[0:20] This call to order this meeting of the Yucca Valley Planning Commission on Tuesday, January 13th, 2020, six, roll call,

[0:28] please.

[0:31] Comissioners Henderson here noon in Stoker here Thomas here and chair Vasconcello's here and

[0:39] Commissioner noon and does have an excuse to absence this evening

[0:45] Mr. Henderson could you lead us in the pledge of legion fees yes, could you please stand and join me in the pledge of allegiance

[0:51] Put your right hand over your heart

[0:53] Ready begin

[0:55] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands for the nation under God, and this is a world of energy and justice for all.

[1:10] All right. Let's move on. Can we get moving on to the approval of the agenda? Can we get a motion?

[1:17] I'll make a motion to approve the agenda as prepared.

[1:20] Oh, second.

[1:21] For all call, please.

[1:24] Mr. Cenderson?

[1:26] Yes.

[1:26] Stoker?

[1:27] Yes.

[1:28] Service?

[1:31] Moving on to the consent agenda.

[1:33] All items listed on the consent calendar are considered to be routine matter or are considered

[1:38] formal documents covering previous planning commission instructions.

[1:41] Item listed on the consent calendar may be enacted by one motion in a second.

[1:45] There will be no separate discussion of the consent calendar items unless a member of the planning commission or a

[1:50] on staff requests a discussion on specific consent calendar items at the beginning of the meeting.

[1:55] Public requests to comment on consent calendar items should be filed with the Commission Secretary before the consent calendar is called.

[2:03] If that is anyone in the public, the wishes to comment on the consent agenda.

[2:08] They went online.

[2:10] Close a public comment.

[2:11] Anyone on the commission, have any comments?

[2:14] We can't get the motion to approve the consent agenda.

[2:17] I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda.

[2:21] Oh, I'll second.

[2:23] Paul, please.

[2:24] Commissioner Henderson?

[2:25] Yes.

[2:25] Stoker?

[2:26] Thomas?

[2:27] Yes.

[2:29] Moving on to the public hearing.

[2:36] The item number two.

[2:39] Environmental Assessment EA 0 9-25.

[2:42] variance v 0 2 dash 25 at 5 8 2 3 8 ultimacy drive, staff report please.

[2:56] Good evening, chair and commission. The recommendation for this item for environmental

[3:01] assessment, EA 0 9 dash 2 5 is that the planning commission finds the project is exempt

[3:08] from sigma pursuant this section 1 5 3 0 3 class 3 new construction of small

[3:15] small structures as the proposed project is a fence and the recommendation for variance 0 to

[3:25] the S25 that the planning commission denies variance 0 to the S25 a variance from a

[3:32] townucca valley development code chapter 9.07.009.009.00 fences walls hedges and section 9.007.001.00

[3:42] projections and encouragements since a required setback areas in above height limits,

[3:47] table 2-6. The variance is to allow the fence to exceed the maximum

[3:53] four foot height of four solid baller fence by two feet within the front and streetside setbacks.

[4:04] So as you know, as we've had some variances throughout the past few months, we'll say provisions

[4:11] for variances, exceptions to Town Sandored, set forth in the Town's development code, or

[4:16] establish to ensure that any property because of special circumstances such as size, shape,

[4:22] topography, location, or surroundings shall be accorded privileges commonly enjoyed by the

[4:29] other properties in the same vicinity, pursuing the government code, six, five, nine, zero, six.

[4:36] So, this is our fences walls and edges section for residential properties, in short,

[4:46] on street facing sides of a property for fences and walls that are within the setback area.

[4:53] They have a maximum height of four feet, if solid, six feet if you can clearly see through them.

[4:59] And then there's the clear-site triangle noted in section A8 on the page, kind of three quarters

[5:11] of the way down the slide that Fencing shall comply with the clear-site triangle standards,

[5:18] which essentially says that Fences within the clear-site triangle, solid Fences are limited

[5:24] the 30 inches in height.

[5:29] This is our projections and encroachments table.

[5:32] Some types of structures such as sheds

[5:35] can encroach on certain types of setbacks.

[5:38] For example, sheds and garages can encroach

[5:41] on the rear setback.

[5:43] As you can see in the slide, the fences

[5:47] for his front and street side yards

[5:49] is limited to four feet if they're solid.

[5:53] And you can see in the footnote six feet

[5:55] of open design and in six feet on the interior side and a rear yard.

[6:04] This is a site plan for

[6:05] the proposed project. The fence is a, the fence in question is illustrated on the south and west

[6:14] yards. So street facing handford and altumesa.

[6:22] This is a photo of the front. So the handford

[6:27] side of the property. You can see the fence designs solid corrugated metal with wood posts.

[6:36] This is the street side, so that's south side. It's currently a very nice and generally

[6:44] between 5 and 6 feet currently.

[6:48] This is a photo of a clear sight triangle. As you can

[6:53] Our normal commission secretary is measuring the height of the fence in the photo, which is approximately 5 feet.

[7:07] The required variance findings by our code in St. La, granting of such variance will not materially, not be materially detrimental to other properties or land uses in the area, and will not subsequently interfere with the future present ability to use solar energy systems.

[7:26] So essentially that won't cast the shadow onto rooftops.

[7:30] There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditional conditions applicable to the property or to an intended use that do not apply to other properties in the same district or vicinity.

[7:44] The strict application of the land use district deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity or in the same land use district.

[7:53] And number four, the granting of the variance is compatible with the objectives policies.

[7:59] General land uses and programs in the general plan, this development code and yet applicable plan or ordinance.

[8:08] These are the applicant responses to the findings.

[8:13] Will granting the variance speed detrimental to other properties or land uses or in their fear with solar energy systems?

[8:21] there's one says, no, the fence I will be kept at six feet and we'll not interfere with

[8:26] solar energy systems.

[8:30] Is there any extraordinary circumstances or conditions?

[8:35] I'll paraphrase that there's theft concerns with the proposed structure, or with the proposed

[8:41] property. In short, it is a two-story home and a generally one-story neighborhood, we'll

[8:51] There's a short termification rental as well, so there's some concerns with privacy and

[8:59] with privacy, public safety and theft in summary, and applicant can expand on that if

[9:08] I missed anything else.

[9:11] Well, the strict application of land use district regulations, the private such property

[9:16] privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity or same land use district.

[9:23] Applicant responses, yes, other properties in the area are able to provide safety and

[9:27] privacy to their homes, basically that, you know, the fence site is relative to the height

[9:34] of the structure, or a correlated to, I will say, also note that there is a bus stop in front

[9:43] or on the side slide street ultimacy and concern for children who are at that bus stop who may

[9:52] glance into the property and see activities not suited for children to watch.

[10:02] And then lastly is

[10:03] the variance request and conformance with the general plan and the responses, yes.

[10:09] This is a

[10:12] image of the track map for the area track map 6124, so this is when it was originally subdivided.

[10:20] You can see that's Altamesa kind of in the middle of the screen handford towards the left hand side.

[10:27] And the property in question is a lot number 81 more or less than the middle of the screen.

[10:32] This slide is to show that at least in terms of size, location,

[10:41] street widths, right of

[10:42] way, setbacks, et cetera, that the property is substantially similar to all of the other

[10:51] corner lots in this subdivision.

[10:56] This is a zoomed out, so you can see there's recorded setbacks

[11:00] in the front of the same 50-foot distance on every light in the subdivision, so just clarify

[11:08] that the light has fully leased those terms of setback, easements, it's either as substantially

[11:16] similar to all of the lots in the neighborhood,

[11:23] sorry for that.

[11:26] Here's a photo, looking north from the intersection, you'll see the proposed project is on

[11:33] right-hand side and then neighboring properties on the same side of the street.

[11:38] This is Hanford.

[11:44] On the left-hand side is the ultimacy side of the fence.

[11:48] This is looking east down the ultimacy.

[11:54] This is looking to the south from the intersection.

[11:57] So showing neighboring properties are also corner lots of the intersection.

[12:04] This is looking west down the ultimacy.

[12:11] kind of southeast, uh, looking southeast at the intersection, and this is just again

[12:16] idea of what the neighborhood looks like, what the topography looks like, um,

[12:24] and this

[12:25] is standing at the corner, um, of the subject property looking north, um, towards the highway.

[12:35] Uh, this is the staff responses to the, uh, I should say variance findings, not applicant

[12:41] and findings just to clarify that as a typo.

[12:46] It's a very interesting question number one,

[12:51] which just reiterates,

[12:59] will the granting of this very in-speed detrimental

[13:02] to other properties or land uses in the area,

[13:05] or substantially interfere with the present

[13:08] or future ability for solar energy systems?

[13:11] This is a yes, and though yes,

[13:13] the six foot tall fence along the public right away

[13:15] may potentially affect the feel of the open desert for neighboring properties.

[13:22] However, a six-foot tall fence is not anticipated to be tall enough to affect President

[13:27] or future ability to use solar energy systems, additionally a portion of the fence is located

[13:33] within the clear-side triangle, which may negatively affect the visibility of mother vehicle

[13:39] operators when looking at cross-traffic in the intersection.

[13:43] Number two, are there exceptional or extraordinary circumstances at the property?

[13:49] No.

[13:49] As we kind of previously illustrated, there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances

[13:55] or conditions applicable to the property, or to the intended use that do not apply

[14:00] to other properties in the same district or vicinity, according to properties located at

[14:05] the north side of the altumase drive, or are all approximately the same size and dimensions.

[14:08] they all have the same recorded setbacks, all of the properties in the vicinity are required

[14:14] to comply with the same fencing standards.

[14:18] Number three will the strict application of the land use district regulations, the

[14:23] private such property of privileges, enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity

[14:28] or district, know the strict application of the land use district regulations would result in the same

[14:35] religious enjoyed by other properties in the same way and land use district number four is the

[14:41] variance request and conformance with the objectives policies and programs specified in the

[14:46] general plan. Yes, the land use is consistent with the general plan. A six foot off and

[14:52] is not anticipated to affect the objectives policies and programs specified in general plan.

[15:02] As such, the recommendation, again, is that environmental assessment, EA 09-25, the planning commission finds that the project is exempt from CEQA, and the variance 02-25, the planning commission denies variance 02-25, staff can answer your questions, following the public hearing and just one note.

[15:25] We had previously forgot to include letters from the neighbors so you can see those letters

[15:33] starting on packet page 38 if you'd like to read through those.

[15:42] Thank you staff.

[15:44] Is there anyone in the public?

[15:45] I believe the applicant is here.

[15:46] Would you like to speak on this?

[15:48] Please come to the podium and state your name.

[15:51] Hi, I'm Kate Shaw, and I'm the homeowner.

[15:54] I wanted to actually share, when I received the pictures in the agenda, I did realize that

[16:01] the picture of the traffic sight line from in front of my house isn't quite accurate.

[16:07] It's taken from a few feet prior to the stop sign.

[16:09] So I wanted to provide pictures, actually directly from the stop sign.

[16:14] So you can see the sight line that would potentially affect it.

