is within the A2 zone,

[1:32:26] which has the 50 foot height. The very far southeast corner, extreme corner of the site,

[1:32:35] does overlap with the A1 where the 35 foot is. However, as I was mentioning during the report,

[1:32:42] if you look at this blowup, you can see that the portion of A1 that overlaps the site

[1:32:47] doesn't touch any building. That's parking and landscaping buffer area.

[1:32:56] So, therefore, since

[1:32:58] the building is not overlapping the A1 35 foot limit area, the 50 foot height that they're

[1:33:06] proposing is permitted. So, and I had some property over there while back with, we had to find

[1:33:13] out from the FAA. So the FAA has been on this design and implementation for the hype because

[1:33:20] actually our specific plan, the area that's drawn in on a map is not really correct,

[1:33:28] at least from the FAA's point of view. So they have to weigh in on this stuff to be sure.

[1:33:33] So I'm just checking to see if that was done.

[1:33:35] And that's an excellent question, Chair Calen. We have the FAA letters of no impact for numerous

[1:33:42] points of measurement across the entire site and I've got the formal letters that we can send to you.

[1:33:47] Okay, no that's all I, as long as you have it, that's what we're asking.

[1:33:50] We have some, as far as the environmental and all that stuff, we've got all of that from previous plans that we've

[1:33:57] done in that area for the airport, specific plan, and I'm sorry, we'll close into that for the

[1:34:03] environmental. It's all pretty much been done. So are you asking if the project complies with the airport

[1:34:10] land compatibility plan? It does. It has compliance with all the goals policies and all the

[1:34:18] goals and policies of the land use compatibility plan.

[1:34:20] Right. That's all the questions I have you guys have anything?

[1:34:22] Did you want me to address about the CG on the Far East Southeast parcel?

[1:34:27] Well, if the applicant wants to, we can find out that too, it seems like we need to find

[1:34:32] out. So, do you have anything Tom?

[1:34:34] Good.

[1:34:34] Mike.

[1:34:36] Maybe in Richard, maybe going to weigh in on this engineer is the width of Central Road, North

[1:34:42] of Wally.

[1:34:43] What is the proposed width of Central Road?

[1:34:46] Do we have, I mean, we have setbacks, we have the right of way already, but can you talk

[1:34:52] about the width of Central Road, North of Wally?

[1:34:55] Here's the gentleman himself.

[1:34:57] Central Road is a major arterial, which is a hundred twenty foot right away and a hundred

[1:35:01] and four foot curved to curve.

[1:35:03] So what's the sixth line, right, to each direction with the turn lane or, yeah, six lane?

[1:35:11] Yeah, so again everybody just for the record and then what about do you how why it is a South of Walu does it maintain that with?

[1:35:20] That's far as the ultimate. Yeah, it's it's a major arterial throughout the whole city, right, okay

[1:35:25] And for everybody in attendance to Walu Road, can you talk about the width of that road?

[1:35:30] Well, the road is a it's a hundred and four foot wide right of way

[1:35:33] curb its 80 feet, and it's supposed to also be a six lane road. As far as the truck

[1:35:38] route, it's always been a truck route since incorporation. While the road is currently

[1:35:43] a truck route, we just updated our circulation element. As you remember, this past year,

[1:35:50] because of all the big boxes going in the northern part of Apple Valley, what we did is we

[1:35:55] actually removed truck routes that were going through buildings such as this, and we reduced

[1:36:00] in amount of truck routes and mainly put them on roads that are six lane roads.

[1:36:05] Central Road is a regional truck route, Walu is also a truck route that's been established.

[1:36:13] What about the day of livens?

[1:36:14] The livens is also a truck route, so it will serve all the big boxes in this area.

[1:36:22] Same thing, six lanes.

[1:36:23] Yes, well actually it's a parkway. It's a 140 to foot right away. It's huge. It's got like a 20 foot median

[1:36:31] proposed

[1:36:32] So if this project's approved you're going to make the town is going to make that a six lane thoroughfare for trucks

[1:36:39] What we do is we require each developer to build their half as they front

[1:36:45] For instance, Walmart does did construct bill Evans Parkway. That was that's all sitting there impacts

[1:36:52] We also collect traffic impact fees, several million dollars over a period of time, and

[1:37:00] when we, if we ever have congestion, we focus on those traffic impact fees to eliminate

[1:37:07] that congestion, and that's how the fees work.

[1:37:12] We know how it works, but I don't know that it works very well.

[1:37:15] When you have trucks, you know, we approve a project with, I don't even know how many hundreds

[1:37:21] of bays and trucks and trucks get on the road unless we're prepared for that, we're going

[1:37:26] to have all of this truck traffic on Wallo, even if they pave.

[1:37:30] Or make it six lanes in front of the project, they're going to still be going up and down. Corwin, they're going to be going up and down. Central, they're going to be going up and down Walloo, is all of that going to be prepared for some of these giant warehouse projects when they bring trucks in?

[1:37:44] I'm confident that as time goes on, we collect the fees to offset their impacts. Apple by road, for instance, gets about 20,000 cars a day. There's no congestion on Apple by road that I'm aware of.

[1:37:57] There are some signals that we're in place.

[1:38:00] Come on.

[1:38:02] There may be congestion at the intersections at Apple Valley.

[1:38:05] When it funnels into two roads, there's plenty of congestion.

[1:38:08] And there's plenty of people driving down that center lane where people are going to turn.

[1:38:11] That's some easy to go ahead on.

[1:38:13] So Apple Valley Road is not that well prepared.

[1:38:17] In case you're not driving on, I drive it every day.

[1:38:20] I just wanted to make the point that I'm while we have about five or six thousand cars a day.

[1:38:25] and a two-lane road can handle up to 18,000 hrs a day.

[1:38:30] And so as time goes on, we'll have to increase those lanes as those numbers go up.

[1:38:38] And that's how, you know, we're working on Yuckel on my road right now, which is a two-lane road.

[1:38:43] We're getting a lot of traffic point east west.

[1:38:45] So that's how engineers do it.

[1:38:48] We prioritize the fees that we collect, and we offset those impacts.

[1:38:54] Okay, so back to my point here is so we're talking about the main arterial truck roads and again this is all for future planning we got major road over a hundred feet wide on data levels central road Wally road right so we are

[1:39:06] This is set for this is an area that is set for industrial development correct so maybe David if he could weigh in on this to I remember at our last count we were somewhere in the neighborhood about 21 million square feet of some

[1:39:19] stage of development of industrial projects in that North Apple Valley do you have any updated

[1:39:26] or still round that 2021 million square feet of proposed development for that North Apple

[1:39:31] Valley area.

[1:39:32] Approximately, I don't have a number for you, but it's the last count that we were at somewhere

[1:39:36] around 21 million square feet of proposed projects that are in some stage of development in

[1:39:41] that North Apple Valley industrial specific plan specifically for industrial again.

[1:39:47] I don't have anything further yet.

[1:39:49] Well, I had something for the engineer.

[1:39:54] We're guarding the road.

[1:39:55] Is this mic working?

[1:39:57] It's on, isn't it?

[1:39:58] There you go.

[1:40:00] We're guarding the condition of the road because this is so far

[1:40:03] south in the specific plan.

[1:40:07] I see everybody all these trucks going north on central

[1:40:09] and then cutting across to get to the freeway.

[1:40:12] What condition are those roads to handle all the trucks

[1:40:16] It could potentially come out of this site.

[1:40:19] We do a payment management system every five years.

[1:40:23] We update our inventory and we get payment condition index for each road.

[1:40:29] So I don't have the payment condition index for Wally Road, but we recently put a microsurface

[1:40:37] on it.

[1:40:38] I would say four years ago and so it's been maintained and it's not, you know, it's

[1:40:46] It's not brand new, but it's being maintained.

[1:40:49] Okay, but my question is, will the roads from this site, whatever road you need to take?

[1:40:54] And I looking at the maps when I was reviewing this staff report, would most likely go up north

[1:41:00] on central and then across.

[1:41:03] So are the roads that get from this point to the I-15 adequate to support the truck traffic

[1:41:10] that could come out of this site?

[1:41:11] is this is the furthest sight of all of the development

[1:41:14] that's been posed or approved for the north.

[1:41:18] So adequate is we currently have trucks on central road

[1:41:23] that drive up there currently.

[1:41:26] It adequately serves as a truck route currently.

[1:41:31] Okay, so the only improvement would be at the site

[1:41:35] to have with, correct, and on the opposite side

[1:41:39] It's residential, so you're only going to require half-width improvement, we're both central

[1:41:47] and the road to the Corwin to the south.

[1:41:50] Correct.

[1:41:51] That's correct.

[1:41:52] And then everything north of there is just going to remain as it.

[1:41:55] We have several projects on a long central currently that are either entitled or in the

[1:42:01] process of being entitled, and those projects will also construct using a traffic index

[1:42:09] for the thickness of asphalt and the base material, which is going to be higher, I went

[1:42:16] to a seminar recently and the guy from Fontana was complaining about the trucks and how

[1:42:21] we were pushing up asphalt. And I posed a question, what can I do as a town engineer to avoid

[1:42:30] future problems that Fontana is experiencing. And I've got a good idea after meeting with several

[1:42:39] people on what specifications that we're requiring of all developers and I don't want to

[1:42:45] get into the weeds, but I just want to let you know that I'm very aware of truck traffic and

[1:42:50] how it impacts our streets and I'm doing everything in my capacity to require the most efficient

[1:42:57] And it's not cheap to put in, I think, roads as development comes in for these arterials.

[1:43:08] Thank you.

[1:43:10] Okay.

[1:43:12] So, thanks Richard.

[1:43:13] Both Richard.

[1:43:14] Can I just clarify just to touch on Mr. Arya's question about what square footage was approved

[1:43:21] industrial square footage in the NavisP.

