Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Six o'clock. Go ahead and call this meeting to order. Can we start with a roll call?

Commissioner Global?

Here.

Commissioner Jamo?

Here.

Commissioner Morales?

Here.

Commissioner Perez? Here. Chairperson Condon?

Here. You join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Citizens communications, while the Planning Commission welcomes and encourages participation in Planning Commission meetings, adopted rules allow no more than five minutes for expression of non-agenda items. Matters under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission and not on the posted agenda may be addressed by the general public. However, California law prohibits the Planning Commission from taking action on any matter which is not on the posted agenda unless it is determined to be an emergency. Citizens are entitled to address the Planning Commission on any agenda item subject to the five-minute provision. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to give public comment? Anybody on Zoom?

No hands raised.

Okay, go ahead and close citizens' communication. Conflict of interest, is there anyone on the Planning Commission that would like to declare a conflict of interest on any agenda item? Seeing none, moving on to the consent calendar. All matters listed on the consent calendar are considered routine in nature and will be enacted by a single motion unless otherwise requested by an individual commissioner or the public for special consideration. Otherwise, the recommendation of staff will be to accept and act upon by roll call vote. Anybody on the commission that would like a consent item pulled for further discussion? item seven uh that's on the public hearing just just consent calendar one through four i'll pull three just for or can i just ask a question on three just um on the attendance um just kind of what's the update on that or what um what are we kind of doing with the attendance um so

Currently, what we're doing is I'm just including a monthly sort of review of attendance for the meetings. And if either commissioner meets the two meeting max of absences consecutive, then the conversation can go forward from there.

Okay. So we're just keeping an eye on just two consecutive.

Okay. Okay.

All right. Well, with that, I'll motion to approve items one through four on the consent calendar.

Motion to approve?

Just a second. Looking for a second. Second. Okay. First and a second. Can we get a roll call?

Commissioner Global.

Aye.

Commissioner Gemma. Aye. Commissioner Morales. Aye. Commissioner Perez. Aye. Chairperson Condit.

Aye.

Motion passes 5-0.

All right. Public hearing. Moving on to item number five. Turn this over to planning consultant, Ms. George.

Good evening chair and commissioners. It's great to be with you all tonight again. Tonight's item is a request for a variance to allow installation of a larger wall mounted storefront sign for Burlington located within the existing shopping center at 1450 East Hatch Road. Next slide please. The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to allow installation of a new illuminated wall sign for a new retail business Burlington. The proposed sign would be approximately 267 square feet and would be mounted on the primary storefront elevation of the tenant space.

slide.

So before we discuss the sign and the variance itself, I wanted to briefly explain how this item came before the Planning Commission this evening. Burlington initially submitted a tenant improvement or a TI building permit application for occupancy of the former retail tenant space. As a separate building permit application, they also submitted plans for the storefront signage. In most cases, signs are reviewed administratively through the building permit process and are considered ministerial actions. That means they can be approved by staff, provided they comply with all the standards established in the municipal code. During review of the permit application, staff determined that the proposed wall sign exceeded the maximum sign area permitted by chapter 1825 of the series municipal code. At that point, the applicant was given two options. They could revise the sign to comply with the code's requirements, or they could request the discretionary permit in the form of a variance. The applicant elected to pursue the variance, which is why the request is before the Planning Commission this evening, because pursuant to the municipal code, the Planning Commission is the review authority on variance applications. Next slide. So now to get into some of the project specifics. The project site is located within an existing commercial shopping center on East Hatch Road. The exact tenant space there is highlighted on the screen. The property is designated community commercial in zone Z2. The Burlington tenant space is located toward the center of the existing shopping center and is set back from Hatch Road behind the primary parking lot. The overall site is just over five acres, but the tenant space itself is not five acres. It's the entire parcel for the shopping center. Next slide. The sign proposed by Burlington is shown on the screen and is also included in your staff report. Under the city sign regulations, wall signage for commercial businesses is calculated based on the length of the tenant's primary frontage. The code allows one square foot of sign area for every lineal foot of frontage. So a 25 foot long tenant space gets 25 square feet of sign area. In this case, Burlington has 122.9 feet of primary frontage, which would allow 122.9 square feet of wall signage. The sign being proposed is approximately 267 square feet. So as a result, the proposal does exceed the maximum permitted sign area by approximately 144 square feet. Next slide. So just to reiterate a little bit, the sign regulations are governed through chapter 18.26 of the series municipal code. There's no limit on the number of wall signs provided that it just doesn't exceed the maximum total area. The existing monument sign and the secondary wall sign complies with the code. So today we're only looking at that primary wall frontage.

Next slide.