[16:18] If I can share this with you.

[16:20] I'm going to share with this.

[16:22] Okay, I don't, I don't know how many of you.

[16:30] And as comparison, I have actually included a picture

[16:33] of other property site lines in the near area,

[16:38] specifically the one directly in front of the city office

[16:40] on Yaka.

[16:42] So you can see a comparable site line for traffic.

[16:45] As you can see on my property, which is the second page,

[16:49] you can see about three houses down.

[16:51] You can see that's demonstrated

[16:52] because in that picture, you can see my neighbor's trashcan

[16:55] and then some headlights on the property following it.

[16:58] So it has about three properties worth of vision

[17:01] from the stop sign in front of my house.

[17:03] And if you compare that to the significantly

[17:06] easier stop sign that's directly in front of the city office,

[17:10] you can barely see about 50 feet.

[17:12] I actually couldn't get a picture of a truck

[17:15] because it was obstructed by that center block wall

[17:18] as well as this flags.

[17:20] So I just want to clarify that a bit.

[17:27] So I moved to the High Desert in 1987.

[17:30] I'm a longtime resident interested in protecting our neighborhood.

[17:33] I bought this house as it was a random property that was literally falling apart inside and out.

[17:38] It was known as the abandoned house for kids to party in when I was in high school.

[17:42] Upon completion, I took pride in care in this as both the neighborhood home and a short-term rental that people who worked on it,

[17:53] or knowing what care was taken to protect the neighborhood

[17:57] from any short-term rental noise, et cetera.

[18:02] This was an active Airbnb for two years.

[18:05] During that time, I had zero noise issues, zero noise complaints,

[18:10] and generated $25,000 in tax revenue for the city.

[18:15] In the five years of having that fence up,

[18:17] I've had zero traffic incidents.

[18:19] During the three years that I had the fence at six feet,

[18:22] I had zero issues with home safety.

[18:25] For reference, prior to putting that fence up,

[18:28] I had about $1,200 of lumber stolen from the backyard,

[18:33] because there's no way to actually,

[18:36] there's no backyard on the house.

[18:37] It's all sideyards.

[18:38] So if you look at it's a rectangular property

[18:40] unlike some of the properties that are square in the area.

[18:44] So from all of the street sides,

[18:46] you can see a hundred percent of my property.

[18:49] So I was stashing some lumber in my backyard

[18:52] had a thousand dollars stolen since that fence was put up zero issues with that. I did lower

[18:57] the fence to 5 feet. Honestly, it was just a misunderstanding. My husband lowered the fence

[19:02] thinking 5 feet was enough. Since then, I've actually run robbed twice. People just

[19:08] literally hopped over the fence. It's a notable home in the area because it is renovated.

[19:13] As we all know, there's this like, go back to LA mentality around any homes that are renovated.

[19:19] So it kind of makes it a target on this.

[19:21] As it's two story, it's renovated.

[19:25] So I've been broken into twice in the last few months,

[19:28] since I've lowered that fence to even five feet.

[19:30] I can't even imagine what's going to happen

[19:31] if I lower even more in people are able to just hop over

[19:34] that fence.

[19:37] It makes it, yeah.

[19:38] I submitted about 15 plus pictures of other homes

[19:41] in the area, not directly across the street,

[19:44] but that are within a two mile radius that

[19:46] have similar height fences.

[19:47] One notable one, like I submitted again now, is the center block wall just a few feet back off of Yucca, which is roughly in front of the city office.

[19:57] And, like I explained, you can see the re-houses down on my property.

[20:01] So, as we can all kind of agree, that site line isn't really compromised.

[20:05] I say it not to tattle on the center block wall in front of the city, but rather just to provide comparison for safety measures.

[20:11] The other thing that's unique and notable about my house in addition to being two stories

[20:15] and on an rectangular lot that you can't provide safety to, there's a public school

[20:21] bus stop directly in front of my house, directly in sightline of the pool and lounging area.

[20:28] While this house is a short term long term rental or full-time resident, that fact that there's

[20:34] a full visibility into my property and that there's a pool doesn't change.

[20:37] kids could still be viewing activities such as drinking, smoking weed, mostly undress people,

[20:42] lounging at the pool. That's not unique to it being a short-term rental, that's just

[20:46] unique to the property. And while these activities are legal, young kids probably shouldn't

[20:52] be having a direct site line to that activity every day as they're dropped off from the bus

[20:57] stops, and they believe that the neighbors in the area believe that they feel the same way.

[21:01] The way my property is uniquely situated, there's no backyard, so lowering this fence provides

[21:06] 100% visibility and there's actually no way to prevent that.

[21:11] All of my immediate neighbors have provided heartfelt letters pleading with you to not force

[21:14] me to lower the fence.

[21:15] From affecting the young kids at the bus stop to the neighbor who's property, it's kind

[21:20] of hard to see from the pictures, but the neighbors across the street and elevation, their

[21:24] houses are hires, so from their living rooms you can see directly into my yard and directly

[21:29] into my house if there's no fence there.

[21:33] So, yeah, all of my neighbors would be negatively affected in various ways if this experience is not approved.

[21:38] Denying this variance handcuffs my ability to use this house.

[21:41] It wouldn't be usable.

[21:42] The short-term rental, no one wants to live in it.

[21:44] As a long-term rental, is zero privacy and zero security.

[21:47] Despite the immense amount of money and time, I personally invested into renovating it.

[21:52] Having no privacy and a trucker record of thefts handcuffs me from you can selling the property.

[21:58] So, for all of these reasons that I implore you to listen to the neighbors,

[22:01] please and provide a proof of the experience.

[22:06] Thank you.

[22:08] If any further questions will bring you up and discuss that.

[22:12] Does anyone else in the public who should speak on this matter?

[22:15] If I could, sorry, Mike's a little hot.

[22:18] If I could clarify one thing,

[22:23] the pictures referenced by the applicant are on pages 45 through 59.

[22:30] I want to take a look at those.

[22:32] That's it.

[22:33] Say again, move it up.

[22:35] Pages 45 through 59 of the photos that was with our reference by the applicant.

[22:43] Yes, thank you. We already reviewed those.

[22:46] Do you guys review those photos?

[22:52] So, thank you for that.

[22:56] So, sir, do you want to line the wishes a comment?

[22:58] No? Okay, we'll close comment and bring it back to the commission.

[23:01] and I'm going to start with Commissioner Stoke.

[23:09] So,

[23:12] thank you for being here.

[23:15] And I know last time we continued this matter

[23:19] so we could receive and file with the report

[23:24] letters from your neighbors,

[23:33] the contradiction

[23:34] between staff's comments and your thoughts regarding

[23:40] the validity of a variance.

[23:43] I think speaks to kind of understanding what a variance is for, and just for me, my thought

[23:54] is that a variance is really, it's really finite in its application.

[24:04] For lack of a better word, or comment, neighbor's sentiment about what could or couldn't

[24:11] isn't really one of the criteria for judging of variance.

[24:16] We're not here to think about it.

[24:18] Like, heartfelt, I don't think it's kind of black and white and laid out for us.

[24:25] So, it's just, it's a tough one.

[24:28] Even looking at the photos you've provided, because photo speaks volumes,

[24:35] but it also speaks volumes that your photos showcasing your view down the street,

[24:38] your cars parked five feet over the stop line.

[24:42] And then the photo at the town's office,

[24:45] I can tell it's behind the curvature of the block wall,

[24:49] where I'm sitting here and I can see that the stop line

[24:51] for that town thing is in front of that.

[24:54] That's okay.

[24:54] It's not a question of you.

[24:56] I can tell just by looking at it.

[24:57] It's okay.

[24:59] So I look at genuine things,

[25:03] and I don't look at things that are just kind of trying

[25:06] be pulling heartstrings. The other thing that's also interesting in looking at just an overlay

[25:12] of property lines and a difference that you should probably look into to I think for future

[25:18] is that even your fence in the front yard along Hanford looks to be even over the property line

[25:22] and not just in the set pack, but realistically it's over the property line looking at the

[25:30] the GIS overlay for properties. Everyone thinks that their property goes all the way to the street

[25:35] And it's a common thing for everyone in town, they all assume that.

[25:41] But that property line typically the street is either on one side of where the street could be or the other.

[25:48] In this case, the street is pushed all the way across the street from you and there's a relatively small street and then there's a lot of what you would consider your front yard that is an essence part of the street.

[26:00] So you might look at that as well.

[26:01] I did a deep dive looking around at different properties just to see how this one compared

[26:08] and I drove your neighborhood honestly, every single street I drove up and down La Habra,

[26:15] Rudo, into the cul-de-sax, and all of these properties are very similar in their topography

[26:22] and shape.

[26:23] It's a generally down sloping piece of ground from Yucca Trail all the way down to the highway.

[26:31] And I didn't see anything that was specific to your property that

[26:35] lends itself to topography being an outlier,

[26:41] that would be the rationale for this.

[26:43] In fact, most of the other fences that I think you referenced,

[26:49] at least one, those could be something that could be a

[26:55] code enforcement action in the future.

[26:57] And I don't deny that there's probably lots and lots of fences if you were to drive around and look and find lots of people's fences that are that are not in line with this code.

[27:09] However, because other people are also doing it wrong, it doesn't mean we should make it make an exception in my mind.

[27:19] So that's really my comment on that.

[27:21] I have a question for staff.

[27:22] So how did this one particular instance of this property come

[27:26] to light for bringing to light?

[27:29] So that those executives would want them to cause it very.

[27:36] So in long story short, when we renew the short term vacation

[27:41] rentals or when their building permits are building projects

[27:47] going on, we usually look at kind

[27:50] of what we'll say is like glaring issues,

[27:54] one's that you can't really ignore.

[27:57] So very long story short,

[27:58] I believe the short term rental

[28:00] came up for renewal,

[28:01] and it also had some building projects going on.

[28:05] The inspectors flagged it,

[28:07] our administrative staff for short term rentals flagged it.

[28:12] So it was basically impossible ignore.

[28:18] Which is why all these other ones aren't being brought

[28:20] So that's right now because they haven't been.

[28:23] Otherwise it would be reactive enforcement.

[28:26] So if a neighbor called to complain about offense.

[28:31] OK.

[28:33] Commissioner Thomas.

[28:34] Yeah, excuse me, I'm getting over a little cold.

[28:38] So I've got a voice voice.

[28:40] But a couple of questions.

[28:43] Did you guys verify whether to commissioners

[28:47] stokers concern if the fence is actually over the property line or is it okay?

[28:56] I think we need to have a survey to really determine that based on the areas, it's pretty

[29:03] close.

[29:04] It's right on the edge.

[29:06] So when it comes identifying the exact property line, at least with the tools that we use

[29:12] from the RGIS tools, they're not perfect.

[29:15] So they might be a couple feet one way or the other, so it's it's close to being on the property line and

[29:22] With as survey, that's kind of the best we could say.

[29:27] Other question I had was

[29:35] about this, I don't want to say this, but

[29:38] How old is this fence? How long ago did this five years?