[1:43:24] The approved total is 13.8 million square feet and the total square footage of

[1:43:31] industrial assumed in the NavisP is about 48.3 million square feet.

[1:43:37] Available after the approved projects, it would be about 34.6 million, so still.

[1:43:46] and Lake Creek is proposing 3.4 million, so available square footage, industrial square footage,

[1:43:52] after Lake Creek should it be approved, would be about still 31 million square feet of access.

[1:43:58] So, just one of the very few projects coming. It sounds like right.

[1:44:03] Yeah.

[1:44:04] Do you have a figure on how much of that square footage is least out at this time?

[1:44:09] I do not. The wall well, so I don't. I do not. So 37 million have proposed and in the pipeline.

[1:44:21] No, we're going to see hopefully at some point what does occupied.

[1:44:25] 13.8 million is approved.

[1:44:29] 48 million total assumed in the plan.

[1:44:32] Okay, so that's a huge delta available after the approved list is still 34 and a half million.

[1:44:39] This project's three and a half million, so after this project should it be approved,

[1:44:43] there's still 31 million square feet available in this specific plan for additional future projects

[1:44:49] that we haven't contemplated yet.

[1:44:52] Okay, so we're...

[1:44:53] You good?

[1:44:54] Yeah, no, I have a question.

[1:44:57] I asked you about the height of the building.

[1:45:00] Just for the record, you indicated in your report, it's 50 square feet, but you also indicated in your report that there was a parapet that would extend that a foot higher than the maximum allowed per the development code.

[1:45:15] Yes, the actual roof is below it.

[1:45:18] Yeah, the roof deck. So the maximum height's 50 feet, roof deck sits at 48 from grade, I think.

[1:45:23] and they have three feet of a variety of parapet and architectural features that puts it

[1:45:29] at 51 total. So technically it's a foot over but not a structural. It's like I said

[1:45:37] combination of parapet and architectural features. Okay and then the last question I had is

[1:45:42] is there adequate power there to even move this project forwarders and be like all the other

[1:45:47] projects we've approved. Not sure. Not sure. Okay. Thanks. The applicant team is working

[1:45:54] with selling California Edison and they have a will serve letter so they have a will serve

[1:46:00] letter in the file.

[1:46:03] So, thank you, Richard.

[1:46:05] Okay, time to have the applicant.

[1:46:20] Good evening, Michael Johnson with Lake Creek Industrial.

[1:46:24] I'm here with my partners Bob Cooke, Jack, and Jake Swan, first of all I would not just

[1:46:29] extend a very warm and helpful thank you to the town staff. We've been working on this project

[1:46:37] now for a good handful of years and without the the town staff helping us along we wouldn't

[1:46:44] be here tonight. It does take a village and as evidenced by everybody that's here in attendance.

[1:46:51] Secondly I want to just thank the commission for your time. I've seen any questions and comments

[1:46:57] that you have, any suggestions, et cetera.

[1:47:00] You know, we know that this is a large project in the town,

[1:47:04] and I know it's a big decision for the commission.

[1:47:10] I would like to also just say that, you know,

[1:47:13] this is our biggest project at Lake Creek Industrial.

[1:47:17] We've been very active on the south side of the hill

[1:47:21] down in the Fontana and Marino Valley, Paris, et cetera.

[1:47:24] Our typical project has been around 20 to 30 acres and what attracted us was the potential in Apple Valley.

[1:47:36] So we purchased this property in 2000, early 2023.

[1:47:41] We've been working on it ever since.

[1:47:42] So we are very committed to the town, the project.

[1:47:46] We're very excited to see what it will become.

[1:47:50] I think one of the questions was, is this planned speculative buildings and as of now it's not?

[1:47:57] We, you know, I think some of, you know, the market is a little bit slower.

[1:48:02] Today then it was just a merely post-COVID.

[1:48:05] And so we do not have the plans to go back on any of the buildings at the moment.

[1:48:12] That probably won't change for any time soon unless we get back to the go-go days of 2022.

[1:48:18] So what we've been actively doing is looking for users to take you there, you know, the majority or all of the site.

[1:48:25] Recently, we have been working with one user that would look to take the entirety of the site.

[1:48:31] But I don't want to hold my breath until you promise anything that that will it won't happen.

[1:48:37] But our plan here is to, again, subject to being approved on this project is to find a great user that will bring,

[1:48:47] lots of economic development to the town, upwards of 3,000 jobs, and then of course all the

[1:48:52] infrastructure that this development would bring. Specifically, we're bringing the sewer line

[1:49:00] from the west side of the airport all the way to Central Road. It's roughly a 1.25 miles in total,

[1:49:06] roughly about $4 million, and then the water line extension from Lafayette and SOMIS across

[1:49:14] essential and then down to this south eastern part of our site, which is about a mile and a half

[1:49:22] of water extension. So, plus some of the other off-site improvements that we've talked about,

[1:49:28] including, of course, the roads. One question that Commissioner Had was, is there power in the area?

[1:49:34] The answer is yes, it's not directly to the site at the moment. We have more than a will serve

[1:49:38] We have a fully engineered design from SoCal Edison.

[1:49:43] There's a 33KV line, roughly a third of a mile,

[1:49:50] quarter a mile to the east of Central Road.

[1:49:53] And we have worked out all the easements that we need to bring power to our site.

[1:49:59] And current capacity from SoCal Edison does say that there's enough power to power the buildings.

[1:50:05] again, we're not designing a data center, there's no desire to do that, and there's not enough power in the area for a data center anyway.

[1:50:14] So we don't need to worry about that.

[1:50:16] But in general, I'll just want to say thank you so much for this opportunity to present to the town, and I'm happy to answer any questions if there are any questions.

[1:50:28] So, we just approved another one point to, what was it, one point five million square footer, last month with Cabin, 10, I believe it was, but, and they were saying they were seeing an uptick in industrial activity, recently, a lot more than they were seeing over the last twenty four months, are you guys experiencing any of that as well, are you seeing any of that activity bump up, a million plus square foot.

[1:50:50] The million plus square foot segment is more active than, call it 100 to 500,000 feet.

[1:50:57] That's definitely the slowest part in the market at least again if you're talking about the

[1:51:01] Illinois Empire and and you know high desert

[1:51:04] If this was a 100,000 foot building near the the ports in the South Bay

[1:51:09] They're gonna some sort of defense tech all over it, but at least in the Illinois Empire

[1:51:14] You know for now bigger is better. Yeah, we got that spec one over there in the spirit that we're seeing right now

[1:51:18] That's what 480,000 square feet at 70 million bucks sitting obviously, but I mean obviously, you know

[1:51:24] who knows what's going to happen with that thing, but no action as if yet, so it does seem

[1:51:28] like that million plus square footer is good.

[1:51:31] I don't got anything else for the applicant.

[1:51:35] This couple of real quick questions.

[1:51:36] So you said that it's not going to be a speculative project.

[1:51:40] So does that mean you're not going to start construction until you have a tenant?

[1:51:43] Ideally yes.

[1:51:45] So there's financing, obviously.

[1:51:47] This is a large project for a choir, a lot of capital.

[1:51:50] So, knowing what I know about the area and what direction the building is going in, would you

[1:51:59] guys consider phasing it from building 3 over to the east building 1 rather than starting building

[1:52:04] 1 going on the other direction? Is that a problem or, I mean, logistic?

[1:52:08] If it was a condition, yes, it would be a problem. Obviously if we had our brothers, it would,

[1:52:13] that's exactly the way it would go.

[1:52:14] Just because the infrastructure and, well, building 3B in the first West and into the call it, you know,

[1:52:22] a warm embrace of that corner of the airport, that would be the preference just began, you know.

[1:52:30] Again, if we could force a tenant or an occupant to take that building first, that is the least desirable of the three sites, because it's further from the road, et cetera, et cetera.

[1:52:42] But to be conditioned upon it, I would hate to lose out on an opportunity that said, hey, we only want the eastern piece.

[1:52:49] Well, we've been pretty considerate on our end as far as the construction of industrial property.

[1:52:55] So I just was curious, because if it's going to be a long, over a few years, you know,

[1:53:01] five, ten-year project, then it would be better on the locals to start further to the west and then move

[1:53:09] east. But anyway, that was just just going it out there for something for you to think about.

[1:53:14] But I don't have anything else. I think that's it.

[1:53:19] So unless you have anything else, you've agreed to everything staffs.

[1:53:22] Oh, sorry. I should have answered that already. Yes.

[1:53:25] We've worked with staff on the conditions of approval.

[1:53:29] And we are fully in support of all those conditions.

[1:53:32] Okay. Okay.

[1:53:37] I think that's it. We're going to move on to public comments.

[1:53:41] So we're going to...

[1:53:42] Got something?

[1:53:43] Okay, so we're gonna close the public hearing.

[1:53:46] I'm sorry, open the public hearing at 7.53, man.

[1:53:54] And get public comments out about 15 cards, maybe more.

[1:53:58] So when you guys speak, you have three minutes.

[1:54:01] We have a clock on you.

[1:54:02] If you're gonna say the same thing as the five other people

[1:54:05] that went before you, just basically say I concur with that comment

[1:54:09] and that you're in favor or you're against that kind of thing,

[1:54:12] so that we don't draw this out.

[1:54:14] Obviously, you're entitled to you three minutes, but in the moving this forward, it would be helpful.

[1:54:23] So the first public card I have is James Jacobs,

[1:54:30] and you can use either of the podiums.

[1:54:32] So wherever you're at, just go to the closest podium.

[1:54:35] Make sure you let us know your name and your address.

[1:54:40] My name is James Jacobs, I'm an Apple Valley resident,

[1:54:43] been living up here almost 29 years at a 25-year pilot out of Apple Valley airport.