As part of a variance request, we did ask that the applicant provide justification on why they needed these deviations or relief from the requirements of the code. So the applicant has provided several reasons supporting the request, which was included in a justification memo attached to the staff report. First, they note that the Burlington tenant space contains a particularly wide storefront frontage and that a code compliance sign would appear relatively small when viewed against the scale of the building. Second, they point out that the tenant space is located well behind East Hatch Road and separated from the roadway by a large parking lot, which they believe reduces visibility from the public right away. They also note that Burlington utilizes standardized corporate branding that includes primarily lowercase lettering and requires a tagline component. According to the applicant, these design characteristics reduce the visual prominence of the sign and require additional sign area to maintain visibility and brand consistency. So on the screen and also in the staff report, there's the sign, there's two images of the sign. The top is what they are proposing. from the view of Hatch Road and the bottom is what a code compliance sign would look like. So the top one is at the 267 and the lower one is at 122 square feet or less. Next slide. Okay, this is a very text heavy slide and I apologize. I just was trying to get it on one slide. So before discussing staff's findings, I think it's helpful to briefly review what a variance is and importantly what a variance is not. A variance is intended to provide relief when strict application of a development standard creates a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship to unique circumstances associated with a property. So to put into perspective, a common variance or the easiest example I could think of is an irregularly shaped lot. So if you have like a triangle shaped lot and you're putting a single family residential unit on it, single family residential units require a fully enclosed garage for two cars. There's also a 25-foot setback. So if you have a triangle-shaped lot, you can't meet the 25-foot setback and the two-car garage requirement usually because there's physical constraints on the lot. So the key is that the hardship is created by the site itself, not the property owner's preferences. So a variance is not intended to waive standards simply because compliance is inconvenient, expensive, or inconsistent with a particular design standard. Under section 18.31.020 of the municipal code, the planning commission must make all five findings shown on the screen before a variance may be approved. So a full analysis of those findings were included in the staff report. If the commission cannot make any one of the findings based on the evidence presented, then approval of the variance would not be supported by the municipal code. So with that framework in mind, staff evaluated the request against each of the required findings. So all five are on the slide. I'm not going to read them word for word because I'm going to go over them on the next slide. So the variance request itself is not inconsistent with all five findings. Finding number four and five, staff was able to make. Staff does not believe that the sign would have any public health or safety impacts, and staff thinks that it's generally consistent with the general plan. However, findings one through three, staff was not able to make, which require... exceptional circumstances, practical difficulty or hardship, and preservation of substantial property rights. Regarding finding one, staff acknowledges that the tenant space is set back from East Hatch Road and occupies a large storefront facade. However, staff was unable to conclude that that circumstance is sufficiently exceptional or extraordinary compared to any other commercial properties along the exact same corridor. Finding number two, staff recognizes that the applicant's concerns regarding visibility and corporate branding. However, staff was unable to identify a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship resulting from a unique physical condition of the property itself. finally regarding finding three staff was unable to conclude that the requested increase in sign area is necessary to preserve a substantial property right enjoyed by similarly situated commercial properties approval would authorize signage substantially larger than what is otherwise permitted under the city's frontage-based standards and for those reasons staff was unable to fully support findings one two and three next slide In addition to evaluating the project against the sign ordinance, the project was also evaluated for compliance with the general plan in CEQA. So the project is associated with an existing commercial use and is consistent with the community commercial designation. Staff also determined that the project is categorically exempt under CEQA under section 15301 because it consists of signage on an existing commercial building. So based on the analysis presented this evening, staff recommends that the planning commission first find the project categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15301 existing facilities. That finding will be required regardless of what action is taken tonight. Staff evaluated the request against each of the required variance findings contained in section 1831020. Based on that evaluation, staff was unable to conclude that findings one, two, and three could be made. However, because Planning Commission serves as the decision-making body on the variance request, staff has prepared both an approval and a denial resolution for your consideration tonight. If, after receiving staff presentation, hearing the applicant's testimony, and considering any other public comment, the Commission determines that all five required findings can be made, an approval resolution has been provided. Alternatively, if the Commission determines that one or more of the required findings cannot be made, a denial resolution has also been provided. Ultimately, the Commission's decision should be based on whether all five findings required by Section 1831020 can be supported by the evidence presented during tonight's hearing. That concludes my presentation. I know the applicant or a Burlington representative is on the call if you have any questions for them as well.

Thank you, Ms. George. Go ahead. Any commissioners have any questions to start? Staff? Okay, we'll go ahead and take it out to the public. Any members of the public that would like to comment on this item? Mr. Warren?

Good evening, commissioners. John Warren, City of Ceres.

Hold on one second, Mr. Warren. Let me set up the timer. Sorry.

What's that?

Got to get you on a timer, John. Sorry.

OK. You're good to go.

Excuse me? OK. The only thing that I would comment on is if the commission decides to approve this variance tonight, that at some time in the future, Burlington decides to leave town or relocate within our city to a different site, such as the old Walmart building, that the sign come down, that they be required to remove the sign or bring it into compliance to what the existing code is. I don't have a particular problem. It will be more visible. even though you can see it and everybody can probably know that it says Burlington Factory, if they want it to be larger, then when they vacate that particular building, they should take the sign with them, remove the sign, and be required to do that. That would be my only comment. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Warren. Anybody online on Zoom?