[29:43] When did you first apply for a

[29:45] short term vacation rental permit?

[29:48] I have applied for a short term vacation rental permit in September of 21.

[29:56] I, before it expired, I guess, two years later.

[30:00] Any three, I applied for the, for the, for the rule. I had no other active building permits pulled. So it was just an attempt to renew my short term rental permit.

[30:10] So is this, is this the third renewal you're doing or the second one still in the first? Because I was required to build a carport that you have to drive through the pool to get to in order to get my short term rental permit. And I've completed that. I was, and a few other things. So I'm still in the process of trying to complete.

[30:30] the checklist. Okay. So when she applied for her first vacation rental permit was this fence flag at that time?

[30:39] No. No. I don't think in long story short at that time we were in this thorough looking at these types of issues.

[30:47] Okay. And one concern for in her defense I have here is that she does have a pool in the back.

[30:56] And, you know, we've been, you know, some of the laws regarding pools have to have fences around them and make sure that people can't hop over them.

[31:07] So there might be a legitimate reason to have, at least on that side, a six-point fence.

[31:16] You know, so, but anyway, that's the questions I have right now. I'm still thinking about this.

[31:23] Commissioner Anderson.

[31:25] Yeah, I just had a couple of questions that I want to speak to the applicant,

[31:31] but on packet

[31:32] page 25, a portion of the fence is located within the clear site triangle.

[31:40] So, and then in your presentation, I think you had said that in the clear site triangle,

[31:46] it couldn't be taller than 30 inches, is that correct?

[31:52] Yes, that's correct.

[31:53] So 30 inches is going to be under 4 feet, right?

[31:59] Yes.

[31:59] So that whole corner has to be under 3 feet.

[32:02] So town staff is identifying this as a public safety hazard at present.

[32:07] Yes, okay.

[32:10] And then Kate, could I ask you a couple of questions?

[32:13] Number one, thank you for doing such a great job as an Airbnb owner.

[32:19] And investing in the town and doing a great job.

[32:21] I appreciate that.

[32:22] And I am so, so sorry that you've had thefts on the property and I understand what you're trying to do.

[32:31] As a commission, we have to walk through these issues because when we make decisions like this, we set precedent.

[32:38] I appreciate you even asking any questions about it.

[32:40] Yeah, and so we set precedent.

[32:43] So clear, clear, line a side issue.

[32:46] Public safety hazard.

[32:48] It's got to be under 30 inches.

[32:49] we get that. Commissioner Thomas brought up a really good point about the pool and the

[32:54] fence height and I'd love to get staffs opinion on that in a second. But does the pool have a

[32:59] fence around it in the backyard as well? Or no? There is in a backyard to the house. I mean they're

[33:04] kind of like all side yards. So this is the fence for the pool. Yeah. Okay. And then let's see what else here.

[33:14] And you said that the fence has been lowered from six to five already? Correct. Yeah and that's when

[33:18] my last two thefts happened.

[33:23] And so I would just suggest based on those thefts,

[33:28] and based on some of the other concerns you might have,

[33:30] that if the ruling requires it to go down to four feet,

[33:35] and then no more than 30 inches around that curve,

[33:39] that you might want to contact the sheriff's department,

[33:42] and they have a program called Crime Prevention

[33:45] through Environmental Design,

[33:47] And they might be, I'll offer some tips about plants and different things.

[33:52] Unfortunately, I'm not able to plant hedges.

[33:54] It falls into the same regulation as this fence, so I couldn't, you know, I wasn't saying to, like, raise it. I'm just saying they may have a bunch of different suggestions. So you might just try it just in case that's the ruling, okay?

[34:07] It's definitely felt like a losing battle because all of my neighbors are on my side, like I said, actually two of them have moved there after knowing the house.

[34:15] And so they kind of all keep an eye out whenever I'm not home, whenever my family's not there and still, you know,

[34:21] if a car's parked outside at 1 a.m. the family across the street with a baby isn't going to be up to my house at 1 a.m.

[34:28] And that kind of brings up another point and this is separate from the fence issue.

[34:33] But you've written it and this has to do and I do not know because I'm not as familiar up to date on this.

[34:41] I do not know if a school bus stop with children present gets a special protection.

[34:48] I know that schools and day care facilities, that there can't be weed smoked within a thousand

[34:54] feet of them with children present.

[34:56] I just share that with you out of abundance of caution because you've written it is happened

[35:02] or may happen.

[35:03] I don't know.

[35:03] I patheticly.

[35:04] I patheticly.

[35:09] I patheticly.

[35:10] And there's active children within feet.

[35:13] I would be careful of that.

[35:14] Happy to scrub that from the rock,

[35:15] just say drinking.

[35:17] And I just saw that.

[35:18] I just saw that.

[35:18] It just, it just, kind of a glaring thing for me,

[35:22] just sticking out.

[35:23] So I just share that with you,

[35:25] because you're a very conscientious owner.

[35:30] And you don't want no issues like that, which...

[35:32] And in the past, whatever, 18 months or, oh my god,

[35:38] I don't know, however long we've been dealing with this,

[35:40] It's been a mid-term rental. I just had a baby so my family's been staying there. So it's not even

[35:45] actively a short-term rental while this is going on. So it's not even Airbnb guests that I'm

[35:51] kind of protecting right now. It's like, I just saw it and it just kind of stood out. I was like,

[35:55] hey, if they're doing it routinely and within 10 feet of children, a bunch of them are bus stop,

[36:00] I would be contacting the school district saying, please move it. I don't want no child and

[36:05] management issues right there. Well, once this fence variance is approved, I'll definitely

[36:09] look into the protection of a bus stop for sure. Thank you for bringing that up.

[36:13] Yeah. So yeah, I would just say that depending on the ruling, I would contact the sheriff,

[36:18] just to see what the suggestions are around there, and then I thought to them about the break-ins.

[36:25] Yeah. Actually, I had a tweaker jump the fence and fall asleep on the property, which

[36:30] and they didn't come for about seven hours.

[36:32] Oh, boy.

[36:34] And unfortunately, they're really inundated

[36:37] with probably more important things

[36:39] than the theft of my couches and, you know,

[36:43] the theft of your property is critically important.

[36:45] To you and to the community, it really is.

[36:48] We don't take this stuff lightly.

[36:50] Like, that's an important issue.

[36:52] We appreciate you bringing up.

[36:54] And I also appreciate all those letters from your neighbors.

[36:57] Those were, we get it.

[36:59] We get it, but I'll throw it back to you guys.

[37:04] I have.

[37:05] I just have a few questions for you.

[37:09] Is this your primary residence, this place, this place, this?

[37:12] No, it was for a while, but I live in Lander, so.

[37:16] Okay, so it's not your primary residence.

[37:19] So then, but you said, you've lived in the community since like 1987.

[37:25] Correct.

[37:26] Yeah, so I mean, I was reading through a lot of the comments

[37:28] you were having and rethought.

[37:30] Fulls about regarding why you should have the variance of some of them were like to protect against dust or in the traffic, and all of that kind of information that you were saying that transpires in that particular location and why the fence benefits you for being there.

[37:45] I've lived here since 1979, and I know that that intersection in that street is a very heavily traveled location.

[37:55] and a fence like that isn't going to deter dust from coming on to your property.

[38:02] The location of it and heavily trafficked and even just the location at all.

[38:07] I mean,

[38:10] I would have hoped that when you were looking at purchasing this property to have an

[38:14] Airbnb that you would have, you'd done your research to say, like, okay, is there, what could

[38:21] happen here, they could cause an issue for us in the future in regards to crime or regards

[38:26] to bus or foot traffic or vehicle traffic or anything along those lines.

[38:31] The other question I have for you is I see in the photos that and I haven't driven by this

[38:37] place many, many times stopped at the stop sign, stopped on ultimacy looking down, what is

[38:42] it on?

[38:43] Hanford.

[38:44] Hanford.

[38:44] Looking north.

[38:45] And there's always what appears to be a gate that's open, is that stationary or does that

[38:52] close?

[38:53] It closes.

[38:54] So every time I drive and pass, it's always wide open, and I have to draw even further

[38:58] out into the intersection because of the trees and because of the fencing, to be able to

[39:03] get a clear view down the road and up the road so that I can see if there's a, if I can cross

[39:09] Because it is a heavily trafficked area and even though the speed limit says there's 25 miles an hour at least that link for the last time

[39:16] I said I checked no one goes 25 miles an hour up that street

[39:21] so

[39:23] Those are the concerns that I have is more of a public safety kind of standpoint because of even though I know you have your letters from your neighbors

[39:29] And I appreciate all of that

[39:31] I appreciate your your the support that you have and you sound like you're a good neighbor to them and then they they're supportive of you

[39:36] and of that kind of information that they provided for us to make our decision, I'm kind

[39:41] of in the Greens here with Commissioner Stoker about like the general public's information,

[39:46] it's not kind of like what we base a variance is on, it's moral belonging, the cutting

[39:50] dry of what what a variance, what we utilize a variance for and if we were to allow a variance

[39:59] for something like this, if it sets a precedent for other variances along the way and that's

[40:06] I have more of a concern in words to like this whole matter.

[40:12] I'm happy to address both of those concerns that you've brought up.

[40:14] Among the first concern of why wasn't I a better real estate investor and look at every code on that property?

[40:21] I'm not a seasoned real estate investor. I'm the daughter of a construction worker.

[40:24] This is my first house and I was just trying to protect my house by putting up a fence on it.

[40:31] Growing up in the high desert, it was a very different place and so while I have been here,

[40:35] sure I flitted off around the country in the world for a few years, you know, the town changes.

[40:42] So while I have known that property and, you know, that neighborhood since I was four or whatever,

[40:51] I apparently am just a bad real estate investor.

[40:55] You know, as far as that gate, it was just a happenstance decision to have it swing open.

[41:04] The other side of that vent actually swings in, and that's an absolute quick fix that I'd be happy to do if that is the site line concern.

[41:13] Yeah, there are questions.

[41:14] You make this comment that all your whole entire lot is a side lot.

[41:20] And it's clearly, I mean, there's no backyard to your property.

[41:26] And I get what you're trying to interpret that.

[41:28] that ultimately still you look at it and it's not really, you know, the pools in really

[41:34] in the backyard or wherever you say, but you definitely would do have some clear lines

[41:38] of a backyard rear property in regards to like the eastern property line and the southern

[41:44] property line that, you know, contain your property in regards to, you know, saying that you

[41:50] don't have a backyard kind of a situation.

[41:58] But I'm trying to think where was I going to go with that aspect?

[42:04] I don't know.

[42:06] I do appreciate you coming in.

[42:08] And all the information you did, a lot of legwork,

[42:10] given a lot of information in regards to providing us photos,

[42:15] providing us other locations to consider why we should help with the variance

[42:21] and you know, in your concerns and your neighbor's concerns, so thank you, I think we're going to discuss it amongst those.