[1:54:48] My objection so much is not the warehouse project is the location of that warehouse project.

[1:54:56] As it puts it right underneath the downwind leg of our main runway 1836.

[1:55:03] That can be a problem.

[1:55:09] I see the area to the northwest is pretty much got development

[1:55:14] and with infrastructure in place, and I can't think of why they would want to place something

[1:55:19] so far away from where the current infrastructure would be easily located, but back to the aviation

[1:55:27] side of it, that downwind base leg for our landing on runway 18, for runway 36 can be a problem

[1:55:38] if we have a, if a plane develops a problem,

[1:55:42] trying to put that thing down,

[1:55:43] we may not have a ability to maneuver

[1:55:45] and have an abilving right underneath this,

[1:55:49] it may quite a problem.

[1:55:51] And that's pretty much all I've got to say.

[1:55:53] Thank you.

[1:55:54] Thank you.

[1:55:57] Next we have Jerry Ricker,

[1:55:59] and then after Jerry will be Larry Boostos.

[1:56:08] Jerry's not here, so we're gonna go with,

[1:56:11] Rick Ricker?

[1:56:14] Oh, I'm sorry, I read it wrong.

[1:56:16] Jeffrey Ricker. I'm sorry. Last. Okay. That's fine with me. We're going to go to Larry

[1:56:23] Boostos after Larry is Scott Lacy.

[1:56:27] Okay. Good evening, planning commission and staff. My name is Larry

[1:56:31] Boostos and I'm a 22 year member of the labor union. I am here tonight to speak in support of this project and it's

[1:56:40] This product like this actually it's beneficial to the community as a whole whether it's

[1:56:47] of our workers the infrastructure for the community members but I'm here to talk about

[1:56:54] what it does for our workers specifically that live here in the local area.

[1:56:58] I myself have lived in the high desert community for 20 years almost now.

[1:57:02] And I am honored to speak on behalf of the hundreds of union members that are that live up here as well.

[1:57:09] I know living up here so long driving how it is to drive to San Fernando Valley, LA, Hollywood area every day.

[1:57:16] My kids are grown now but when they are younger and I was on the field I was gone all the time.

[1:57:21] So these products like this that are local are too blessing for our members and our workers because the less time they're out there on the road driving all the way over there to build in a city that they don't live in.

[1:57:32] And now they're able to save money and spend the money here at home and be productive with their children as they grow up.

[1:57:39] Whether it's a week that you're working close to home or five years every day is a blessing.

[1:57:44] Now they're able to go to school events.

[1:57:47] They're able to be coaches and sports.

[1:57:49] They're able to watch their kids grow.

[1:57:51] And then actually be here in the community working, living, and being productive family members.

[1:57:59] So these kind of projects are a blessing for those already current members, but we also these kind of projects are also great for future members.

[1:58:08] Whether it's youth coming out of high school and back in the day, construction was kind of like a third, fourth, fifth option after high school.

[1:58:16] But now it now, times have changed and there's young people in my 10th, 11th, 12th grade, they're saying,

[1:58:23] I want to go to the building trades because of the pain that they have, the wages, the pension, the benefits for their family.

[1:58:30] We're not a third and fourth option anymore.

[1:58:32] We're actually number one option to four of these young people coming out of high school.

[1:58:36] And we are here for them.

[1:58:38] On top of that, we're also here for our veterans.

[1:58:40] that come in that there's maybe military occupation

[1:58:43] doesn't translate to civilian occupation.

[1:58:46] And I've seen that firsthand because when my brother

[1:58:48] came out of the Air Force, he came right into the labor

[1:58:51] union.

[1:58:51] My other brother came out of the Navy right into the labor

[1:58:54] union.

[1:58:55] They served our country and now they're building it.

[1:58:58] And the sense of pride that that brings to an individual

[1:59:01] to them and their household is tremendous.

[1:59:06] So with those future members coming in,

[1:59:09] they enter our apprenticeship program and when responsible developers such as this one

[1:59:13] decides to partner with the building trades, then they're basically partnering with professionals,

[1:59:19] the pros, the best skilled and trained workforce in the world to be honest with you.

[1:59:24] Our labor training school teaches over 100 classes just in itself for apprentices and journeymen to get

[1:59:39] still can't read your handwriting cute Houston friend something.

[1:59:45] Sorry, I can't read it.

[1:59:47] So Scott Lacy?

[1:59:48] Yes, sir.

[1:59:49] Go ahead.

[1:59:50] Hi, good evening, chair and commissioners. My name is Scott. I'm a veteran here. I spent 13 years

[1:59:55] in the Air Force. I left as a major. I live about half mile up central.

[2:00:00] This proposed project off of Powahaska and Earl of Mart. Close enough that the project impacts will land directly on my family and my neighbors live right there.

[2:00:11] And so I'm just talking to you about that and asking you to deny the amendment as cited or at a minimum, continue the item for reasons we'll talk about in a second.

[2:00:22] So I want to be clear at front, like, this is an opposition to industrial growth. We need jobs, we need people up here 100% agree with that.

[2:00:28] So we support that, my objection is just where this project is going specifically.

[2:00:32] So let's start with the legal issue first.

[2:00:34] So the towns owned EIR for this project is funds significant unavoidable impacts

[2:00:39] and air quality, noise, and transportation.

[2:00:41] You claim we're mitigated, but aren't.

[2:00:44] Under SQL Public Resources Code Section 21002,

[2:00:48] and the SQL Guidelines Section 15091,

[2:00:50] this Commission cannot, cannot.

[2:00:53] Approve a project with unmedicated significant impacts,

[2:00:55] unless it first finds on the record

[2:00:57] that every feasible mitigation measure and every feasible alternative has been adopted or is genuinely

[2:01:03] infeasible. Only after that can be turned to a statement of overriding considerations under

[2:01:08] guidelines section 15093, and that's meant to be a last resort, not just a formality.

[2:01:15] So I don't believe that finding that finding can honestly be made here, because if feasible

[2:01:20] alternative exists, there's open already designated industrial land north of the airport where

[2:01:25] existing industrial complexes away from any homes.

[2:01:29] There's also an existing vacant commercial building, the big lots facility, it's just sitting there.

[2:01:34] That could absorb this kind of use without putting a single family next to diesel trucks and dock noise.

[2:01:39] And if a less damaging, feasible site is available and hasn't been fully studied and adopted,

[2:01:45] approving this project here does not meet the sequestand or plain and simple.

[2:01:49] Beyond that legal test, I think about significant, what significant and unavoidable means

[2:01:53] to practice for the people who live here.

[2:01:55] This project includes over 500 dock doors, 1500 trailer spaces,

[2:02:00] immediately next to residential neighborhoods, including mine.

[2:02:03] And that means heavy diesel traffic at all hours,

[2:02:06] constant noise, air quality impacts that the towns and reports

[2:02:09] admits that it cannot mitigate.

[2:02:11] My neighbors and I would absorb that every day permanently

[2:02:14] for a project that has better options available to it.

[2:02:17] So we're not asking you to stop industrial development

[2:02:20] in Apple Valley.

[2:02:20] We need it.

[2:02:21] We're asking you to put it where it belongs, north of the airport, vacant spaces, not backed up to people's homes.

[2:02:27] Please deny this amendment as proposed or continue it and direct staff to fully evaluate those alternatives before it comes back to you.

[2:02:34] And by the way, Johnson Road can't handle that traffic.

[2:02:37] I drive it every day.

[2:02:38] It is incredibly crappy.

[2:02:40] So that needs to get fixed if this project was approved because we got stuck behind trucks all day driving that road.

[2:02:46] That at least needs to be widened.

[2:02:47] Thank you.

[2:02:48] Thank you.

[2:02:51] Okay, Linda, help me with your name when you get up there.

[2:02:56] So I can't read it.

[2:02:57] It's what?

[2:02:59] Beanstrom?

[2:03:00] Okay, I just can't.

[2:03:01] It's probably me.

[2:03:02] I'm old.

[2:03:04] So you're up and then after you is Ronald Esplatt,

[2:03:10] do I get that one wrong too?

[2:03:13] Oh, okay.

[2:03:20] Thank you to the commissioners for allowing us to speak.

[2:03:24] My husband and I live in the area that will be impacted by this development and I was interested to find out that my home is now identified as a compound.

[2:03:39] In section 1.2.2 of the project overview, as I read it, the project was established or was defined as

[2:03:52] speculative in nature. I am, am I understanding now that that is not the case?

[2:03:59] What does speculative mean then? What is the estimated cost of this project? And who

[2:04:06] will bear that cost? By the way, I concur with the gentleman in front of me regarding

[2:04:13] his statements.

[2:04:18] What incentives have been developed to draw clients to this site?

[2:04:23] With diesel costs rising, why would a business choose a distribution site that adds 15 to 20 miles round trip to a freeway when there are existing sites being built completely adjacent to the highway to a freeway 15?

[2:04:46] In the current economic situation that we find ourselves in, with the Fed raising interest rates today by a quarter percent,

[2:04:55] is considering, even considering an investment like this in the town of Apple Valley,

[2:05:01] a wise and responsible stewardship of our land.

[2:05:08] And finally, regarding the volume of traffic that we will experience.

[2:05:14] The projected time to construct this, again, taken from the proposal that I read on the Apple

[2:05:22] Valley website, the projected time to excuse me to construct this project is 57 months.

[2:05:31] That's just construction time.

[2:05:34] In that 57 months, the annual estimates of vehicle traffic would be 5,500,000 vehicle

[2:05:41] miles occurring along the roadways that involve this construction project, which would

[2:05:47] be primarily central, Walu and Johnson Road, I would presume.

[2:05:52] That is just during construction.