We have one hand raised. Go ahead.

Yeah, hi. My name is Nick Zauner. I'm one of the owners here at Blair Sign Programs. We're the national sign vendor for Burlington. Good evening, everyone. I just wanted to say a couple words. Pretty much the presentation that staff gave was exactly, you know, our hardship. We are looking for a more aesthetic facade, something a little more organic to the project and We respect the code of the city and we understand, you know, you guys are trying to reduce clutter of signage. But in this case, we think the setback does warrant a larger sign. You know, if we were up close. in the same center close to the road, we would be fine with one-to-one. We'd have no issues. Our client would be happy with it. So yeah, due to the setback, the readability kind of Burlington's logo in itself is kind of a setback. You know, if you're a Ross and you just box around Ross, you don't have... a bunch of dead space. We have ascenders and descenders. So yeah, I think the main thing I would have you all reference is the two side-by-sides that we showed that show the code version and what we're proposing. We don't think it's excessive. We think it's proportional organic to the property. We feel like it's going to bring more shoppers to the center itself. We think it's going to give Burlington a good competitive advantage to be the new kid on the block and bring people in, have a good tax base for the city, while also not, you know, it's not excessive. So that would be my client's case in this respect. So if you guys have any questions, please let me know. Thank you, Nick. Appreciate it.

Anybody else on Zoom? Hold on. Let me close it. Anybody else?

No answers.

All right. Go ahead and close the public hearing. Bring it back to the commission. Mr. Groble?

Nick, can you hear me? Yes. Is your sign single-lettered sign, or is it a framed sign?

It's all individual channel letters. And the wow portion is a halo sign. Halo construction with it's routed out and pushed through letters. So it has a lot of, I guess, texture to it, has different levels to it. But yeah, all the letters are individual letters. And to your point earlier, When Burlington does vacate a building, they always have us remove the sign and then we'll patch and paint to like new. It'll look like the sign was never there if they ever do vacate the premise.

So is your square footage that you have listed down, is that per letter?

The square footage is the whole sign area combined. So you have the Burlington, the Beals, Browns, and the Wow.

OK. And then my next question is, I don't know who can answer this one, for our municipal code under 18-26-050 definitions. where a sign consists of individual letters or an individual logo symbol that is attached to or painted on the wall of a building or structure, where there is no distinguishable frame or border, the combined square footage of each individual letter or symbol will be considered as a sign area.

I can answer that one. So it's, My interpretation of that is that it means the sign area in totality. So there's no limit on the number you can have. So if each letter is fully separate and they're separate signs, it's the total area combined, which is what you use to calculate it. So if it's eight different letters, you add up the square footages of all eight of those. There's no limit to the number of signs. We can have eight signs as long as the square footage doesn't exceed the lineal

The of the figure counting the whole Burlington name as well.

That is correct. The entire sign proposed is what is being evaluated.

So if we could box say around the N and the O and the U and the R that would give us additional square footage. Is that something that staff would support? If we could individually box around each letter.

Staff wouldn't find that to be consistent with the ordinance, but the Planning Commission can approve the variance separate from that. Okay.

I have to disagree with you on that. The way it's written in here, it's per letter, square foot per letter for the sign, not the whole entire length.

But the maximum allowed area is still the same. So even if we box. Correct. Yeah.

I'm just asking, is his sign actually smaller than the 200 and whatever it is square feet?

I don't know. I believe so. If we box each letter individual, I believe it would probably be closer to 230, just shooting from the hip.

Okay.

Does Burlington have a logo like that? around each letter?

If they're relying on branding standards, I would say not. I don't know how they can revise it to box it if their justification is branding standards.

Well, I kind of have a tough time with it. We have a municipal code, but for me, the applicant's justification, I mean, I think it's warranted in this case. You just look at the proposed, if they follow the municipal code version versus... Their sizing, I think it's a big difference. Has any other businesses on this corridor complained at all about this potential site application, or are they aware of it?

I can't necessarily speak to the corridor. We get tons of sign applications. The initial application almost always comes in oversized. I kick it back, and they almost always revise. And just to clarify, they also have a sign on the back of the building and there's a monument sign on Hatch Road as well.

I can see his point on that. I actually went out to that facility today and look at it and Also looked at the signs on the other tenants that are in that shopping center. And I don't think it would be that big of a deal to put a bigger sign just because of that facade is so massive. I think it'll take away from a smaller sign and you may not have that visibility that they're looking for, regardless of the other signs that they have right there on hatch and the side of the building.

Any other questions of staff from commissioners? Looking for a motion to approve or further direction.

And just to clarify, there are two resolutions. So whatever the motion is, if you're approving the variance, please make all five findings. And if you're denying the variance, just make that clear in your motion, which resolution we're moving forward with, because we don't need further direction on this one. The commission can choose whatever action they want to approve the variance, which would allow the larger sign or deny the variance, which would require a code compliant sign.