[42:28] Another, actually question for you real quickly. So I mean, looking at it, any of the fence that in

[42:50] The fixed might be pulling back that angled piece of fence farther back in between the trees that you have there, which I think, because I've walked this house like a whole bunch of times.

[43:03] And you're a daughter of a contractor, a son of a contractor.

[43:07] I've walked the same house with like 30 different people that were looking to buy it when it was for sale.

[43:13] Back in 21, sorry.

[43:14] You were one of them? I walked with you?

[43:17] I was like, I was like, holy moly tractor, I just had understood.

[43:20] I don't face time in a stream.

[43:23] Yeah, so I think if you were to pull that back

[43:25] in that clear site triangle in quite a bit,

[43:28] that would solve a lot of the problem.

[43:32] And then how far back with the fence

[43:34] need to be pulled on a side yard to maintain six feet?

[43:38] What is her current side yard setback?

[43:40] I believe the strike me if I'm wrong, I believe

[43:43] I believe this street side setback is 25 feet on Altamesa and in the front setback on hand for this 50 feet per truck map.

[43:53] So it would basically be at the house.

[43:55] So it would have to put a little bit of fence in the middle of the pool in order to hit that setback.

[44:01] And I think that's absolute great idea for us moving this side.

[44:03] I think getting that sideline back to get you out of the 30 inch area.

[44:06] And then if it was me, I think I would pull that down to 4 feet, leave the posts, and do something you can see through above it.

[44:14] And it would break up the monotony of a whole bunch of corrugated.

[44:18] And it's something other people that I think have been trying to wrestle with this same ordinance.

[44:24] In fact, one of them I think you would take a picture of at one point.

[44:27] Have done to get around that.

[44:30] That that code is having another something you can see through whether it's some sort of a lattice

[44:37] You type of thing on the top not necessarily a lattice because maybe not the nicest looking thing

[44:42] What some horizontal strips of wood or something that allow for a package of 52 is that correct?

[44:48] Yeah, thank you. So address you're really good idea about pulling the fence back and

[44:53] Jared and I discussed that a while ago unfortunately just one woman tape one wonderful thing about the property

[44:58] But limitation is that it has

[45:00] Um, mature olive trees. Um, and as you guys know, mature olive trees range from about $10, $15,000.

[45:07] In order to, um, move that fence back, I would have to cut down, I think, three or four of them.

[45:13] I don't think, I, I, I, I, I'm looking at, you can almost angle right through and make it and get out of the clear side triangle.

[45:19] I, I might be something worth looking at and I, I know that going back a long time, because I've also, we're all lifers here, we're in some of us.

[45:26] I knew someone that lived here, and that's why they planted all those olive trees is

[45:30] because of headlights coming down Hamburg, because it used to be the thoroughfare before

[45:37] Avalan took over, so that was the direction to get to Yucca Trail.

[45:42] That might be a thing.

[45:43] One other question for you.

[45:45] So you did your pool in what you're 21 then?

[45:48] Yeah.

[45:49] And when you did your pool, if you remember, I don't know if you do,

[45:52] but if you don't have an immediate fence around the pool,

[45:56] Do you have an immediate fence around the pool?

[45:58] No.

[45:59] This is the one.

[46:01] Right, but this one can't be the one, because it has an open front gate.

[46:04] And those gates don't automatically close.

[46:07] So that wouldn't be one of your life-saving,

[46:11] you know, one of your avenues to save lives around a pool.

[46:16] You would have to have to have done other ones.

[46:17] Do you have a life-saving buoy in the pool then?

[46:20] I do when it's not too windy.

[46:22] Right.

[46:22] I know the buoy goes crazy.

[46:24] So you have a buoy and then do you have something else to do?

[46:26] cover? The alarms on the house? The alarms on the house but there would have been an immediate

[46:33] fence that has an automatic closure that has a chain link or equivalent of a certain height

[46:39] around the pool and this fence in my opinion as a contractor couldn't be that fence because it

[46:46] doesn't have an automatic closure on that front gate. So I don't think this fence is part of your pool

[46:52] safety plan when a when that plan was approved. You would have probably had to choose two other ones.

[46:58] The booby being one, which is very common. A lot of other ones would be alarms, but if you have a

[47:04] alarms on the house that part of the fence, then you have to have another fence to get to your fence from

[47:10] house to fence, house to fence with gates that automatically closed. So I know that this can't be that.

[47:17] But I'm just curious if there was another avenue for that and then you were talking about a carport

[47:22] I don't see it on your overview. I didn't look over the fancy.

[47:25] I got to drive through the pool to get to the carport that I built.

[47:28] But what was the carport for? Just to...

[47:30] It's because the garage doors no longer worked.

[47:34] So again, this is my fault. I put sliding glass doors on them.

[47:38] Oh, you converted the garage door to...

[47:39] Yeah, and I did too.

[47:40] Garage was already, I guess, converted it except for the doors.

[47:44] So I just kind of finished the job.

[47:45] So I was under the impression that it had been permitted appropriately, but in order to apply

[47:52] for my short-term rental permit, covered parking.

[47:57] Yeah, I understand.

[47:58] And the only place that was permitted was behind the pool.

[48:03] So it turns it into an essence of patio, but it satisfies the requirement, which is the $20,000

[48:08] on use of all car park.

[48:10] Well, I get you.

[48:12] Yeah.

[48:12] So I mean, that's, again, and not to speak to all a hundred of things, but like, those are

[48:16] the kind of things that I think you learn along the way when all of us do, when we

[48:20] purchase a piece of property, it's understand that, oh, shoot somebody did something, and

[48:24] it was not permitted, and if we continue to run with it, sometimes it comes back to bite

[48:29] us.

[48:30] Myself included, I've been the bear of those same kinds of things.

[48:34] So that makes more sense that the garage that was there was, was converted, and then this

[48:40] was to kind of replace that parking requirement.

[48:44] And there really wasn't a place because of the 50-foot front

[48:47] set back, 25-foot side that there was no other land left.

[48:52] So there were the place that people use for parking.

[48:54] The only usable spot for parking is in the front set back.

[48:56] So you'll be used for the cover cover.

[48:58] Right.

[48:59] Like through the pool.

[49:00] Sure, sure.

[49:01] By the cover of parking.

[49:02] Right.

[49:02] Well, yeah, it's a car port by name, but not by function.

[49:06] I understand.

[49:07] OK.

[49:08] Well, that makes a lot more sense.

[49:10] So thank you for that.

[49:13] Yeah, I just wanted to know, was the pool constructed before or after the fence?

[49:22] You know, that's a great question.

[49:24] I think the pool is constructed before the fence.

[49:28] And so, Jared, if Commissioner Stoker brought up a good point about this fence that's around

[49:36] the property, if that doesn't meet the safety requirements for a fence around a pool,

[49:44] What does, what is the height of the fence around the pool?

[49:47] My point being is if we say yes, let's lower this one, but then the fence around the pool,

[49:52] I don't know, or maybe shank and those are two completely separate questions.

[49:58] You're dealing with two totally separate standards established both by your zoning codes and

[50:04] the California building codes.

[50:06] The property owners responsible to ensure safety of the swimming pool area and those

[50:11] Fencing standards that are applicable.

[50:13] Those Fencing standards do not change or affect

[50:16] your development code standards for Fencing heights.

[50:20] Two totally separate issues.

[50:22] It's a property owner's responsibility to comply with both.

[50:26] And they can't be considered together.

[50:28] The pool is one issue.

[50:30] Compliment with the building codes for the pool is one issue.

[50:33] Fencing standards in a front-step back area

[50:35] are a totally separate issue.

[50:38] Don't know if that answers your question or not.

[50:40] It does, but that's the property owners responsibility and there's multiple ways for a property owner to address that issue that don't include the fence that's a part of the bearings before you see many options.

[50:55] Thank you.

[51:00] I'm done.

[51:02] I have no other questions.

[51:04] Same.

[51:10] We like to discuss this matter in further between ourselves.

[51:13] So I'm going to ask if I may Mr. Chairman and staff chime in here, not just for the folks

[51:20] that are attending this evening, but anybody that may watch this on video after.

[51:26] So what is a variance by our code, as well as by state law?

[51:30] A variance is deviation from a rule, or maybe a set of rules, which is applicable to every

[51:38] property in that zoning district.

[51:40] So, Evan or Jared, the zoning district here is single family residential RS, RS2, or just RS.

[51:51] Anyway, so let's just say it's RS2.

[51:55] The fencing standards in RS2 apply the same to every property in that zone.

[52:02] And what the state law in our development code say is in order to deviate from that standard.

[52:07] There has to be a physical, characteristic of your property that makes you different from every

[52:14] other property in that zone.

[52:17] It's not the traffic, it's not your pool, it's not your trees, and I'm not being specific

[52:24] to this property owner, I'm trying to set an example so people understand how the commission

[52:30] Can make a decision for a variance? That decision has to be based upon number one, facts on the record, and the facts have to pertain to the physical characteristics of the property, the typography, the geography, the shape of the law, those types of things.

[52:48] So, what staff is presented to you this evening are facts,

[52:52] that in staff's opinion, there's no physical differences

[52:56] of this property compared to other properties in the immediate vicinity,

[53:01] in the RS2 zone, that would support a variance.

[53:06] And for a variance application that comes before you,

[53:09] whether it's building height, structure size, any of those types

[53:13] of things that's same standard, and that same approach applies.

[53:17] And it's a hard decision-making process because do we want to help out?

[53:23] Do we sit here and want to help people that have problems with traffic?

[53:29] Because we all know, Hanford is probably a 50 mile an hour road and it's got traffic on

[53:36] all the time.

[53:39] Crime, theft, vagrancy, homelessness, all of those issues that affect every community in

[53:46] for you today. In effect, Jacob Valley property owners as well. But in this particular case,

[53:52] the commissions hands are guided in your decision-making process is guided. My state laws

[53:58] will as your code on how you make that decision and that decision is guided by are there physical

[54:03] characteristics of that property that differentiate it in order to support a variance and staff

[54:10] at least feel free to chime in if there's any other issues that you would like to raise for the

[54:16] mission this evening. Thank you so much Shane. That's a very clear and decisive comment on how the

[54:22] he's variants this should be looked at. And in recent memory of the variants is that we have

[54:30] approved that this commission has approved in the last two years. You know, I can think of one

[54:35] and the one that we did approve was based on the topography of the law that caused it to have to

[54:42] have variance in order for it to work.

[54:48] I

[54:51] want to have a recommendation here for this

[54:58] solution here.

[55:03] I can make one.

[55:05] I'll make a recommendation that we find the project on the item 09-25

[55:13] that we find in the project is exempt from sequa.

[55:16] And as two variants zero two dash two five that we deny the variants for the height limit and for the

[55:29] and for exceeding the clear side triangle.

[55:33] We

[55:36] have a second on that question.

[55:38] Yeah, second it.

[55:39] Your roll call please.

[55:43] Commissioners.

[55:44] Henderson.

[55:45] Yes.

[55:46] The stoker.