[2:06:00] Finally, if it was finalized and in full development phase, the estimate for traffic would

[2:06:08] 118 million additional vehicle miles per year in addition to what we have.

[2:06:15] We cannot absorb that volume of traffic with our current roads and to even think about

[2:06:22] living in an area with six lane highways.

[2:06:27] I cannot.

[2:06:28] Thank you.

[2:06:29] Ronald S. Plot after Ronald is Eddie Compos.

[2:06:44] My name is Ronald Esport and I actually go by Ronnie.

[2:06:51] I have been in the high desert for about 20 years and I've retired from an aerospace career

[2:06:56] and I've worked with youth in education for modeling aviation and aircraft.

[2:07:04] This plan would make the Apple Valley Airport unsafe.

[2:07:09] The air turbulence that could create over a 50-foot building are unsafe.

[2:07:14] We have air currents different than a lot of other airports.

[2:07:19] Air could flow through those buildings, creating turbulence that would flip low-speed small aircraft.

[2:07:28] So how many of those do you accept?

[2:07:30] But as possible, injuries. I will not allow children to get on planes at this is built at this airport. It is that dangerous. Thank you.

[2:07:43] Thank you.

[2:07:46] Any compos? And then after Eddie is Ali Cross-White?

[2:07:55] Good evening, Commissioner. My name is Eddie Kumpos. I'm a representative of the Wester State Regional Council of Carpenters.

[2:08:02] representing about 2000 members I live in the high-dissident area. I was in the

[2:08:07] touch on what my brother touched on earlier. The travel times that our

[2:08:12] families miss out on when we're gone on the roads. He already spoke about that.

[2:08:18] So with that being said, the good jobs, the good pain jobs that it's going to

[2:08:23] be into this area. Yes, a lot of people say it's construction. You're going to be

[2:08:27] You're going to be gone, but that's not true.

[2:08:29] All these brothers here are live in the High Desert.

[2:08:31] They would love to be able to work up here.

[2:08:35] And of course, it's going to create more jobs.

[2:08:37] With creating more jobs, it's going to increase construction.

[2:08:40] And we're going to find ourselves working up here

[2:08:41] for the next 20 years of our lives.

[2:08:44] Most of us work 20 years down in the LA, down in San Diego,

[2:08:48] as far as national city, as far as Ventura County.

[2:08:54] You've been up here.

[2:08:54] That's, that's, that's, that's a stream of your family, right?

[2:08:59] And also, the, the, the, the gateway that it's giving your, your young people that are, that are just getting out of high school, the brother touchdown and it's true.

[2:09:08] We got a great program career connections at the CTE program here in your, in your high school's year and up of value.

[2:09:13] That's giving the opportunity for these young men and women that are going through this program that want to, that want to, that want to make construction in the career.

[2:09:21] They're going to have the opportunity to step out of the house and go to work down the street.

[2:09:25] I always touch young people.

[2:09:28] The dream of ours is that they will never feel what it is to drive 2.5 hours to job

[2:09:34] and 3.5 hours home that their biggest way is going to be to drive to their job sites 30 minutes.

[2:09:43] That's a dream of any and every construction worker and any of the brothers here.

[2:09:47] So with that being said, this developer has a good track record of being in us together and bringing good being jobs to the community.

[2:09:58] So with that, please accept this project and bring it to Apple Valley.

[2:10:02] Thank you.

[2:10:03] Thank you.

[2:10:08] Okay, Ellie Cross.

[2:10:11] Cross-white and Andrea Willow will be after Ellie.

[2:10:15] Got my name right.

[2:10:16] That's great.

[2:10:17] Okay, so hi, my name is Ellie Cross-white.

[2:10:19] Um, I'm here to voice some concerns regarding the proposed obviously like Creek logistics center.

[2:10:25] My husband and I both grew up in the height desert, so it's nothing new to us.

[2:10:29] When we started a family, we did want something with a little bit more space,

[2:10:32] so when our realtor showed us our North Apple Valley home, I knew it was it.

[2:10:37] Um, I did experience a little bit of culture shock with that because, you know, obviously,

[2:10:41] I had um, wildlife that I've never had to see before like I've never seen before

[2:10:45] and everything took like an additional 10 minutes.

[2:10:48] But what quickly pulled me out of that culture shock was the fact that I mean what everything

[2:10:54] that needs this area special.

[2:10:56] So we got the planes from the airport, we have just the sunsets and just the views.

[2:11:02] They were all just so amazing and I quickly got over my culture shock.

[2:11:07] So I will say that these are the reasons that we move to Apple Valley and specifically North

[2:11:13] Apple Valley and I have such a hard time understanding how a project of this size can

[2:11:18] for it without considering it's impact on the people that argue live here. The proposed site is

[2:11:24] 3.4 million square feet of buildings and it sits 500 feet within somebody's door. I live a

[2:11:32] quarter mile from the proposed site and I have never received one notification from that Lake Creek

[2:11:39] Incorporation about what their project was really going to be about. It's not limited to just the homes

[2:11:47] are directly affected. It affects everybody in North Apple Valley's view. I mean, not even just

[2:11:53] like the immediate ones we're talking about this can be seen for miles. I do have some

[2:11:59] concerns about the project specifically about water in my pollution with regards to, I concur

[2:12:05] with everything else that everybody else has been saying. I will say that liberty usually is supposed

[2:12:12] be the water company that's going to supply this. And they use the same water supply from the

[2:12:19] basins that we use with our own wells. So it's definitely concerning to me that we could

[2:12:24] end up with a dry well because they have a well as maybe a little bit deeper. So it's super

[2:12:29] costly to dig wells even deeper. So I'm just very concerned about that and then also the light

[2:12:36] We are at a little bit of a higher elevation, so I'm thinking more like it's going to reflect a little bit more than what they proposed.

[2:12:46] So I would like to look at like maybe more of a 3D analysis than their little TD model that they decided to do.

[2:12:54] But those are my concerns and I just would like them on the record. Thank you.

[2:13:01] Thank you.

[2:13:04] Andrea Willow after Andrea is Johnny Escabito.

[2:13:10] Okay, my name is Andrea Willow.

[2:13:13] I've been living up here for 16 years.

[2:13:18] I'm kind of in shock about the possibilities of a six-lane highway right adjacent to my property.

[2:13:30] There are two lanes right now and they're terrible.

[2:13:36] There's buses or not buses.

[2:13:38] There's trucks, cement trucks, Walmart trucks that go up and down.

[2:13:47] So the idea of probably infringing on my space in order to accommodate this project is very

[2:13:59] disturbing. The other thing I know it's the other two projects before this that was

[2:14:07] like 253 potential new houses. Where is all this water coming from? Horses, drink water.

[2:14:19] Who's going to pick up the horse poop?

[2:14:24] Okay.

[2:14:27] I also wanted to know, you're talking

[2:14:31] about 20 years from now. Well, it looks like the robots are going to be taking over.

[2:14:41] I mean,

[2:14:41] I hope not, but it's a possibility. So you're going to have all these spaces with robots.

[2:14:51] Okay, maybe they don't make so much of a mess, and maybe they don't drive. I don't know.

[2:14:55] But, you know, I, I,

[2:15:00] I guess that 81, I've lived through the best times, the best times that I'm aware of. And I don't believe any

[2:15:16] rich organization when they talk to people, regular people, everything will be okay, everything will be beautiful, there will be 3,000 jobs, how do they know?

[2:15:28] How do they know, or how do we know that they don't have a plan to extend the size of the airport?

[2:15:37] Because there's, you know, for planes larger than what currently is using that airport.

[2:15:46] And I'm really tired of these large companies just kind of bombarding their way into quiet rural communities

[2:15:57] because they can.

[2:16:01] And this is what I have to say. I concur with everybody so far that is said

[2:16:08] something about this project and I don't see a need for this project. I mean I'm not a business

[2:16:15] person anymore. That's time. Oh, okay. Adios, thank you.

[2:16:22] Thank you. Okay, Johnny Escobito, after Johnny is Amy Smith.

[2:16:32] Good evening, Chairman, council members, and local residents.

[2:16:37] As you can see, all of our brothers here in the construction industry are for this project. Everybody's talked about everything and I'm not going to be redundant.

[2:16:45] But what nobody has talked about is, you know, that the developer has committed to bringing

[2:16:51] on unions that pay a livable wages with pensions and annuities.

[2:16:57] So with that being said, that's giving the local residents money to be able to reinvest

[2:17:02] into their own communities here.

[2:17:03] As you can see, the freeways, okay, please no adverse, just let them talk, they're letting

[2:17:10] you talk.

[2:17:11] Go ahead.

[2:17:12] As you can see, the freeways are being expanded for a reason.

[2:17:16] Growth is inevitable. Growth is inevitable everywhere.

[2:17:19] Special here in California, with all the building that needs to happen.

[2:17:23] Not just industrially, but also with the home crisis that we have.

[2:17:27] So with that, I ask that, you know what?

[2:17:30] You push us forward and you let us do what we do best and build things the right way.

[2:17:36] On top of that, I'd also like to add, I actually have a local retiree here.

[2:17:40] that has because he's had to travel down self been in three vehicle accidents.

[2:17:45] So it's about safety as well, not just for our members, but also for the community and for everybody around.

[2:17:52] Thank you for your time.

[2:17:54] Thank you.

[2:17:56] Amy Smith after Amy is Amanda Wake.

[2:18:07] Good evening.

[2:18:08] My name is Amy Smith and I'm a representative of care caliphania.

[2:18:12] And we're here to support this project and to ask for your yes votes tonight.

[2:18:16] This project holds the pieces that are needed to create an amazing development for the city.

[2:18:22] The creation of jobs and economic growth is a phenomenal and great addition for the city and will prove to be beneficial in many ways.

[2:18:31] California's commercial and industrial power makes us so vital to our country.