All right. So taking a look at how big the front fascia is of the building and the distance from the hatch road, looking at the sign, I motion to approve the variance request, seeing that it won't cause too much of a distraction. And the tenant agrees that they'll go ahead and remove it if they do eventually vacate the building.

Second.

A proper motion.

I will defer to city attorney my understanding is that all five findings need to be made, and we can put that slide back on the screen if it's helpful yep.

yeah if you could just go ahead and read off those findings that'd be perfect.

Read everything.

i'll read the findings and then the planning Commission and discuss. So the first finding that the planning Commission needs to make is that there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved. or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity and zone. Number two, that strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance. Number three, such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same vicinity and zone, and the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties And numbers four and five, staff was able to make those findings, but number four is the granting of the variance will not be material detrimental to public health, safety, convenience, and welfare, or injurious to property and improvement in the same vicinity and zone. And finally, number five, the granting of such variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the general plan.

I agree with the last two findings that they wouldn't be contrary to the objective of the general plan and it wouldn't be detrimental to the public health and safety. Yeah, but we have to find all five of them.

Then we can't cover it. Right?

You can justify making the findings however you would like to justify making them. Staff couldn't make them based on the evidence provided. But if the commission can, the commission can.

OK. I was under the assumption as long as those two were fine, we were. So if we can't ground a variance based off of that, then.

Correct. The variance requires all five findings be made.

So finding number one, exceptional circumstances. I mean, I would argue that that building has been empty for quite some time. And finding a tenant has been difficult. So to find a tenant that might want to put down roots in series, I think that is justifiable to have an exemption.

Additionally, the square footage of the building, though it's not linearly long enough, if you look at it all going horizontally, it has a square footage for a decent size sign. Second one.

And if I could just clarify one more thing, staff in the city, we're not grading the findings. They're going to go into the resolution. Whatever you guys say is what will be approved in the public record. So you could just make your findings. We're not going to be like, oh, that's inappropriate to find it that way.

I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve finding the project categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA and approve the variant 26-18 and findings 1 through 5 in accordance to the project. So the attorney, is that okay?

Yeah. Would you mind just identifying the unnecessary hardship and the property rights? That would be perfect. You don't have to, but it would just set up the record a little better.

I would go to the Burlington brand. And also that it's just not a one-word sign. There is something underneath it as well. That works. Thank you. Okay, we got a first, looking for a second.

Second.

First and second. Here we go, roll call.

Commissioner Global?

Aye.

Commissioner Jammu?

Aye.

Commissioner Morales?

Aye.

Commissioner Perez? Aye. Chairperson Condit?

Aye.

Thank you. Motion passes 5-0.

Okay, going on to item six. Turn it over to Leah.

Thank you, Chair. Leah Simvalakis with North Star Engineering. I'm here tonight. I'm actually not going to present this item, but I did want to introduce our consultant, Kylie Pope, with EMC Planning. Just a refresher, I came to you last month, and we did kind of a public workshop on this item. We received funding through the REAP 2.0 grant. And as part of our REAP projects, the first one is implementing as many programs as possible through our housing element. So we had EMC, and Kylie's going to go through the background. So basically, Kylie and EMC are helping us with program one of our REAP 2.0 grant, which is implementing various changes to our housing element. So I will turn it over to Kylie.