[55:47] Yes.

[55:47] Thomas.

[55:48] Yes.

[55:49] in solos? Yes.

[55:54] One, two,

[56:02] item. So that was a closure of the public hearing. Is that correct?

[56:09] Moving on to, yeah. Now we're different. There's item three. Is item three supposed to be in the hearing or in Department of Sports for item three?

[56:19] Is that correct? Okay. Yes. So we're moving on to Department of Sports item three.

[56:24] Status for you, temporary residential special events permit for SPL003-25 at 588689

[56:31] Akatio Drive.

[56:32] Staff report, please.

[56:34] Thank you, Chair and Commissioners.

[56:36] The recommendation for this item is that the planning commission receives and files the

[56:41] status review for temporary residential special event permit 03-25 located at 588689 Akatio

[56:49] drive. The planning commission may recall last year that they held two meetings and received

[56:55] public comments on July 8th and August 12th. Those meeting minutes are attached to the staff

[57:01] report for those dates. This is an update. So very briefly, the proposed application for class

[57:10] to temporary residential special events at the property was withdrawn as of December 17, 2025.

[57:17] The applicant has chosen to move forward with a class one, exempt temporary residential

[57:22] special event within the approvals of their temporary short term vacation rental permit.

[57:29] Daytime occupancy limit of 16 guests and that does not require any separate permitting from

[57:35] the temporary short term vacation rental.

[57:37] I'm also following up on the Planning Commission's prior request at their July 8 meeting

[57:42] that we summarize any code enforcement action related to the property and I provided a table that

[57:48] summarizes those. Just to note, for those cases that were open, they have all been closed

[57:54] and for those other complaints that did not result in an open code case. Those were also

[58:00] investigated and addressed. Some with no violations observed and some directed to contact

[58:08] the Sheriff's Department for, for example, private property trust pass concerns.

[58:14] I've provided a full list of attachments to the most current submittals from the applicant

[58:19] on this project and prior public comments received and as I said previously, the prior planning

[58:26] commission meeting minutes and also the first set of meeting minutes from the staff hearing

[58:32] that was originally held on the project.

[58:36] So, once again, the recommendation for this item is to receive and file these status review

[58:42] and staff is ill for any questions following public comment.

[58:46] Thank you.

[58:47] Is there anyone in the public that wishes to make a comment on this?

[58:51] Anyone online?

[58:52] I'll close public comment to bring it back to staff or to the Commission Commissioner Thomas.

[58:57] Give me no questions of this type.

[59:00] Can we come back?

[59:02] No.

[59:03] Mr. Stoker?

[59:04] Nope.

[59:05] Mr. Ford.

[59:07] Can we get a motion to receive in file please?

[59:10] I'll make a motion to receive in file.

[59:12] All second.

[59:14] We'll call please.

[59:15] Commissioner's Henderson?

[59:17] Yes.

[59:17] Stoker?

[59:18] Yes.

[59:18] Thomas?

[59:19] Chairvass Consolos?

[59:22] Yes.

[59:25] Sorry, all right, moving on to item 4, exterior color change, EC01-26, L-Poyoloco, staff report, please.

[59:35] Thank you, your chair and commission.

[59:37] This item is EC01-26 for L-Poyoloco, located at 580-1220 in Palms Highway, the former Pizza Hut location.

[59:47] The recommendation is that the planning commission approves EC01-26 in application to change exterior color.

[59:53] the commercial structure located at 5-8-01220 in Palm's Highway,

[59:59] APN-060.

[1:00:00] 1, 4, 0, 2, 1, 7, based upon the information contained within the staff report.

[1:00:06] This is just to show you just from Google what the prior pizza had, the sod appeared as.

[1:00:16] This is the other side of it, and this is to also show you the first submittal from El Poelloco as to their design.

[1:00:28] prior to conversation with staff to submit an exterior color change.

[1:00:33] Staff did follow up with the applicant providing them with a copy of our commercial design guidelines for their review

[1:00:40] and give them direction that they're welcome to suggest alternatives from this design to the planning commission

[1:00:47] or they can file this design with the planning commission for review.

[1:00:53] This is the current proposal after reviewing our commercial design guidelines

[1:00:59] So you can see that a lot of the colors are much more dark or muted compared to the brighter colors in the last few slides.

[1:01:10] And this is from a couple other sides of the buildings.

[1:01:13] I apologize.

[1:01:14] I think we might have missed a scan of the original submittal on this side of the building,

[1:01:20] but it is similar in colors to that other elevation.

[1:01:25] Once again, the recommendation is that the Planning Commission approves EC01-26.

[1:01:31] An application to change the exterior colors of the commercial structure.

[1:01:34] Located at 58012 Tornex Homes Highway.

[1:01:37] Baseball and the information contained within the staff report.

[1:01:41] I'll just add, as there are two items here.

[1:01:46] It's open for the Commission's discussion in deliberation on which color scheme may be appropriate

[1:01:52] or recommend it for your approval.

[1:01:55] And I believe we do have the applicant,

[1:01:57] available, or available for questions,

[1:01:59] following public comment.

[1:02:02] Thank you.

[1:02:03] Is there any on the public that wishes

[1:02:05] and I make a comment on this?

[1:02:06] Is the applicant wish to speak?

[1:02:09] He's available online if you guys have any questions for him.

[1:02:12] Thank you.

[1:02:14] So no one in the public wishes this week.

[1:02:17] Let's bring it back to the submission.

[1:02:19] And that started with her Henderson.

[1:02:24] Yeah, I mean, I'm excited for this project.

[1:02:26] I really am.

[1:02:30] I've, it's a restaurant.

[1:02:32] I've always, was hoping, would come up to Yucca Valley.

[1:02:36] So as far as Evan, you said that we're

[1:02:41] supposed to give a recommendation on which color scheme we like.

[1:02:46] Oh, let the designers speak to maybe their preference, but we wanted to provide you with both their original

[1:02:57] submittal and design and the alternative that they later submitted after a very unique commercial design guidelines.

[1:03:06] Yeah, I don't have any questions on it.

[1:03:08] I mean, I like either one's good.

[1:03:16] I'm curious to know which one I'll play a local prefers.

[1:03:20] But we get the applicant online and can we ask them which color scheme they prefer?

[1:03:27] Yes, hi.

[1:03:27] Hi, I'm James Sam.

[1:03:29] I am the applicant in the art of the director.

[1:04:23] Which one of these did you actually prefer?

[1:04:26] I think the first one.

[1:04:27] The first one?

[1:04:28] Yeah, the first one.

[1:04:30] The first one is from the brand.

[1:04:32] Okay.

[1:04:34] Yeah, and you guys say either one is okay or no?

[1:04:41] The proposal provided by the applicant, the alternate with darker colors, is technically more consistent with the color palette provided in the commercial design guidelines.

[1:04:56] However, the commercial design guidelines do not limit the commission's discretion to ensure quality design for buildings in the community.

[1:05:06] So it is open for the commission's discussion.

[1:05:07] Mr. Man, how are you?

[1:05:12] Quick, quick question for you because I don't see all four building elevations.

[1:05:19] In your proposed renovated south elevation on your first proposed design,

[1:05:25] that I would say has a larger gradient section of signage.

[1:05:31] It looks like each of those sections of color is delineated by what?

[1:05:38] Like a piece of frimetal, is that like architectural detail?

[1:05:43] And then, yeah, okay, and then with that architectural element, where the sign sits on

[1:05:52] that proposed version change in elevation, in regards to the adjacent wall face, do you understand

[1:06:06] what I'm saying?

[1:06:07] They have a design that is called the Fire Tower, where I think they're trying to show

[1:06:16] the different fire levels or spice levels of things and so they're using that as a backdrop

[1:06:24] for signage and they prefer to that main entrance side, so it's really just on that.

[1:06:34] And I'm just trying to understand architecturally with your vision for that section, would that

[1:06:41] be proud of the existing wall to the right of it?

[1:06:47] Or is that on the same plane?

[1:06:49] No, it's on the same plane.

[1:06:51] So I'm just trying to see, typically, if you

[1:06:54] look at our commercial design guidelines,

[1:06:56] changes in color, also kind of an architectural,

[1:07:00] I think all architects, you're probably not

[1:07:03] to different tend to change colors

[1:07:05] when building elements change elevation or depth.

[1:07:11] So, having all those colors just stop on a straight line on the same wall face doesn't

[1:07:20] just doesn't feel right there, and as I was trying to understand, I couldn't quite see it on

[1:07:25] a different.

[1:07:25] It's a different carpet height for that adjacent.

[1:07:30] Right. And that gets me to my second thing, and I understand where you're, what you're not, I was where it stopped.

[1:07:38] Yeah, we're looking at building colors, not necessarily the paraport height, and that gets me to my second thing.

[1:07:44] Is this going to come back for some other sort of architectural review staff for the changes in elevation, because it seems like the entire paraport all the way around is changing like we're creating a whole

[1:07:59] other block in essence on the east side as well that we had the stream of mechanical equipment.

[1:08:14] So is that something also that this would be the commercial design review process.

[1:08:20] So this is not just exterior color change, but also the architecture elements.

[1:08:23] Because what's the change in height?

[1:08:25] The existing photo of the south facing.

[1:08:31] I'll share it, so you can look at what I'm looking at.

[1:08:34] So I just see a big change in kind of almost making that pitched tile roof section, kind

[1:08:44] of almost pale in comparison to the adjacent large parapet wall for lack of a better word.

[1:08:50] And how much higher is that thing pushing than where it is existing currently?

[1:08:54] The

[1:08:59] parapet is only going up maybe a couple of feet, basically the existing systems no longer comply with code, and we're not going to be sufficient for the cooling of the building.

[1:09:16] So there's several things that have changed in code, and we were complying with screening everything as we had to, for all of our rooftop equipment.

[1:09:25] So because there's more rooftop equipment, that's the reason that Ruf area group and it is the front elevation

[1:09:33] What I would consider the south elevation also growing in height the front elevation really I don't think that really did

[1:09:43] It might have grown a little bit. Well, yeah, actually I guess it I kind of wrote a little bit just I feel like it grew as well

[1:09:49] So, I just, yeah, the only thing that worries me from an architectural standpoint is just this feeling like the original building just gets sucked up by a really big cube now, and that's my one look at that.

[1:10:10] I do really like personally the larger gradient if that architecture element came off of the wall slightly to where it returned back and died into another adjacent color I think for me would feel better.

[1:10:25] I don't just like the burgundy color on the second version, like the tone down red, as an alternate color for that section of building personally, where I think those two could kind of marry together and make one that was a hybrid of both.

[1:10:44] I like the populous of utilizing some of the brighter colors as accent pieces rather than the main focal wall.

[1:10:54] And I think the signage part of the top one, whatever the fire thing, fire thingy on the first one.