[2:18:35] And it's clear that Apple Valley is working towards assuring that the city continues to have an important place and strength in the strength for many years to come.

[2:18:44] Because of this and so much more, we support this project and the many benefits to the city, the state and our country.

[2:18:51] For this, we say ask you to say yes tonight and have a wonderful evening.

[2:18:55] Thank you.

[2:18:58] Amanda Wake and then after Amanda is Jacob Wake.

[2:19:02] Good evening.

[2:19:02] My name is Amanda Wake.

[2:19:04] I actually grew up here in Apple Valley.

[2:19:05] So I also am a mom.

[2:19:08] And science teacher here in the high desert.

[2:19:10] We actually chose to raise our family in Apple Valley because we wanted this space.

[2:19:14] the quiet, the rural lifestyle, my twin sister, she nailed it with culture shock. It was definitely

[2:19:20] different, but we really much enjoy it now. We invested in this community because we thought

[2:19:25] this is where we'd spend forever. That's why I'm so disappointed that I didn't fully understand

[2:19:29] the size of the project or how much it could affect our neighborhood until it was already this far along.

[2:19:35] I have spent multiple days off, I don't have a lot of days off, but I spent multiple days off

[2:19:40] basically, sifting through documents and trying to understand the magnitude of this project.

[2:19:45] I started talking to my neighbors, not normally something we do in North Apple Valley,

[2:19:50] but I've spoken with approximately 75 residents, and the overwhelming majority had no idea this was even being proposed,

[2:19:57] and most of them actually told me they never received a notice.

[2:20:00] Next, I spoke with the town planning department because I wanted to understand why were they not notified.

[2:20:05] Well, my property extends to central directly across from the project, which is probably why

[2:20:10] I saved a notice.

[2:20:12] But when I looked into the notification map, much of the area included vacant land

[2:20:15] and airport property, with only a relatively small number of homes that were included.

[2:20:20] I understand the town may have met a legal notification requirement, or I'm not sure who's

[2:20:25] in charge of that.

[2:20:26] But meeting a requirement and meaningfully engaging people with what basically who will be

[2:20:31] affected are not necessarily the same thing.

[2:20:34] Residents shouldn't have to become experts in secret, now that I know how to say it,

[2:20:38] and land use planning just to realize that something being considered could fundamentally change

[2:20:42] where we live. As teachers, when we want to make changes that a school we bring in all of the

[2:20:47] stakeholders, okay? We have to ask questions, listen, make sure that everyone has a voice.

[2:20:53] And I wish I felt like that happened here. In my opinion, and again, I don't know who is in charge

[2:20:58] of this, but I'm assuming it's a joint effort. But I feel like the town residents, like it

[2:21:04] of never made it this far if people were actually informed. I understand much of this property is

[2:21:09] already designated as industrial. We got that, we knew that going into our property, but just

[2:21:13] because it's industrial is allowed. Doesn't mean every industrial project is appropriate for the area.

[2:21:21] There's a huge difference between a reasonable industrial development and a 3.4 million square

[2:21:25] foot logistics development besides a rural neighborhood. It is not just the cluster of houses.

[2:21:30] It is an entire like again. I only hit 75 houses. You're in a fire. Okay, so I see

[2:21:35] I have serious concerns about the traffic noise air quality lighting water desert habitat

[2:21:39] Reviews property values feature tenants and long-term enforcement and yes

[2:21:43] I understand you guys get jobs and that is wonderful

[2:21:45] But I don't want it to be a vacant warehouse. It should not sit there without tenants being known

[2:21:50] Okay, jobs matter growth matters. I get that but before a decision is made

[2:21:54] I ask you that you please

[2:21:56] Generally informed the public, okay, and have all of these answers heard before this project cannot be undone.

[2:22:03] Thank you.

[2:22:05] Thank you.

[2:22:07] Take a break.

[2:22:09] After Jacob is Louie Lopez.

[2:22:16] Hello, I'm Jacob Wake.

[2:22:17] I'm a man to wake, so I've been.

[2:22:21] I really enjoy the quiet outside.

[2:22:24] I enjoy seeing the little batch fly around.

[2:22:27] I enjoy my family coming.

[2:22:30] Being out and enjoying that with me, the fireworks at the Fourth of July, and with a huge project like

[2:22:37] this, it would be very hard to enjoy those same things in the same way. The quiet is going to

[2:22:44] be disrupted by the vehicle traffic along that road. And I worry about our water and

[2:22:52] enduring a death by a thousand cuts because of the amount of industrial projects coming into

[2:22:58] neighborhoods.

[2:23:06] Beyond the utilities, and I think many of these things were said, you have

[2:23:12] 4,500 parking spots, 548 loading base that will add night glow to the high desert skies.

[2:23:24] I don't want to be out in the backyard and trying to enjoy the night sky when I

[2:23:31] I see as a glow from an industrial building.

[2:23:34] I realize that there are downward facing lights.

[2:23:38] However, the light also reflects back up from those roadways.

[2:23:42] And you will have trucks that are going to be in that area

[2:23:46] with their lights on.

[2:23:48] Are there going to be quiet time set aside?

[2:23:51] Are there going to be low light time set aside?

[2:23:56] Power, we have power issues in our area.

[2:24:00] When it rains, the power does go out for long periods of time, wasn't it just this past weekend?

[2:24:09] Yeah.

[2:24:11] So, if this project moves forward in that area, I would ask for firm conditions requiring real-time

[2:24:22] metering for water hookups with hard yearly caps and real penalties for going over the amount

[2:24:29] water that they use, require smart metering with Southern California Edison and off-peak

[2:24:36] charging schedules for their truck fleets.

[2:24:40] I require 72 hours of continuous noise monitoring and nighttime bat surveys because I like

[2:24:47] my bats or like watching them.

[2:24:54] Please don't approve this final EIR until these studies and firm conditions are in place.

[2:25:01] Thank you.

[2:25:04] Thank you.

[2:25:05] Next we have Louis Lopez.

[2:25:06] Louis will be followed by Chris Crosswhite.

[2:25:15] Good evening.

[2:25:16] My name is Louis Lopez.

[2:25:17] I'm a business agent for the Iron Workers Local 433.

[2:25:20] I also happen to sit on workforce development board for the county of San Bernardino.

[2:25:24] So I see up close the need in this county

[2:25:28] for not just job but good jobs.

[2:25:32] And these warehouses not only bring jobs for the construction,

[2:25:36] but there's actually a lot of jobs,

[2:25:39] HR management, finance, engineering, IT jobs sales,

[2:25:42] and more that these warehouses offer.

[2:25:47] I raised eight daughters up here in the high desert.

[2:25:49] All aid, I'm graduated from a Spareya High School.

[2:25:53] Luckily, I only have two grandkids right now,

[2:25:55] so they're pursuing school.

[2:25:57] The only thing is I do got one that goes to Victor Valley, the rest of them go to go down the San Bernardino, one at Cal Baptist, but they all worked down the hill.

[2:26:07] So I see, because I've also experienced it, you know, the stress, the wear and tear of traveling back and down, down the hill.

[2:26:18] This morning on that back line back there, these men and women actually just came from a project

[2:26:25] in Hinkley.

[2:26:26] They're doing the solar project out there, so they're trying to get energy to this high

[2:26:32] desert also at the same time as it grows.

[2:26:36] There's been a lot of great discussion here.

[2:26:39] I do want to comment on the beautiful young lady up front, rock in the purple hair.

[2:26:43] I got a member out here with color hair and can't rock it like you do, but you have

[2:26:49] you said something very good and I agree, you probably live during one of the greater

[2:26:56] generations and as generations gone on they've gotten worse and as a parent, okay, I've

[2:27:06] lived like my life now. Now I've got to prepare it for my kids and the generation

[2:27:13] come and their children's children. And living up here in the high desert, it's tough finding

[2:27:19] finding, finding jobs up here. I know a lot of people that their children had to move to another

[2:27:24] state, their grandkids live in another state as they get older, as we get older, it's tougher

[2:27:31] to travel. So they're not seeing their families. The families have broken because of work.

[2:27:38] So, for me, I'm going to continue to fight to keep my family close to home.

[2:27:45] I think it's important.

[2:27:48] So, I'm also looking in the future for the generations to come.

[2:27:55] As a planning commission, I know you guys are here to make sure that the standards and everything's up to code for a project.

[2:28:02] I asked that, as a planning commission tonight, that you send this with the adoptions to the city council.

[2:28:12] Let those that are voted in here from the community.

[2:28:15] Thank you.

[2:28:17] Thank you.

[2:28:20] Chris Crosswhite.

[2:28:22] After Chris will be Lacy Kerns.

[2:28:35] Excuse me.

[2:28:36] Good evening, Chairman, commissioners.

[2:28:39] I apologize.

[2:28:40] I haven't had water in like an hour and a half.

[2:28:43] My name is Chris Crosswhite.

[2:28:44] I live in the community where this building is being proposed and within an extreme proximity

[2:28:50] of that building.

[2:28:52] I'm here tonight to state clearly and unequivocally that I completely oppose placing a nearly

[2:28:57] three and a half million foot square foot industrial warehouse in our rural community.

[2:29:03] No amount of mitigation, buffering or fancy sight plans can fix the fact that a mega industrial

[2:29:08] facility does not belong in a rural residential neighborhood.

[2:29:14] First, this project will distract our local traffic safety.

[2:29:17] The facility of this massive scale will flood our narrow two-lane rural roads, with

[2:29:21] thousands of heavy semi trucks, and trailers every single day.