Thanks, Leah. Again, I'm Kylie Pope, senior planner with EMC Planning Group. Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. Like Leah said, I'll be walking you through a set of proposed municipal code amendments that implement the city's adopted six-cycle housing element. Before I get into the presentation, I want to take a moment to recognize the city and the community. Getting to this point, having an adopted and state-certified housing element is a significant accomplishment. There's still many jurisdictions across California that are still out of compliance or have not yet moved into implementation. So the fact that Ceres is not only compliant, but it is now actively moving forward with priority implementation programs really puts the city ahead of the curve. The state, just as a reminder, the state through the Housing and Community Development Department, HCD, has been actively monitoring jurisdictions and in some cases taking enforcement actions where cities are not making progress toward their housing obligations and that includes implementation efforts So tonight's actions reflect not just compliance, but also proactive efforts to implement the housing element and support housing development in series. So before you as the agenda, I'll provide a brief overview of implementation efforts. We'll discuss the municipal code amendments and affordable housing, water and sewer priority policy. Just briefly summarize what these amendments achieve. and outline next steps and we'll conclude with the staff's recommendation. Next slide. So Leah kind of touched on this, but as a quick refresher, the city received substantial compliance back in February of 2025 and subsequently adopted the 2023-2031 housing element in March of 2025. Now with that adoption, the city also committed to the timely and effective implementation of all housing element programs. So nothing you're seeing tonight should come as a surprise. The proposed amendments are not introducing new policy direction, rather they're simply carrying out those adopted commitments. Next slide. So, Again, the purpose of tonight's hearing is to consider recommendations to the city council regarding a package of municipal code amendments and one policy update. And collectively, these code amendments are intended to remove barriers to housing development, align the municipal code with the adopted housing element and state housing law, facilitate affordable housing development, and streamline permitting processes. Now many of these amendments are required by state law to maintain consistency with legislation, while others are intended to address development constraints that were identified during preparation of the housing element. Next slide. So to help organize tonight's discussion, the proposed amendments fall into several broad categories. The first category relates to approval procedures and how housing projects are reviewed. The second category addresses development standards that can affect the feasibility of multifamily and affordable housing projects. The third category focuses on housing types that receives specific protections under state law, and the fourth category addresses fair housing requirements. Additionally, the city is proposing an affordable housing, water, and sewer priority policy to implement Housing Element Program 3.13. Next slide. Okay, so approval findings. So this First Amendment implements Housing Element Program 1.14. Currently, the City's Municipal Code lacks approval findings for residential projects. The proposed amendment establishes objective approval findings, which clarifies decision-making criteria and improves consistency during project review. Now, the intent here is really to reduce ambiguity and ensure that residential projects are evaluated using objective and transparent standards consistent with state housing requirements. And ultimately, this amendment provides greater predictability for project applicants, and it also strengthens the city's decision-making process in terms of... transparency, and consistency in reviewing projects. Next slide. Now this next group of amendments focuses on residential development standards, particularly for multifamily developments. These amendments implement housing element programs 1.3, 1.9, and 2.6. and are intended to improve the feasibility of multifamily and affordable housing development. You can see here in the list of proposed amendments. The first one, reduce minimum lot size requirements to 5,000 square feet in the R2 zoning district. That's the only one related to R2. The rest of the list all pertains to proposed amendments to R3, R4, and R5. So really targeting zoning districts that allow more dense residential development where you're going to capture more affordable housing as well. And we'll dig in deeper to these on the next slide, but again, The overall goal with these amendments is to better align development standards with densities assumed in the housing element and also increasing the feasibility of developing multifamily housing in order for series to reach the arena targets. Next slide. So this slide summarizes several of the more significant development standard amendments proposed for the R3, R4, and R5 zoning districts. Currently, these districts allow single-family detached dwellings. The proposed amendments include prohibiting single-family dwellings in these districts so that multifamily developments are the priority and the land designated for more dense development is prioritized. In support of efficient land use, the proposed amendments establish minimum density ranges, which ensures that multifamily districts are utilized more efficiently for residential development. So you can see for R3, the existing density standard is a maximum of 12 dwelling units per acre. What is proposed is establishing a minimum density of seven dwelling units per acre. For R4, Currently, the existing density standard is 20 dwelling units per acre. We're proposing a minimum density of 12 dwelling units per acre. And for R5, existing density standards is a maximum of 30 dwelling units per acre. What is proposed is 20 dwelling units per acre as a minimum. These amendments also increase allowable lot coverage and reduce front yard setbacks, which provides greater flexibility in site design and building placement. For R3, 4, and 5, the existing front yard setback minimum is 20 feet for all three of the districts. What's proposed is 15 feet as a maximum front yard setback for all three districts. Again, this is to maximize space for development. And then for the R4 zoning district, there's a cleanup amendment included, which is related to maximum building height. When we were going through all of these zoning districts to propose all of these amendments, we noticed that the R4 zoning district height maximum is currently 35 feet, which is below the height maximum for R3 and R5, which both permit a maximum height of 40 feet. So just making sure that that aligns. There's really no reason why R3 would have a higher maximum building height than an R4, which allows higher density. So simple cleanup there. Yeah, and just again, these changes are intended to remove development constraints for multifamily and affordable housing. which supports the city meeting its lower income reno requirements next slide so proposed parking standards will implement housing element programs 1.9 and 2.6 currently the parking requirements increase based on the number of bedrooms within a unit The proposed amendment establishes consistent parking requirement of one and one half spaces per unit, regardless of the number of bedrooms. In addition, provisions for affordable housing developments are being proposed as well, which would include a requirement to reduce parking requirements to one half