[1:11:05] And then you would use the colors over the other one because I do think that that's something we've been trying to shy away from as a commission is having entire buildings or entire sections of buildings be one bright color, which is looked at to be more of an accent,

[1:11:22] which I think was utilized really well in, like, the murals that were installed at

[1:11:30] Mahave Gold and some of the other buildings in town where they've utilized some really

[1:11:34] nice bright colors but in a more, more of an accent type of thing.

[1:11:41] Even to go as commercialist Carl's Jr. toned down the amount of red on the outside of the building

[1:11:47] to be less.

[1:11:50] But I do like it in regards to that signage.

[1:11:53] So that's my personal thought there.

[1:11:56] But I would like to see some maybe some architectural element

[1:11:59] come off of the building slightly to house that fire

[1:12:03] whatever nugget to where it doesn't sit on the same plane

[1:12:08] as the parapet adjacent.

[1:12:11] I don't know if that's something that's integrated.

[1:12:14] Currently it's just signage and it's signage panels.

[1:12:16] So when we dropped it back from what the original presentation was, where it was that whole

[1:12:24] parapet wall, like now it's just signage panels.

[1:12:28] And so that will sit slightly, you know, probably two inches above the surface of what

[1:12:34] the rest of the parapet wall is.

[1:12:40] This color.

[1:12:42] And yeah, I get you, and I like the one in the first submittal, but I guess if the color

[1:12:50] changes happened proud of the adjacent wall to the right that would feel like architecturally

[1:12:57] it has somewhere to die, you know? Or maybe that's, is that all panels, that's not all panels

[1:13:04] if you do it the other way. That's hat channel in Stucco.

[1:13:09] Yeah, it's just touch channel in Stucco. It's a build, it's it's included with the building

[1:13:13] of the wall. So like I said, if architecturally that could come out a little bit and have

[1:13:19] leaf on the right-hand side, then it would be its own kind of element that sits out in front.

[1:13:24] You're saying you're saying it's just all the same thing and just stops, right?

[1:13:28] Yeah, you paint stops, I mean even if it's only two inches it's still accomplishes a

[1:13:36] thing of not changing colors on a flat surface, which you don't have that, you don't have

[1:13:42] that for me, you don't have that anywhere else on the building where a color change is

[1:13:46] flat surface that I can see. You need their design.

[1:13:53] Yes, that's correct. The other thing is

[1:13:56] you have some sparing use of either burgundy or red as kind of like a accent color around

[1:14:02] the front half of the building. Personally, I'd like to see that consistently applied around the back

[1:14:09] side of the building as well where that that's my personal opinion.

[1:14:14] The color band is a different, there's a different tenant, so the second part will be a tenant space, and so that's the reason we have a continued sort of sort of what ended up being our brand new colors.

[1:14:31] Understood, I didn't know. It was two.

[1:14:34] I'm sorry.

[1:14:35] Right, and the, and the, the banding that's there right now is a, is like a, a stucko build out band that's on there. So we're just, we're essentially just painting it.

[1:14:46] Yeah, you're living a blank for someone else. I understand that that makes sense too.

[1:14:50] So what would you put looking at looking ahead?

[1:14:54] Now that we know this is two tenants not one.

[1:14:57] Where would you foresee another tenant having there?

[1:15:00] Signage, if there was a second tenant in the building, or what's the plan for that type of space, what would the use be?

[1:15:07] They would, I mean, they would have to properly be something almost monument, or a small wallside, the door towards the rear.

[1:15:18] If you look at the renovated east side elevation, the storefront door towards the run.

[1:15:24] is an art town.

[1:15:26] But I do like the color scheme of the first one.

[1:15:34] But I think what Commissioner Stoker says,

[1:15:37] the separation between the science self-popping out

[1:15:40] on the south side and not just a continuation of change.

[1:15:43] Like it just like a change of color,

[1:15:45] I think it would make it the building one better,

[1:15:47] it would make it pop out more like it's an actual,

[1:15:49] like almost like a sign name.

[1:15:50] I think the applicant did say that it's going to pop out

[1:15:53] about two inches just as it is.

[1:15:55] right now, but that's only on this one.

[1:15:59] Oh, I thought it was on that one.

[1:16:01] No, the one that just assigned itself would pop out for it, it was a sign,

[1:16:07] but, I mean,

[1:16:08] I'm for either option really, like I don't, I think I'm in line with everybody like it.

[1:16:16] This is either colors that would be fine for me.

[1:16:19] Yeah, I would just say that, you know, beauties in the eye of the whole,

[1:16:24] And either way, I'm really happy that they're building it and they're putting it in

[1:16:30] either one looks great.

[1:16:32] Look, I've been around in other areas and seeing these new, like, stylings of

[1:16:39] El Poel Loco and how they really catch the eye and they look nice, they look definitely

[1:16:43] look nicer with this kind of color scheme than the old style yellow, almost like just normal.

[1:16:51] I got it all. Mission, almost like almost like a old mission, Taco Bell kind of theme, but I do like them when I see these newer styles and they do catch your eye and I think that they're, you know, it wouldn't be too horrible to have.

[1:17:09] No, I don't think so within the community. I think it's great.

[1:17:13] Commissioner Henderson just wants to know when they're open.

[1:17:16] No, I just think that when it comes down to it, I don't want to pick for the applicant.

[1:17:21] To me, either one is fine, I might prefer one over the other, I don't want to influence that.

[1:17:27] Either color choice, ultimately, I'm okay with either one of them.

[1:17:32] I don't want to put, as it comes from my influence and say, you should go with this one because I prefer this one.

[1:17:40] I think either one from myself will be fine.

[1:17:42] That's it.

[1:17:47] So.

[1:17:48] But I'm not opposed to anybody else's opinion either.

[1:17:52] That's what it comes down to.

[1:17:54] Yeah.

[1:18:02] I think we just go ahead and approve it.

[1:18:08] Would the staff like a specific recommendation of which scheme do you?

[1:18:14] We would need to know at the center of the answer, I think, on the two.

[1:18:18] I believe from our understanding with this conversation is that the applicant prefers the lighter color scheme with the

[1:18:27] the fire situation.

[1:18:30] So I think that's their preferred alternative.

[1:18:37] Yeah.

[1:18:37] I mean, I'm fine with it.

[1:18:39] I'm too.

[1:18:40] Yeah.

[1:18:42] Yeah.

[1:18:43] I mean, I'm generally fine.

[1:18:44] I think that looking at the existing building, we're going to end up with a whole lot more

[1:18:50] red than I think we think because of the way this roof is going to change.

[1:18:57] I totally like, I prefer their original design on the signage, it just looks a lot better.

[1:19:07] But I don't know, something about all that bright red, I think it's going to be pretty bright.

[1:19:14] So like you're thinking more of like the keeping the first the option on the south side the same

[1:19:20] But then utilizing the color scheme the second one with like the burgundy colors right and I mean and again

[1:19:28] I think we're going to buy as a bowl. Yeah, I don't want to lose track of the submittal even though their first submittal was this other one the one they actually submitted for our approval was the second version

[1:19:38] Yeah, so

[1:19:40] I just don't know if

[1:19:42] If Mr. Manif, if there's a world where the two worlds could collide and how something that does both.

[1:19:53] I think that the, I think that a, a polio loco as well as the French IZ would be ecstatic to, to put the, the fire wall back on that, that South, the saw that faces the street.

[1:20:06] And I think that I think that that's a great compromise because realistically the reason I didn't go I didn't use the fire tower

[1:20:16] motif as part of the building element is it appeared that there was a limit to the number of colors and so I felt like we were

[1:20:25] exceeding that because you're adding

[1:20:27] four more colors to

[1:20:28] already sort of a

[1:20:31] out of palette.

[1:20:33] I understood.

[1:20:34] And that's where I think the commercial design guidelines get confusing to everyone it

[1:20:39] us included is because of the fact that it's not about lack of color and it's because

[1:20:47] if we look at that again, going back to that one mural, there were so many bright vivid

[1:20:54] colors and they're all used sparingly.

[1:20:56] And I think if it's this bright, impactful thing is that signage element, and then it

[1:21:04] mutes that red moving around, which it's still kind of a burnt color, it still feels

[1:21:09] fiery, I guess. I think that kind of accomplishes the best of both worlds where it still feels

[1:21:16] red, but it doesn't tone down the signage element, which I personally prefer, whatever it's up to.

[1:21:26] I think I like that, I mean, your decision on turning down the red is coming from the Dodger

[1:21:32] fans.

[1:21:33] Yeah, true.

[1:21:35] I like blue, but I do, again, we've discouraged whole walls or whole elements of one

[1:21:44] bright color, kind of for several years, so I just don't want to approve it just because

[1:21:50] all of us want to eat some chicken, which I think everybody likes chicken.

[1:21:54] But I think that using that firewall, and then using the tones of the more burgundy color on the other locations to replace where the red was, I think that's a good compromise and still accomplishes, you know, what I think with the

[1:22:10] is intense, because the main thing is that firewall is to pop in. And Mr. Manly, is there an issue with having some relief

[1:22:19] architecturally for that firewall? Well, since it has to be reframed anyway, I think it's a whole new element, correct?

[1:22:26] I think we can we can make an adjustment to try and bring it to the end.

[1:22:30] It's not in line with the adjacent lower parapet right there next to it. So it sticks out. It sticks proud a little bit.

[1:22:38] Yeah. Okay. That works.

[1:22:40] I think we need to personally.

[1:22:43] I'm good.

[1:22:46] I'm thinking about.

[1:22:47] I'm not checking.

[1:22:49] I'm not trying to fast track any sort of a thing.

[1:22:54] It comes down to personal preference.

[1:22:57] Yeah, and I don't want a force personal preference on to the applicant. I like either one and I think that's there

[1:23:06] And I respect everyone's opinion and and if the commission wants to go with a certain one good with it

[1:23:13] And so I've said I like either one. Yeah, okay

[1:23:16] So we can't we get a motion

[1:23:27] Would it be helpful? I know this is not ideal for time, but would be helpful to have that slightly modify the elevation return soon.

[1:23:39] I would really, as the applicant, that we would really like to do that forward.

[1:23:48] So I have no problem lending that and providing it back to staff.

[1:23:54] But I would rather not have to come back in another month to just do this process again.

[1:24:02] I think my only request as staff is to make the motion very explicit, because we're trying

[1:24:11] to follow along as the best we can with all the walls and colors, who we want to make

[1:24:15] sure that we are if we're going to review it and approve it, that we know exactly what the commission

[1:24:20] is looking for.

[1:24:25] Okay, I'm going to go to the chair.

[1:24:28] No, I will move that we approve EC01-26 with the stipulation that the signage wall face from the first

[1:24:47] of the south elevation be included in the rest of the proposed exterior elevations from the

[1:25:00] proposal, the second submittal, with the further stipulation that the signage element

[1:25:09] be proud of the adjacent wall surfaces.

[1:25:15] I'll second that.

[1:25:22] Does that make sense?

[1:25:24] Okay.

[1:25:29] Commissioner's Henderson?

[1:25:30] Yes.

[1:25:33] Stoker?

[1:25:33] Yes.

[1:25:34] Thomas?