[2:29:26] Regardless of whether their central road or while the road is already a dedicated trucking

[2:29:30] route, which they are, adding traffic traffic on this scale to residential corridors

[2:29:34] create severe traffic safety hazards for local families, especially those with young children

[2:29:40] like we have, and inexperienced or new drivers. It also causes immediate irreversible damage

[2:29:46] to the roadways that are already in poor condition. Second, this warehouse threatens our public

[2:29:51] safety. Facilities of this size act as major crime magnets, attracting cargo theft, trespassing,

[2:29:59] vehicle and rest

[2:30:00] Presidential break-ins, narcotics activity, and illegal truck staging along peripheral streets. I'm

[2:30:05] a sergeant with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. I served the Apple

[2:30:10] bout or the town of Apple Valley as a deputy sheriff for 10 years. I served this community.

[2:30:15] We're a law enforcement agencies are already stretched thin covering the wide geographic

[2:30:18] areas. Blending our neighborhood with industrial traffic and daily calls for service will

[2:30:24] drain local police resources, driving up emergency response times for the families who desperately

[2:30:29] need the resources. Bottom line, our community will suffer. Third, this project

[2:30:34] permanently wipes out our property values and quality of life. Homers, homeowners

[2:30:38] invested in this rural area, specifically for quiet surroundings, open skies, clean air.

[2:30:44] Real estate research is very clear, dropping a massive industrial operation into

[2:30:48] a quiet community creates a severe dis amenity effect that destroys residential

[2:30:53] home equity. We will be left with continuous low frequency noise, 24-7 light

[2:30:59] pollution, diesel exhaust fumes, and the risk of runoff contaminating local

[2:31:03] groundwater wells, which many of us rely on. Commissioners, it is your duty to

[2:31:08] protect health, safety, character, and investments of the residents who built

[2:31:11] this community. Not to turn our quiet rural home into an industrial truck hub. This

[2:31:18] project is fundamentally incompatible with our land use and our way of life.

[2:31:24] On behalf of the surrounding homeowners, I urge you to consider how you would vote if you

[2:31:28] were the ones who lived in this area and would be affected by this.

[2:31:32] And I ask you to stand with your residents and deny the zoning changes and permit applications

[2:31:36] for this site.

[2:31:38] Lastly, I appreciate all the guys in the orange vests.

[2:31:40] I really do.

[2:31:41] You guys are awesome.

[2:31:42] You guys work hard.

[2:31:43] I appreciate you, but just not this location.

[2:31:44] Thank you.

[2:31:47] Thank you.

[2:31:49] Thank you.

[2:31:49] Casey Currence.

[2:31:51] Dr. Lacy is Christopher Beaks.

[2:31:58] Hello, commissioners.

[2:31:59] My name is Lacy Currence.

[2:32:00] Thank you in advance for taking that time to listen to me for a moment regarding the

[2:32:06] like Creek Logistics Center.

[2:32:09] I have lived here my whole life.

[2:32:13] I am an appivalli high school graduate.

[2:32:15] My husband is a half of alli high school graduate.

[2:32:19] I've seen the change, I've seen the growth, I'm raising my own children and one of my favorite spots in Apple Valley.

[2:32:29] I live approximately 750 to 1,000 feet away from dead center of where this project is proposed to be built.

[2:32:40] Do you not think that this will take us in the right direction if this project is set to

[2:32:45] commence?

[2:32:48] It is proposing, the

[2:32:54] town is proposing an industrialized area that may be zoned industrial,

[2:32:58] but is opposite a very large community called Sikymor Rocks and Sikymor Heights that it

[2:33:12] But this place is being proposed to be built a stone's throw away from a currently large and

[2:33:21] dusty industrial facility that has been sitting empty for over or about two years.

[2:33:28] This building is half the size of what the proposed buildings are supposed to be.

[2:33:36] If these measures, what are these measures that the town is proposing that are going to

[2:33:42] change if this project goes through. Google Gemini states that this project will have

[2:33:48] significant or unavoidable changes to the residential area if we allow this project

[2:33:53] to come to fruition. Not only will this diminish home value, it will bring an

[2:34:00] extreme traffic, will affect water tables and aquifers, the pollution, all various

[2:34:07] types will exist forever as long as they're there once it's built.

[2:34:17] This isn't even taking into consideration once the project is finished, all of the people

[2:34:22] that will come and what they will cause.

[2:34:27] I do not feel this is in the best interest of conserving and maintaining our town of Apple Valley.

[2:34:32] is changing growth inevitable, of course, but can we as citizens hone in on where and how that growth comes to term?

[2:34:40] Yes, we can. I do not believe this is, this will better serve our community or our town.

[2:34:50] I think it's going to have the opposite effect. Thank you.

[2:34:56] Thank you. Next is Christopher Beaks. After Christopher, I just have her name is Trish.

[2:35:02] Good evening, Chairman and Commission. I am Christopher Beaks. I am a local resident that lives off of central a little further south

[2:35:12] But I regularly travel on central and on Walu and my best friends and God kids live directly off of Korwin, which is directly

[2:35:20] This project is going to be built directly in front of their residents

[2:35:25] Specifically so I concur with what all the other residents have said in their grievances

[2:35:30] I think the core impacts, one, the speculative residency, the fact that we don't have someone currently claiming that they're going to be using this building, that is a problem because we do not have like, who are we going to hold accountable for what's going to happen with this property.

[2:35:51] The residential impact, the air quality, the noise, people moved out here specifically for good air quality and just the quiet rural area.

[2:36:02] The water impact is definitely concerned. The airport safety major concern, the road conditions, having just constant traffic with semi trucks and the amount of noise pollution that comes with that too, it's just a huge concern.

[2:36:19] The effect on the property values of that area that's concerning for all the residences and the fact that it's going to place a giant industrial building where before it was kind of a just a nice view.

[2:36:36] And instead it's going to be light pollution and constant traffic, business traffic.

[2:36:42] I just, I don't believe it's a great idea.

[2:36:45] It's not specifically that there shouldn't be industrialization out here,

[2:36:50] but the location is a terrible location to be doing a project this big.

[2:36:55] In regards to the residents of the area and the impact it will have on the community.

[2:37:00] Thank you.

[2:37:01] Thank you.

[2:37:03] Okay, next up is Trish.

[2:37:05] Trish, I'm going to need you to give your last name.

[2:37:07] If you're here.

[2:37:08] There you are.

[2:37:09] What is your name?

[2:37:10] Lopez. Thank you.

[2:37:14] And there. Thank you for letting me speak. I concur with everybody who spoke and so far.

[2:37:19] I've been a resident of the High Desert for 30 years and I live one street over from the proposed site.

[2:37:26] I wouldn't be here tonight at all. The neighbor hadn't heard about it. Made a fool.

[2:37:33] We were not told anything.

[2:37:39] This has been in the work since 2022. The land has been purchased since 2023. Why is it none of the residents that it will actually affect new about it? Nobody is disputing the fact that we need jobs.

[2:37:52] After living in the desert for 30 years, I know we need jobs, but it's the location that we're upset about.

[2:38:00] This is our homes.

[2:38:02] I mean, if anyone knows about the wildlife, it's me.

[2:38:05] I feed a lot of the wildlife.

[2:38:07] I provide water for them.

[2:38:10] This is going to affect a lot more than what people understand.

[2:38:16] Didn't move here, so I could see light pollution and hear noise pollution.

[2:38:21] I go out in my backyard.

[2:38:23] That's my sanctuary.

[2:38:25] That's it.

[2:38:26] My husband passed away two years ago.

[2:38:28] I'm here alone now.

[2:38:30] Wasn't what we, wasn't what we planned on,

[2:38:34] but I need that sanctuary.

[2:38:39] This is really upsetting.

[2:38:45] So the fact that you only received five letters

[2:38:47] from the residents really is not indicative

[2:38:50] of the residential response.

[2:38:52] We are very upset.

[2:38:54] And a lot of my neighbors, when I spoke to them, still didn't know about it.

[2:39:01] And there's a duty to inform people.

[2:39:04] You can't just put something in and opt to help.

[2:39:07] Well, that have invested their life savings into a home.

[2:39:12] There's ranches and farms all around me.

[2:39:14] These people don't have money to pick up and start over again.

[2:39:19] You know, I'm only 63, but there's people that are a lot older than me.

[2:39:24] out there. And this is really going to have a huge impact on our quality of life. Really is.

[2:39:33] And I think you're going to see a lot of people leave California.

[2:39:38] Thank you. Next is Kim Walker. After Kim Walker is Ace Griffin.

[2:39:51] Good evening. My name is Kim Walker.

[2:39:54] I've been a local resident here in Apple Valley since 1990. For those of you who know me,

[2:40:00] I am a 1,000% in support of skilled trade, CTE, educate local, work local, build our local

[2:40:09] economy. You guys know for a living, I do that. That is 1,000% been my career for 35

[2:40:16] plus years. But I'm here tonight as a resident and a neighbor in that neighborhood. We, as

[2:40:22] you guys have heard, has some genuine concerns. Our biggest one is you're looking at a

[2:40:28] point something million dollars or a million square foot warehouse and we can't

[2:40:34] currently fill the 1.36 million square foot empty warehouse sitting off of

[2:40:40] Navajo and Lafayette. That was the previous big lots building. Okay so my

[2:40:47] first thought is let's see about bringing the employment, bringing those

[2:40:50] businesses let's fill that warehouse. My other concern is the lack of fire

[2:40:55] support. We have heard from some of our previous fire agencies for other projects. There need

[2:41:02] for fire equipment support. I understand that there are, I think it's a calf fire right

[2:41:08] there on the corner, but I hear that from some of those members that they do not have the

[2:41:14] adequate support and they have to do interagency for that. I just want to bring the reminder

[2:41:19] we've had two big warehouse fires in Southern California that took days, weeks, months and are still

[2:41:26] not completely mitigated with clearance. I'm also concerned about truck traffic. It does say that

[2:41:33] the existing truck route is 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. there is zero enforcement of that right now.