space per unit. These amendments are intended to reduce development costs, improve site design flexibility, and allow more land area to be developed to residential units and open space. Not to harp on parking or anything, but this is typically a point of contention for most jurisdictions. because there's this feeling that there's often not enough parking. However, from the state's perspective, the priority is increasing housing production and parking requirements are one of the largest constraints to developing housing, particularly affordable housing. The challenge is really balancing the amount of land devoted to parking with the number of residential units needed for a project to be financially feasible. service. Parking lots consume a significant amount of developable land, and they often substantially reduce the number of units that can be built on a site. If you look at structured or underground parking, it helps to preserve the unit count because you're preserving developable space, but those facilities are often very, very costly, which contributes to their overall development costs. Generally, jurisdictions are kind of being forced to reduce the parking requirements to align with state requirements and guidance. So these amendments are largely responsive to the state's efforts to address the housing crisis and the need for more affordable housing. So this will help the city meet its renum targets as well to get those lower income units. Next slide. So the next group of amendments addresses housing types that receive specific protections under state law. These amendments update the city's regulations related to accessory dwelling units, supportive housing, employee housing, emergency shelters, residential care facilities. It's quite a long list. And the overarching theme here is that State law requires these housing types to be permitted, mostly to be permitted similarly to other residential uses, and also requires that local regulations not impose unnecessary barriers to their development. For example, residential care facilities, under the proposed amendment, the city would allow them in all residential zones and treat them the same as other residential uses of the same type. And the goal here is to ensure that facilities are permitted objectively and consistently without additional or unique requirements. And the goal of the state is to increase variety of housing types available to meet the diverse needs of residents, which include individuals with disabilities, low-income households, persons experiencing homelessness, employees, farmworkers, etc., um so ultimately the proposed amendments relax permitting requirements for these types of housing and align the local regulations with state law to facilitate development of these housing types so ultimately we're making sure the city's code aligns with state requirements next slide Housing Element Program 1.7 requires the city to maintain consistency with state density bonus law. So the proposed amendment really just streamlines the city's local density bonus ordinance and relies primarily on the statute. The reason for this is because state density bonus law frequently changes through legislation. So referencing the statute just helps ensure the municipal code remains consistent with state law over time, reduces the amount of times that staff has to go in and change the ordinance as well. And to be clear, this amendment, it doesn't change the availability of the density bonus incentives. It's just simplifying the city's regulations and reduces potential conflicts. Overall, state density bonus law would govern density bonus requests if there's any conflict in the city's code. Next slide. So this slide addresses amendments related to fair housing and housing preservation. The reasonable accommodation amendments clarify appeal procedures. They remove subjective review criteria and ensure that requests are evaluated consistently with fair housing laws. The city's code for reasonable accommodation had several sections that included very subjective review criteria, and I'm drawing off memory now, but Um, it basically said that, you know, uh, certain findings had to be made, but it wasn't, um, a comprehensive or conclusive list. Uh, other findings could be made in addition to, so it was very subjective. Um, and the state requires that these findings be objective and very transparent. So ultimately the proposed changes help protect applicants. requesting reasonable accommodation from appeals by unrelated parties, such as neighboring property owners who may oppose the resulting design feature or the accommodation being requested by the applicant. For example, a wheelchair ramp, that's just a very easy example of a reasonable accommodation request that a neighboring party could request. you know, be present at a meeting and then basically appeal and say, this is not something that I want to see. So part of what this amendment does is it limits the parties which can make an appeal, which is only the applicant or the beneficiary. But then also the findings that the planning commission is required to make have to be objective. For replacement housing, the city doesn't currently have an ordinance that includes provisions for replacement housing. So a new municipal code chapter establishing replacement housing provisions consistent with the state law is proposed. And basically, the ordinance says the city cannot approve or issue a building permit for a housing development that would demolish an existing residential unit unless the demolished unit is replaced in accordance with state replacement housing requirements. And together, these amendments ensure consistency with state fair housing requirements and state laws intended to preserve existing housing supply. Next slide. We're almost there, I promise. Only a few more slides. affordable housing water and sewer priority policy, so the proposed policy implements housing element program 3.13 state law requires local agencies to prioritize affordable housing developments when water or sewer capacity is limited. So essentially the policy just establishes written procedures identifying how the city would allocate available water or sewer capacity if such constraints were to occur in the future. So you can think of this as an if-then framework where if the city experiences limited water or sewer capacity, then developments that include affordable housing units would be prioritized for such allocations. Next slide. So what do these amendments achieve? Collectively, the proposed amendments implement the housing element programs. They align the series zoning code with adopted housing element. They're maintaining compliance with state housing law, removing barriers to housing development, expanding housing opportunities, improving consistency and predictability of project review and approvals, and supporting affordable housing production. Implementation of these programs is an important component of maintaining housing element compliance and also positioning the city for future housing and infrastructure funding opportunities. Next slide. Now following tonight's hearing, the proposed amendments are anticipated to proceed to the city council for the first reading on July 27th, followed by a second reading and adoption in August. The date is to be determined. And the ordinance would be effective 30 days after adoption. Next slide. So based on the analysis presented in the staff report and the proposed amendments, City staff recommends that the planning commission adopt a resolution recommending that the city council approve the municipal code amendments and adopt the affordable housing water and sewer priority policy. Next slide. Okay, that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions from the commission.