[1:25:34] Yes.

[1:25:36] And Chair Bass Consolo's.

[1:25:37] Yes.

[1:25:41] Let's move on to item five.

[1:25:46] Amendment two to site phase.

[1:25:48] Site plan review zero three dash 23 and landscape plan zero three dash 24 nice

[1:25:56] The recommendation for this item is that the planning commission approves amendment number two for site plan review zero three dash two three and landscape plan zero three dash two four and ice stream ice is allowing for the removal of a portion of the landscape curb and landscape planting based on information in the staff report and conditions of approval for the previously approved project.

[1:26:23] We had some clarification from the applicant and from the, from our engineering staff on this project since last week.

[1:26:35] So there is, I'll have to explain when the conditions are approval a little bit and why it could be removed or modified.

[1:26:44] So this is a photo of site currently just so you can get an idea of what the landscape in will potentially look like.

[1:26:51] It's not complete, but it's getting there.

[1:26:55] And for reference, we hear from our building staff

[1:26:59] that this project is in technical terms.

[1:27:03] This close to being finaled, so they're very, very close.

[1:27:09] Another shot of the landscaping and kind of walkway

[1:27:12] in front of the building, the parking,

[1:27:17] most of the parking and parking striping

[1:27:18] is complete double stripes, luckily, not always the case.

[1:27:26] This is a photo of the driveway for the adjacent drainage facility.

[1:27:31] This will kind of come back around as you've probably seen in the back it, so just so

[1:27:36] that you can get an idea of what it looks like.

[1:27:39] So on the right hand side of that picture, this is a driveway for the project, and slightly

[1:27:45] to the left or east. This is a driveway for the drainage facilities, so those driveways are

[1:27:51] directly next to each other. This is a looking north at the same area.

[1:28:02] So last month the applicant

[1:28:05] requested to remove the concrete curb, bordering the landscape area, so I'm creating basically

[1:28:12] border between the asphalt and the landscaping. And to remove the prickly pair from the

[1:28:22] south east corner where those two driveways are separated from each other.

[1:28:29] So this is from the

[1:28:31] applicant, the blue line highlights the area where the curb was originally intended to be installed

[1:28:39] and they have requested to remove that curb and so this is kind of where some of the confusion came in, while explaining to engineering staff, there's some crossed wires on them, what exactly has been removed, so I'll come back to this, but

[1:28:58] Originally, we had included the condition

[1:29:01] curb located around the perimeter of landscaping.

[1:29:04] She'll be required or the walkway is less than six inches

[1:29:08] above the driveway adjacent driveway grade.

[1:29:12] So the intent there was engineering staff at concern

[1:29:15] that if the landscaping and the landscape curb

[1:29:19] was removed, that vehicles may inadvertently drive either

[1:29:23] on to the walkway or near the walkway,

[1:29:27] creating a safety issue. We clarify that with the applicant, that the curb is a decorative

[1:29:33] curb. It's not elevated curb, so essentially does not provide protection from vehicles potentially

[1:29:42] driving that way, and also that there are only proposing to remove the curb, not the landscaping,

[1:29:50] That is where the wires were crossed, so although the commission could require that condition of approval,

[1:29:58] engine.

[1:30:00] Hearing staff believes that the landscaping itself is enough of a deterrent to keep cars from driving up on that walkway.

[1:30:11] So that addresses the curb for landscaping, and then where that red access on the right-hand side of this image is the prickly pair in question, or potentially the prickly pair.

[1:30:26] are in from the applicant as vehicles when driving through that location may run the plan over.

[1:30:35] As you can see from the second condition, from engineering, they prefer to keep some sort of barrier,

[1:30:42] whether it's landscaping, curb, or the plan itself up to the commission, but something to prevent cars from crossing over inadvertently,

[1:30:51] certainly, or at least clearly identifying that there's two different drive-ways.

[1:30:59] With all that said, the recommendation is that the planning commission approves amendment

[1:31:03] to, for site plan review, 03-23, allowing for the removal of the landscape curb and the

[1:31:13] prickly pair at the corner of the site,

[1:31:17] and staff is available to answer questions following

[1:31:20] public comment.

[1:31:21] Thank you.

[1:31:24] I see that the applicant is here, would they like to make any comments on this?

[1:31:35] Is anyone in the public that wishes to make a comment?

[1:31:39] Anyone online?

[1:31:40] Can we close public comment and bring it back to Commissioner for comments?

[1:31:45] I'll go with Commissioner Henderson.

[1:31:49] Not too many questions, so the applicant, you guys are all on board with the staff recommendations?

[1:32:01] I wasn't sure if you were recommending whether or not we keep that on the southeast corner,

[1:32:10] the curb that would contain that one plant that we're asking to be removed.

[1:32:14] We'd prefer not to do it just because one prohibitively expensive.

[1:32:20] We don't think it adds much to the design since it's kind of just bordering that not so pretty.

[1:32:26] just drive way of the flood channel, but yeah, so I think whether or not that's this

[1:32:36] effort from the foundation I wasn't clear on. So the staff recommendation after

[1:32:41] discussing it with engineering was to retain some sort of border there, whether

[1:32:47] that's the curb, the landscaping, gravel, there's just something to clearly

[1:32:53] delaying between the two drive-boys. So it's kind of up to the commission.

[1:32:58] Be most appropriate way to do that while also considering the requests from the applicant.

[1:33:04] Yeah, it's super happy to put in like a border with D.G.

[1:33:11] Distinguished.

[1:33:13] A bolder in there.

[1:33:14] You want a bolder?

[1:33:15] Yeah, I'll put a bolder.

[1:33:18] Those are Alex's very favorite thing to deter people going where they should go.

[1:33:24] Alex will tell you, you can stick a boulder there, no one will drive through a boulder.

[1:33:28] They know better.

[1:33:30] And I think I understand, so I drove by this, because I didn't understand why the two

[1:33:35] driveway aspect.

[1:33:37] And there's a second driveway, there's a second curb cut, even coming into that storm

[1:33:42] channel driveway for maintenance of the storm channel.

[1:33:46] So I understand what they're saying is they don't want people to utilize that second

[1:33:49] driveway to get into to your parking lot.

[1:33:52] And a couple rocks would deter people from doing that, I think.

[1:33:57] And it's, you know, I understand what you're saying about having a single cactus there.

[1:34:02] It's probably going to end up getting destroyed and just being neglected all by itself over there.

[1:34:06] So I get the sentiment for sure.

[1:34:10] But I think a rock would probably solve it easy without having to do any more concrete work.

[1:34:16] But you get your, if I'm solution, I just wanted to also compliment you guys on all of the hard work you've done.

[1:34:24] From from your first visits in front of the commission till now, you've made some incredible progress and we're excited to be able to visit your establishment soon.

[1:34:33] Yeah, thank you.

[1:34:34] Yeah, I don't have anything.

[1:34:36] Can't wait, yeah.

[1:34:37] I have nothing.

[1:34:40] I agree.

[1:34:41] I think this is a good compromise.

[1:34:42] I think that what was intended, there was something more like a, like a, like a, like a

[1:34:47] moband rather than a concrete for the landscaping purposes, uh, I agree, I am in a

[1:34:57] greens with some sort of like deterrent, bolder, you know, gravel probably would feel like

[1:35:04] I said, I mean, it could even be where you're signing, are you doing a monument sign or

[1:35:09] something?

[1:35:10] We've got a sign on the building.

[1:35:11] on the building, never mind.

[1:35:13] Because that would be a good monument science spot.

[1:35:15] People don't drive through science either.

[1:35:17] So yeah, I think that's easy.

[1:35:21] Let me get a record.

[1:35:22] So yeah, I'm making a motion to approve amendment

[1:35:25] to for SPR03-23 and landscape plan for 0-3-24.

[1:35:31] With the EC-E22 out, is that already in your recommended action?

[1:35:40] If the commission would like to include that in the motion

[1:35:44] can we can remove that? Condition.

[1:35:50] Condition E22. That is. Yeah, did you want to call that

[1:35:54] as out? Because that's the one that he had crossed out. Oh, this is one, this is the one

[1:35:58] here. That they gave us. Yeah, the E22. So this is a commission. Approves Amendment 2 for

[1:36:05] SPR 03-23 and landscape plan 03-24. Oh, so this is the, yeah. Okay, isn't that what

[1:36:12] you guys gave us, because I'm looking at it.

[1:36:16] Lines didn't cross doubts, so I think, so in the staff report on page 168, we have two conditions.

[1:36:23] So I think there's a discussion about removing condition E22, the 6 inch curb.

[1:36:30] Oh, okay, yes.

[1:36:33] All right, so we'll add that to remove E22, and just declare it for E23, it sounded like we

[1:36:40] on the instead of a curb, have a boulder or some other chair.

[1:36:45] There's a boulders.

[1:36:49] I think that qualifies as landscaping.

[1:36:55] Second on that.

[1:36:56] All second.

[1:36:57] All of that.

[1:37:00] Will call please.

[1:37:02] Commissioners Henderson.

[1:37:04] Yes.

[1:37:04] Stoker.

[1:37:06] Yes.

[1:37:06] Thomas.

[1:37:07] Yes.

[1:37:07] Chair Vasquez.

[1:37:08] Yes.

[1:37:19] Thank you chair and commission. This is filed with the Commission of Regenerary. The recommendation is that the planning commission drops the resolution setting the

[1:37:30] Annual maximum number of temporary short-term vacation mental permits for the calendar year 2026 at 791.

[1:37:37] The planning commission had prior review in September of 2022, January of 23, January of 24,

[1:37:46] and January of 2025. So this is by our ordinance required every January.

[1:37:54] The last update to the cap was on January 28, 2025 where the planning commission established the maximum number of temporary short term vacation rental permits at 788.

[1:38:06] So section 5.40.090 of the town's municipal code requires a temporary short term vacation rental permits, not exceed 10% of the town's official inventory of detached single family residential dwellings units.

[1:38:18] And as of January 2026, as of writing the staff report,

[1:38:23] they California Department of Finance

[1:38:24] estimates that there are 7,883 single family detached housing units

[1:38:29] in the town, although that number has not been updated since early 2025,

[1:38:34] and does not include the latest housing construction data

[1:38:37] from calendar year 2025.

[1:38:39] So we checked in with the town building and safety division.

[1:38:43] They said that they've completed final inspection on 28 new single detached units

[1:38:48] in 2025, those units bring the total number of single detest units

[1:38:52] through approximately 7,911 as such the maximum number

[1:38:56] of temporary short-term vacation rental permits.

[1:38:58] For the year 2026 is recommended to be set at 791,

[1:39:02] which is approximately 10% of 7,911.

[1:39:07] Once again, the recommendation is the planning

[1:39:08] pension adoption, setting the maximum number

[1:39:11] of temporary short-term vacation rental permits

[1:39:13] through the calendar of 2026 at 791,

[1:39:16] and staff is ill for any questions following public comment.

[1:39:21] Thank you.