[2:41:41] I also want to highlight, you know, I got probably a couple seconds left. And one of your previous

[2:41:47] City Council meetings. It was the last one of the one before. There were discussions about lack of roads and how we need to pay.

[2:41:56] It's been multiple discussions. One of our own council members said on record the last meeting in the meeting before that central road was not a priority.

[2:42:06] but Yuckeloma was a bigger priority over central. So you can see I'm passionate about this.

[2:42:13] I love my neighborhood, love our area. I absolutely believe this hyper project is needed in the high desert.

[2:42:20] I think there's a better location near the 15 and 11's freeway.

[2:42:25] Many of you are also aware there's a big expansion going on in bar store with rail and some of the support going there.

[2:42:32] Um, I just, I think there's a better location, a little bit further north and apple valley, and closer to the 15 in Delavance.

[2:42:39] Thank you.

[2:42:41] Thank you.

[2:42:43] Okay.

[2:42:43] A script and after A's is Ted Bohannon.

[2:42:46] Good evening.

[2:42:48] My name is A's Griffin and I'm here on behalf of Local 365.

[2:42:52] So first I like to say I concur with my brothers and sisters that came before me.

[2:42:56] And what I really wanted to push for is, I support this project because like they said,

[2:43:01] keeps us local. I have a family, I'm a mom, and the idea of working locally is everything to me.

[2:43:08] Being able to go to games like he said, being able to go to play, sporting events,

[2:43:15] being there for your kids is everything. And I feel like I'm a veteran, I've done my time away,

[2:43:22] and I'm finally in a trade-wack and possibly be on, and I want that. And I don't want to have to

[2:43:29] between spending time with my family and supporting my family, and that's why I support this project.

[2:43:36] Thank you.

[2:43:38] Thank you.

[2:43:39] That's Go Hanan.

[2:43:41] After Ted is Jeffrey Ricker.

[2:43:48] So everybody that is here that you don't might not know.

[2:43:53] So this happens to be town council district 3, carry the own district, and I'm happening

[2:44:00] to be bringing against her for that town council seat.

[2:44:05] And I'm going to shoot straight with you, because I believe I'm over school, I'm going

[2:44:09] to shoot straight with you, and I'm going to be, and I call balls and strikes on everything.

[2:44:16] I stand 100% with everything that you said against this project.

[2:44:22] But she was straight with you.

[2:44:24] I don't like wasting my time.

[2:44:26] Every single one of you wasted your time.

[2:44:29] Stand up here in the same way you said.

[2:44:31] Because they've already made up their mind.

[2:44:34] It's going to be passed.

[2:44:36] It's going to go to the Tamil Council.

[2:44:39] Because too many of the higher reps have that big dollar sign in their eyes.

[2:44:45] They, you know somewhere along the lines.

[2:44:48] There's that door deals going on.

[2:44:50] It's politics, it's someone who's been on the town council for that long, and look at your roads, look at your parks, nothing.

[2:45:00] Nothing's been done. And I understand about wanting to be close to homo. I have two handicap sons. One has gone through three

[2:45:10] brain cancer surgeries, and is a survivor. So I understand about being in home with family and working

[2:45:19] and being close to home. But when it comes down to it, an empty hair, hair house,

[2:45:29] how many

[2:45:29] And you've got nine places that you've approved,

[2:45:35] five empty warehouses, where's the jobs?

[2:45:39] And you've got to develop or say, there's nothing there.

[2:45:42] So where's the jobs?

[2:45:44] 28, 29, 30?

[2:45:47] So it's kind of like it's just hot air coming from hot suits.

[2:45:53] So it's either you start making changes to what's going on

[2:45:57] It's standing up and having someone's was,

[2:46:00] because everybody who's standing up here for their jobs,

[2:46:03] you better believe I'll stand behind you.

[2:46:10] Thank you, next is Jerry Ripper.

[2:46:14] Jeffrey, I'm sorry, I did it again.

[2:46:16] I don't know why I'm calling you Jerry.

[2:46:20] It's Jeffrey. Jeffrey.

[2:46:42] And it was open too, that's the crazy part.

[2:46:55] All right, good evening, planning commission.

[2:46:56] I'm here tonight to strongly recommend

[2:46:58] for the planning commission not to approve the proposed 3.4 million

[2:47:01] square foot warehouse, data center, and industrial development, or in its current form.

[2:47:07] First and foremost, I do not believe the development of the magnitude of the lines with

[2:47:11] the recent feedback gathered by the town of Apple Valley regarding communities prior to

[2:47:15] preserve our rule way of life, meaning full, thoughtful, growth.

[2:47:20] If the town is going to ask residents what they want, Apple Valley to look like in the future,

[2:47:26] than that feedback should carry substantial weight

[2:47:30] with projects of this size come before the town.

[2:47:34] My second major concern is water infrastructure and fire flow protection.

[2:47:38] The project of this magnitude requires substantial fire flow capacity,

[2:47:41] a figure of approximately 2,500 gallons per minute,

[2:47:46] at least minimum out of a fire hydrant.

[2:47:49] I know I'm a D4 operator for the state of water state water resource control board.

[2:47:53] I know about water.

[2:47:54] I know what it takes.

[2:47:59] Before approving this project, I believe the town should require documented confirmation

[2:48:03] from the serving water utility and fire authority demonstrating that the required

[2:48:06] fire flow can actually be delivered under the applicable design conditions.

[2:48:12] The existing infrastructure serving the area raises serious questions.

[2:48:16] The piping coming from Liberty utility starter wells take side is approximately 16 inch

[2:48:19] in diameter and transits transitions to 12 inch line nearest leanly street.

[2:48:25] The tank side also utilizes booster pumping to provide additional volume and pressure to the

[2:48:31] area it serves.

[2:48:32] Sorry, I'm also dry.

[2:48:34] With the amount of commercial development already in the area in additional development

[2:48:37] being proposed, I question whether the existing system has sufficient capacity and redundancy

[2:48:42] to support another 3.4 million square foot of development while maintaining adequate service

[2:48:47] and emergency fire flow to everyone else connected to the system.

[2:48:52] The project plans also refer as reference a 16 inch ductile iron pipe water line that raises a basic engineering question,

[2:49:01] where and how is that 16 inch getting connected when there's a 12 inch line that's already there.

[2:49:05] You can't simply tie a 16 into a 12. Doesn't work.

[2:49:11] The 16 inch project line by itself, not to create additional system capacity of the source,

[2:49:16] the transmission piping storage pumping or downstream infrastructure cannot supply the required flow.

[2:49:21] That also brings up another question, Edison, I've talked to them, I don't know how you've got your plan.

[2:49:26] Thirty-second.

[2:49:27] Twenty-nine, twenty-eight possibly, twenty-nine, possibly.

[2:49:32] The big loss is currently or last I remember was running off a generator because it couldn't support the grid.

[2:49:40] Answer that. Why are we approving these projects when nothing is in place for infrastructure?

[2:49:45] And if we are good to approve these projects, the infrastructure will be in place first prior to the buildings going in.

[2:49:51] How many people have to die at Richard because of the streets?

[2:49:55] How many people have to die?

[2:49:57] That's time.

[2:49:58] Thank you.

[2:50:00] Thank you.

[2:50:02] Did that conclude that we go cards that I have to speak if anybody else is inclined to speak now as your time?

[2:50:08] Sure, Carolyn.

[2:50:10] I was informed previously that someone, even though the Planning Commission is not subject to SB 707,

[2:50:18] And there is a mechanism to allow comment from people online.

[2:50:22] So there is someone online that would like to ask a question.

[2:50:26] Generally, I defer to allow public comment.

[2:50:28] And I hope that we can, if that person is still on the line.

[2:50:32] I'm asking a question or make an comment.

[2:50:34] I'm making a public comment.

[2:50:37] Yeah, that's fine.

[2:50:38] If there's still it.

[2:50:39] So I have a virtual public comment.

[2:50:41] There is no name.

[2:50:42] It's just a phone number.

[2:50:44] the last for the phone number is 1397 so if that's you and you're watching, I will unmute

[2:50:51] your mic now or I will enable your mic so you can unmute yourself now and begin your

[2:50:58] comment.

[2:51:02] Really full of sleep.

[2:51:06] Hi, good evening.

[2:51:07] Can you guys hear me?

[2:51:08] Okay.

[2:51:09] Yes.

[2:51:11] Hi, good evening, chair and commissioners.

[2:51:13] My name is Matthew Rettlade.

[2:51:14] So I've lived in an Apple Valley for 11 years and I'm running for Apple Valley Town Council district

[2:51:19] before I get to academic. I wanted to call in tonight to share my strong opposition to

[2:51:24] the proposed late Creek logistics center while this project is going to the review process.

[2:51:29] Our local airport is a major asset capital valley. It's home to local general aviation

[2:51:34] pilots and it serves as a critical base for public safety operations including a 40

[2:51:38] team, which is a share of self-opter and a California Highway Patrol helicopter, both of which

[2:51:43] provide essential law enforcement, search and rescue and emergency air support for our region.

[2:51:48] Putting in nearly 3.5 million square foot industrial complex, right next to active flight

[2:51:54] pass, creates real safety issues.

[2:51:56] When you put massive dark roofs out there with an area that this project is being proposed,

[2:52:02] they bake in the sun and create their more heat plumes, rising columns of hot air, the

[2:52:07] cloud set and turbulence, and wind shear for pilots making little altitude takeoff and landings.

[2:52:12] Between the thermal updrafts, physical structures and bright light lighting, this project poses

[2:52:17] The real hazard to the emergency internal aviation crews flying in and out of that airfield every day.

[2:52:23] We should keep those flight paths clear, not carrying them with industrial development.

[2:52:28] On top of the airport hazards this mess.