Thank you, Ms. Pope. Any questions from commissioners to start off?

The half parking spot, we can't change that, right? It's like an all-in package.

I'm sorry, what was it? Parking? Is that what you said?

Yeah, the half spot per unit. We can't make that a minimum of one. It's all-inclusive.

Yeah, so you're referring specifically to the affordable housing?

Yes.

Yeah. I mean, that's technically the commitment that the city has made with the state in developing that program. Um, technically the city doesn't have to abide by that, but what's going to happen is you will report out implementation of the program and your annual progress report to each CD. Um, and then there may or may not be back and forth from the state saying the city did or did not meet the commitment that was made in the housing element for that program. I would not advise to change that, that parking minimum.

If they build just one unit, does that automatically defer to one parking?

Point five is for specifically deed-restricted affordable housing. So you have to take into consideration affordable housing projects typically have clientele that may not be able to afford a vehicle, may be a one-vehicle family. So that low number is based in data collected from affordable housing development. So it's not just pulled out of the thin air. So it's reflective of typical... standard number of cars in complex. So it has to be a deed-restricted affordable housing to get that 0.5. Otherwise, it's the 1.5 per unit that we're proposing.

Any other questions with that?

And really fast, so then, Commissioner, if it was an affordable housing unit that's deed-restricted, it's 0.5. You can't have 0.5 of a parking spot, so you would be rounded up to 1.

Are there any areas that you've seen that this has worked in that has not become a rental neighborhood or a bunch of foreclosures because, number one, the housing is too small for first-time buyers that want to raise a family? No front yard, no backyard. You've got no parking. So I can see, and I've seen it. and a lot of these neighborhoods end up in foreclosures rentals and they become disgusting and then it um reflects on the rest of the city i mean i would argue that

People are already living where they can live. I believe when I first started in Ceres, a duplex caught on fire and there were 10 people in the home. So 10 people were living in a housing unit meant for maybe four or five. So people already live in conditions that I feel like you're kind of describing would be a result of an affordable housing project or smaller units. Smaller units inherently provide more units to the city so that those kinds of incidences don't occur, so that home ownership is more achievable. I lived in two very large cities, Los Angeles and San Jose. You need more units to encourage people to have some equity in where they're living, but also it changes habits The more cars you have, the less you rely on transportation. If it's harder to have a car, people rely on public transportation. Public transportation becomes better. It is a constant, you know, what's first, the chicken or the egg? But to say that it will become a slum because it's affordable, I think it occurs today where people buy a slew of new units and rent them out. So to specifically say it's because lots are smaller or because they're affordable, I don't think that we would be able to say that definitively, no.

But also the affordable housing attracts investors who are going to come in and buy the bulk of it probably and then rent it out. And what's going to stop that?

I mean, the majority of affordable housing units have to be monitored and they are deed restricted. So there are rental requirements. So a investor can't buy deed restricted affordable units. They have to have rental income proof. Some of our home programs, we do a yearly reporting. We have to show the state that anybody that's moved in still maintains their income limit or cap, that they don't receive more social security than they said they were, that they haven't started an online Etsy business, and they're getting more income. So there are checks and balances to avoid that scenario. So if it is a true affordable housing project, which many of these programs, you have to be You can't just say, oh, I'm affordable housing because it's a lower price than the market. It has to be a deed-restricted affordable unit, and then those come with very specific rental income requirements that would avoid that scenario.

Leah, on 1.3 for the reduced lot sizes, can you, just for the record, just describe what R2 zoning district is?

Our two would be mostly duplex units, so a shared wall. So you're looking at a 5,000 square foot. Or if you fit two detached single family, it would be on a 5,000 square foot lot. I haven't done the density requirement, but if two does not achieve I think it's a minimum of seven dwelling units per acre. You're probably still only looking at one single family housing. So the lot is a 5,000 square foot lot. Typically R2, you see a duplex, but then R2 also requires a certain density requirement. So you can build single family detached in R2, but you have to hit and not exceed a minimum density. So it just depends on what you're proposing, the lot size, but a minimum lot size has been reduced so that... If someone wanted to come in, they can get more units on the whole.

What zone in the city is home to the most single-family homes?

R1. Okay.

So this change mainly is for duplexes and apartments, could you say?

Yeah, I would say that most single-family... So R2 also, I guess when you look at it that way... You're looking at a density requirement, I believe, R2. I don't remember what our density is. If Julian could look that up. I apologize. I don't have my computer. But if you have a 5,000 square foot lot and you want to build more units, you have to look at your density of the overall site. So you could do R2. You'll get a higher yield of units.

But at that point, developers would probably move towards a duplex. Yeah.

And ideally, I don't want to see R2 go to single-family detached, but that is common. But they're doing lots that are like, most builders are doing lots between 25 and 3,000 square feet, putting single-family detached. And then they don't have a backyard, but the goal is to get single-family detached. I would love to see an R2 product, a true R2 product in our R2 zone, like attached or cottage dwellings, just more communal living to get more units to the acreage.

My other question was on 1.9, prohibiting single-family dwellings. Can I just get some clarification on that? So apartment complexes, et cetera, would take precedent. So single-family dwellings are prohibited. And is that a state law requirement?

No, it's just...

Can I just get some more justification on that point?