[1:39:22] Does anyone in the public who's just to make a comment on this?

[1:39:26] Anyone on mine?

[1:39:27] Okay.

[1:39:28] Close up a comment.

[1:39:29] Coming back to the Commission.

[1:39:31] Commissioner Stoker.

[1:39:32] Nothing for me.

[1:39:33] Thank you.

[1:39:34] Commissioner Thomas.

[1:39:36] Just one question.

[1:39:37] How many outstanding permits do we have right now?

[1:39:41] Outstanding vacation rental?

[1:39:43] I mean, what's available?

[1:39:45] How many are we short of being at max capacity?

[1:39:47] So the last update I received from Janet who primarily works on on maintaining that log was somewhere around 125 openings.

[1:40:01] It's gotten closer. It's decreased a bit, but not substantially.

[1:40:06] Okay. Thank you. No other further questions from me.

[1:40:10] No, that's the question I was going to ask. Thank you.

[1:40:14] I have nothing else. Thank you for this report.

[1:40:16] It's always an interesting little breakdown every year of how many are available so can we get a recommendation for the committee get a motion I go ahead and make the motion I recommend that the planning commission adopts the resolution setting the annual maximum number of temporary short term vacation rental permits the calendar year twenty twenty six at seven hundred ninety one second

[1:40:41] We'll call the commissioners Henderson. Yes. Stoker. Yes. Thomas. Yes. Chair Vows can sell us. Yes.

[1:40:51] Looking at this, should the land level update be in Department of Reports, or are we moving on after public comment for that?

[1:41:02] Yeah, land development update should come first.

[1:41:05] Yeah.

[1:41:09] We'll be going to item number seven first for land development updates.

[1:41:17] Okay, the recommendation for this is to receive and file.

[1:41:23] I respect for everyone's time, particularly Alex, I'll try and keep it brief.

[1:41:31] So everything that is in process is essentially in the similar place that we left it in December.

[1:41:39] That's where others son Mesa Walmart are very close to completing Zicoa.

[1:41:45] We're in the final review of that stuff.

[1:41:50] Tumbleweed is very close to having a Zicoa consultant.

[1:41:53] We're making a selection for a Zicoa consultant.

[1:41:58] And the Yucca Trail of many storage continues to make progress.

[1:42:03] The most exciting thing is probably that star cafe is

[1:42:08] under construction a little bit more vigorously in prior years, in addition to their interior wall.

[1:42:17] They have now removed the pavement from their parking area.

[1:42:21] They have a crew on site, so they're doing a little bit more serious work there.

[1:42:28] So you'll probably know that all the cars are gone, or most of the cars are gone from their light.

[1:42:33] So that's exciting.

[1:42:36] The Time Warner Communication Facility on Lock and Tenthah is

[1:42:41] getting close to finishing the building.

[1:42:45] They have the right of way improvements to go.

[1:42:48] And then Domino's jersey Mike says,

[1:42:50] on and off-resumed construction.

[1:42:53] And then as you've seen Starbucks,

[1:42:57] continues to make progress on the demolition of what was previously there.

[1:43:02] And with that, I can answer your questions following public comment.

[1:43:06] Thank you.

[1:43:08] Anyone in the public who wishes to make a comment on this?

[1:43:11] Anyone online?

[1:43:12] Close public comment?

[1:43:14] Back to this.

[1:43:14] Do we have anything from any comments on it?

[1:43:16] No comments from me.

[1:43:18] Can we get a motion to receive a file, please?

[1:43:21] Yeah, I'll make a motion to receive a file.

[1:43:23] I'll second it.

[1:43:26] I'll call this.

[1:43:27] Commissioners Henderson?

[1:43:28] Yes.

[1:43:29] Stoker?

[1:43:30] Yes.

[1:43:31] And share best consulos.

[1:43:33] Yes.

[1:43:34] Moving on to future agenda items.

[1:43:40] All those aforementioned ones are going through Sequo.

[1:43:44] I would say are within one to two months of coming into the Planning Commission.

[1:43:52] Those are probably the most important things.

[1:43:54] There is a variance in process.

[1:43:56] As that back variance as well, those are probably the most close items to coming the commission.

[1:44:07] I will add just one other item, as previously addressed by the Commission, near the end of last year,

[1:44:15] about concerns about commercial sidewalk displays. We do have one application for the

[1:44:20] displays in front of the 7-11 at Kikupu, that's currently in progress, so staff is working

[1:44:26] with the applicant to make sure we have something for the commission to deliberate on.

[1:44:31] I likely anticipate that coming back to the commission for the first time within the next

[1:44:37] month or so, either out of your next or the following meeting.

[1:44:43] All right.

[1:44:43] Do you guys have any comments for future information?

[1:44:46] All right.

[1:44:47] Let's move on to public comments.

[1:44:49] Planning Commission takes this time to consider your comments on items of concern which are not on the agenda.

[1:44:55] When you're called to speak, please state your name and community residents.

[1:44:58] Please limit your comments to three minutes.

[1:45:00] Unless inappropriate behavior, which disrupts, disturbs, or, otherwise impedes, orally conduct of the meeting, will result in perpetrator of your public comment privileges. The planning commission is prohibited by state law from taking action or discussing items that is not on the printed agenda.

[1:45:16] That is anyone in the publicly wishes to make any public comments. Anyone on mine? Close public comment. Moving on to commissioner reports and comments.

[1:45:27] Mr. Henderson.

[1:45:30] Nothing just thank you to staff for a great meeting and putting together a well prepared package and thank you guys for all your hard work.

[1:45:41] Thanks

[1:45:43] again.

[1:45:46] We always like having people here, so that's great to have members of the public here.

[1:45:51] Speaking up for their projects, whether it's architects owners or business owners.

[1:45:59] And regarding my other hat, our soccer league is hosting our tournament of Champions, which

[1:46:07] is all stars from all over Southern California in a couple of weeks.

[1:46:11] So on the 24th and 25th, if anyone's near Bram Park, might be nice to stop by, you'll

[1:46:18] see 50 teams from all over Southern California coming here to play.

[1:46:22] So that's pretty cool that we were able to host that this year.

[1:46:28] It's eight all day, so it's like eight to six, two days for Saturday and Sunday.

[1:46:34] So we'll have, yeah, 550 players from all over Southern California, that's cool.

[1:46:38] Playing here for once.

[1:46:40] We're always the ones going out, so it's nice to have them have to travel to CS once in a while.

[1:46:46] So we'll hope for good weather and then we'll get ready to start our spring soccer league.

[1:46:51] So I feel like it never stops because it never stops.

[1:46:54] Thank you.

[1:46:56] Vice Chair Thomas?

[1:46:58] No, just thank you to staff.

[1:47:00] Great meeting like Commissioner Henderson said.

[1:47:03] And nicely prepared.

[1:47:04] Thank you guys for your work.

[1:47:05] You guys do over there as well too.

[1:47:07] Appreciate it.

[1:47:09] I just had a couple of questions.

[1:47:11] Some people have asked me over the course.

[1:47:14] Again, thank you for the meeting.

[1:47:15] The meeting was great.

[1:47:17] Well prepared.

[1:47:18] You know, I think you provide all of information.

[1:47:20] And it was nice having a lot of people here to witness the meeting.

[1:47:24] It's nice to have the audience.

[1:47:26] First question I was having is that there were,

[1:47:28] I had some people asking me about how the permits are going

[1:47:31] for the phase two of the private installation

[1:47:35] of the sewer over there.

[1:47:37] And if there is any kind of delays in regards to the permits

[1:47:42] being issued because of Joshua trees.

[1:47:48] As far as I know, we have not received any applications

[1:47:51] to connect yet.

[1:47:54] Yeah, that staff's understanding as well.

[1:47:56] We have not received any applications for connections

[1:47:59] and phase two.

[1:48:02] Good.

[1:48:02] Good to know.

[1:48:03] The second question I have is I've been like on social media and all the stuff I see

[1:48:08] I'm seeing a lot of people advertising maybe clue trucks coming into town and then we're

[1:48:13] going to set up shop here and there and my question is is there anyone that's ever applied

[1:48:16] for our food vending food truck permits within the town is there anyone that has applied

[1:48:23] for that?

[1:48:24] Currently, no, however, the food truck that was most recently operating in the Home Depot

[1:48:32] parking lot has come in to obtain that paperwork, they're getting close to following

[1:48:38] that application, one of the last things that they're kind of working on, which is crucial

[1:48:42] to following any application is having property under authorization and signatures, so we're

[1:48:47] just waiting for them to come back in with that application any day now.

[1:48:50] I think you also had somebody in my large group operating across from Home Depot across the highway.

[1:48:56] They had lights up and all this kind of stuff.

[1:48:59] Yeah, so that's actually subject to code enforcement.

[1:49:04] It's an operating there quite a while.

[1:49:06] And it's going to take time to deal with that particular issue.

[1:49:10] I would assume they have no county health department permits as well as many other issues.

[1:49:15] The crazy thing is that businesses on Google Maps with reviews.

[1:49:19] At that corner, it's crazy.

[1:49:23] You had, you had also, I'm sorry, a bunch of it.

[1:49:26] But do you had also brought up a couple of meetings to go that we had sent out some

[1:49:30] code enforcement or some people to talk to the homeless encampment that was over there

[1:49:34] off the highway on the south side, if they had some tents over there, kind of over by the

[1:49:41] center in that general area and I think I've still seen, that's it.

[1:49:53] Yeah, so those are my main concerns because you know, I always see a lot of, like, the

[1:49:57] recent one was like a funnel cake advertising that they're going to be here in town and it

[1:50:02] shows setting up shop or what it looks like.

[1:50:03] Kai-Ax, we had a Kai-Ax salesman.

[1:50:06] Kai-Ax, oh yeah, that one too.

[1:50:07] Yeah.

[1:50:08] That always seems to be on Fridays when the town's not working, you know, or after hours.

[1:50:12] So I mean, they know how to get it on to...

[1:50:14] I was curious that we spent a lot of time and effort on that.

[1:50:18] On that whole aspect, and I was wondering if anyone ever really came in and had this file.

[1:50:23] So...

[1:50:24] Just that one.

[1:50:25] Yeah.

[1:50:25] But anyhow, thank you guys.

[1:50:27] It was a great meeting.

[1:50:28] I think some good things were accomplished and, you know, sometimes, you know, tough answers,

[1:50:35] on variances is what has to be to keep the order within our community. I look forward to the future agenda items.

[1:50:43] So with that at a 7.51 PM meeting at your, oh wait, sorry, let's move on hold on.

[1:50:48] The more thing.

[1:50:49] The announcement.

[1:50:50] I almost pull the noon in right there. Sorry.

[1:50:56] We got future announcements upcoming meetings scheduled. The next regular meeting of the Yucca Valley Planning Commission will be held on Tuesday January 27th,

[1:51:03] 7th, 2026 at 6pm in the Yaka Valley Community Center room with that at 7.51 is meeting as adjourned.

Planning Commission Meeting

Agenda

Transcript