[2:52:30] This is proposal but directly up against existing homes and crowds are residential areas. Families who chose this name but had for peace and quiet are facing 50-foot tall concrete walls right near their front and backyards. Furthermore, our local streets simply weren't built for such a heavy traffic would.

[2:52:47] Adding thousands of heavy diesel trucks and commuter chips daily will tool bar roads, choke our residential corridors with exhaust, and create real hazards for local families. We also have to look the long-term impact on our water supply.

[2:52:59] We live in a desert basin where every drop of groundwater counts, adding nearly 3.5 million square feet of industrial buildout, plus tens of acres of asphalt.

[2:53:10] Means high water demand for operations and dust control while capping off open soil, that would otherwise allow a natural rainwater to filter back down into our aquifer.

[2:53:18] Then there's light pollution.

[2:53:21] Round the clock security lighting is going to wash out our night sky.

[2:53:24] People move to Apple Valley, especially my own family.

[2:53:28] Because they appreciate our role, feel, open space,

[2:53:31] and being able to look up and see the stars.

[2:53:33] Have the industrial lighting directly crowding.

[2:53:35] Residential properties are completely destroyed that quality of life.

[2:53:39] I strongly oppose this project,

[2:53:40] and I urge the chair and commission to take a close look at these impacts

[2:53:44] and keep airport safety, water resources,

[2:53:46] and neighborhood quality of life front and center as is proposal moves forward.

[2:53:51] Thank you for taking my call tonight.

[2:53:59] Okay, that concludes the public comments.

[2:54:03] Take the podium.

[2:54:04] Make sure you state your name.

[2:54:08] My name is Charlene Gutierrez and I live off of Corwin and Central.

[2:54:13] My kitchen view window was the reason why I moved up here, looking at Delmont and I actually have

[2:54:19] a few questions about the IR findings, since they are significant and unavoidable, I wanted

[2:54:25] to know what the air quality was a test at any infancy through toddler age and what

[2:54:33] that would be because I have two children under the age of three so that is quite a concern

[2:54:38] for me if this will even the study was even done on some one their age.

[2:54:43] Another question I have was, the dust when they're going to be moving all of the plants in

[2:54:49] Basically, just demolishing it, where's that water coming from?

[2:54:53] Because I didn't see that in the findings either.

[2:54:55] And how much water that was going to be using?

[2:54:58] I 100% agree with all of the jobs.

[2:55:02] But I also don't see a project local agreement,

[2:55:05] or I doesn't say that it would require local hires as well.

[2:55:09] So I mean, that's not really a point if that's not there as well.

[2:55:14] I used to drive down the pass as well.

[2:55:19] I used to work for the county of Riverside,

[2:55:20] so I 100% get not wanting to go down the hill and work.

[2:55:24] But I also do believe that if we're going to be building

[2:55:28] something of this magnitude, at least a requirement

[2:55:30] for hiring local desert, employees would be

[2:55:34] something to kind of put in there.

[2:55:39] So yeah, thank you.

[2:55:41] Thank you.

[2:55:44] Okay, so I'd like to know if the applicant would like to rebut or step up and answer to any of that or if you're good for now.

[2:56:05] Well, again, this Mike Johnson or Michael Johnson with Lake Creek Industrial and appreciate everyone's comments and concerns, you know, as as an individual with kids of my own, I hear and understand everybody's concern.

[2:56:23] I hate to say the cliche, but this isn't our first rodeo.

[2:56:29] We try our best with all of our consultants, along with the town staff to design a project that

[2:56:39] minimizes the impacts to the collective town to everyone while also providing those

[2:56:45] economic benefits of both infrastructure, jobs, both on a short-term, I'm not really short

[2:56:52] terms is a large project, but on the call temporary-ish construction jobs and long-term

[2:56:59] permanent jobs, and we do take into serious consideration, you know, everybody's concerns.

[2:57:07] Again, we are trying to be, you know, a good call, you know, corporate citizen,

[2:57:22] corporate

[2:57:22] with ideally 1 to 3 corporate users and what the long-term benefits to the town from a project like this and to see what other developments could occur in the general area at some point down the road.

[2:57:44] But again, I really appreciate the commission staff and everybody that came out tonight. Thank you.

[2:57:49] Thank you. Okay, so you agreed all the conditions that staff put forward, go ahead and if you would make it official.

[2:58:00] Sorry about that. I think you might have said it earlier, but I need to.

[2:58:02] No worries. I'm happy to say again. Yes, we agree with 100% of the conditions of it.

[2:58:08] Okay, thanks. Okay, with that, we're going to close the public hearing at 858, geez.

[2:58:15] and have commission discussion.

[2:58:20] I'm going to start the commission discussion because

[2:58:23] in contrary to, I don't know where he went,

[2:58:25] but the guy that's running for something

[2:58:27] said about the town, the planning commission, the council.

[2:58:32] I don't care who his name is.

[2:58:36] He disparage everybody and we don't have our minds made up.

[2:58:39] That's total BS.

[2:58:41] We're here.

[2:58:41] We pretty much work for almost nothing.

[2:58:45] And you guys are here.

[2:58:45] We're here.

[2:58:46] We're talking about it.

[2:58:47] hearing what you have to say, our minds are completely open and not made up.

[2:58:51] With that said, in order for us to make a good decision, I think we need a full commission

[2:58:57] here.

[2:58:58] I think we need our other two commissioners to hear the commentary.

[2:59:02] We have everything that you did.

[2:59:03] It's all on record.

[2:59:05] We have the cards.

[2:59:05] I have how many people spoke, who was in favor, who was against my recommendation for

[2:59:10] everybody as if you really are concerned, and you didn't get the kind of notice you felt

[2:59:14] you should get.

[2:59:15] And go talk to your neighbor, Samar, we're going to continue this to October 7th and I'm going to make the motion to do that.

[2:59:21] We just can't do it on our own. I'm not comfortable with it. I almost wasn't comfortable with it just to garage.

[2:59:29] So those are you they were here, you know, all along. That didn't, that didn't even work well for me because it's it's hard.

[2:59:36] With a commission, a three person commission when we don't have a full commission.

[2:59:39] If one person votes against, it's dead, at least that's, and I don't want to be that, and

[2:59:45] I don't want you to need these to guys be putting that position, so, sure, count on them.

[2:59:50] If we can confirm that date with the applicant, and then also instead of closing the

[2:59:56] public hearing, you would continue the public hearing.

[2:59:59] Okay.

[3:00:01] Okay. And I apologize to all you guys. I mean, obviously this is a big decision. It's a big thing going on. And I've left her all my life. So I know all about the desert, all about what it means to a lot of people. But on the flip side, I know about the development and what was planned in the general plan in that area is basically earmarked for this type of development. So it's a big deal. And I don't want to take it lightly. So with the applicant, I need to know if you're good with continuing this.

[3:00:30] because that's what I want to do.

[3:00:31] And so whatever the vote is, that's what I would have to say.

[3:00:37] So yeah, that was going to be one of the things

[3:00:39] I was going to ask staff if we could.

[3:00:42] I agree.

[3:00:44] Yes, the applicant agrees to the continued.

[3:00:46] OK, I think it's in your best interest as well.

[3:00:51] If you can please confirm this motion,

[3:00:53] the motion would be, well, you would have to reopen the public hearing.

[3:00:58] Continue the public hearing to the meeting of October 7th.

[3:01:03] Okay, I'd like to make a motion to continue to open the public hearing again and continue this discussion and the decision to the October 7th meeting when we have a full commission.

[3:01:16] That's my motion.

[3:01:23] It's the plan for mission.

[3:01:24] Excuse me if we could please have them follow through.

[3:01:27] Do we have a second?

[3:01:30] And to further that, I'd like it to be first on the agenda.

[3:01:37] So we have, we have a motion call in second-pound Bianco.

[3:01:41] We need a roll call vote on this.

[3:01:43] Commissioner Aries?

[3:01:45] Yes.

[3:01:46] Yes.

[3:01:46] Commissioner Pombianco?

[3:01:47] Yes.

[3:01:48] Chairman Calen?

[3:01:49] Yes.

[3:01:50] Motion passes to continue with Commissioner Lannion and Vice Chairman Tinsley, absent.

[3:01:56] All of your comments are on the record.

[3:01:57] We have the cards.

[3:01:58] We have the notations.

[3:02:00] You're welcome to come back.

[3:02:01] I hope you do.

[3:02:02] And then we'll continue this discussion with a full commission.

[3:02:05] And no our minds are not made up. Good luck with your election, though.

[3:02:12] Okay, other business.

[3:02:23] See you later. Okay, our meeting is still in session it excuse me miss miss miss

[3:02:32] This our meeting is still in session. Yeah, we're still good. If you could please allow us to continue our business. Yeah, we're still we're still working on other business

[3:02:40] That's okay. You're all right. Don't worry about it

[3:02:44] in the other business. I got nothing. Commission comments. I have no comment. I already

[3:02:55] made my comment and I stand by staff comments. The only comment I have is that as the holidays

[3:03:01] are approaching, if the commissioners know when they will be out of town, if you can notify

[3:03:07] Catherine in our office, you can call her send her an email with those dates, that way we can

[3:03:11] I had a friend, a meeting set, we may have during the, you know, the next few months, we'd appreciate it.

[3:03:19] Thank you.

[3:03:20] Motion to adjourn?

[3:03:21] I'll make a motion.

[3:03:22] Oh, so we all want to make a motion.

[3:03:25] Been a long night.

[3:03:25] Hi.

[3:03:26] Thank you guys.

[3:03:28] Sorry, went that direction, but...

[3:03:30] Had to happen.

[3:03:42] Something makes me...

Planning Commission Meeting - 9/16/2026 6:00:00 PM - 09/16/2026

Transcript