Sure. So typically, when you have a higher R3, R4, or R5, you're expecting to see a product with more than one single family dwelling unit on it. That is the purpose of that zone. If we wanted to see an entire city of just single family detached, we would have only R1. But you can't have a complete community without a variety of housing types. Duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, cottage homes, true walk-up apartment style homes. So we are trying to, and sometimes people will say, well, I'll have this piece of property. I'm going to put my single family house there. And then that person leaves and someone comes and buys it. Now they put a shop and a pool and then that home never will go away. No one's going to tear down a nicely developed single family home, but that site is now underutilized. It has a higher zoning yield, but the likelihood of a well-developed established home being torn down and replaced is slim to none. So by discouraging that, we're hoping that those sites will be used for Actual density versus a big yard for somebody.

No, that, that makes sense. That makes sense. I'm looking at the zoning district map on right now.

And I will add that it's not in the legislature that, you know, single family dwellings can only be permitted and low density zones. However, in working with HCD and preparing the housing element, they specifically identified this as a constraint to development of affordable and multifamily units. in the zones that should be prioritizing those kinds of developments, which is why it was included as a program.

Okay. Any other questions from commissioners? Take it out to the public. Anybody in the public like to talk on this item?

John Warren, member of the public video series. This has been kicked around for quite some time, changing these rules, especially where it comes to parking. And in our city, going forward, everybody's going to need a car to drive to work. Basically, it's the way it is. And so when you reduce the amount of parking spaces to increase the size of housing, It's just not a good thing. People need to park their cars. And you can see this with the housing units that are being built today. Half a car per bedroom, half a car per structure is ridiculous. Dave Pratt and I have been looking for that half a car for a long time. We just can't seem to find one. might find a bicycle. And a lot of people in our city run around on bicycles, but that's because they don't have a driver's license. They might be 16 or they might be 56 with a half a dozen DUIs. They don't have a driver's license. That's the reason they're on a bicycle. So I would object to this just from the aspect of the lack of parking. Every apartment, every house should have parking for two vehicles. Most homes are built with two inside the garage and two out in the driveway. That's four, which is well beyond what the requirement is with the new standards. And so I would consider this in your review of this project, I would encourage you to vote no, just because it doesn't meet parking requirements for the citizens of our community. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Warren. Anybody on Zoom?

No hands raised on Zoom, but staff did receive a letter. from Cal HDF that I can read into the record.

Dear Ceres Planning Commission,

California Housing Defense Fund submits this letter as a public comment concerning item six on the agenda for the June 15th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, a proposed amendment to the city code. We write specifically to comment on the proposed amendments to the code sections governing the development of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units. Cal HDF applauds the city for updating its ADU regulations to keep pace with changes in state law. However, Cal HDF writes to flag specific legal issues with the city's proposed ADU ordinance, which the city must address before approving the ordinance. The law gives local governments authority to enact zoning ordinances that implement a variety of development standards on ADUs. Government Code 66314. The standards in these local ordinances are limited by state law so as not to overlay, overly restrict ADU development. Separately from local ADU ordinances, Government Code Section 66323 establishes a narrower set of ADU types that local governments have a ministerial duty to approve, notwithstanding Sections 66314 to 66322. A local agency shall ministerially approve these types of ADUs. This means that ADUs that satisfy the minimal requirements of section 66323 must be approved regardless of any contrary provisions of the local ADU ordinance. Local governments may not impose their own standards on such ADUs. Government code 66323 sub B, a local agency shall not impose any objective development or design standard that is not authorized by this section upon any accessory dwelling unit that meets the requirements of any of paragraphs one to four, inclusive of subdivision A. In addition, ADUs that qualify for the protections of government code section 66323, like other ADUs, must be processed by local governments within 60 days of a complete permit application submittal. State law also prohibits creating regulations on ADU development not explicitly allowed by state law. Government Code Section 66315 states no additional standards other than those provided in Section 66314 shall be used or imposed, including an owner-occupant requirement, except that a local agency may require that the property may be used for rentals of terms 30 days or longer. Code Section 18.28.060 limits new construction, detached ADUs to 1,200 square feet in size. We applaud the city for allowing such a generous size allowance. However, the city may not impose any such size limits on ADUs eligible for the protections of Government Code Section 66323, Subdivision A4, which allows for the development of detached ADUs on multifamily parcels without size restriction. City may not impose size restrictions on these ADUs due to the provisions of government code section 66323 subdivision B. A local agency shall not impose any objective development or design standard that is not authorized by this section upon any accessory dwelling unit that meets the requirements of any of paragraphs one to four inclusive of subdivision A. This means that the city cannot impose any standards on section 66323 ADUs beyond what is specifically allowed in that section of state law, including a size restriction for ADUs developed pursuant to government code section 66323 subdivision A4. See pages 16 to 19 of the March 2026 HCD ADU handbook for more information on section 66323 ADUs.

All right, go ahead and close the public hearing, bring it back to the commission for further questions and action. And so this goes to the city council in July. Okay. I will make a motion to approve with the changes to parking. Instead of 0.5, I would like it to go to 1. Currently, it's at 1.5 for the one-bedroom dwellings. I would like those to be at 1 compared to 1.5. Is that a state law?

It was a program that we had in the... adopted a housing element. So should we change it? We have to report it to HCD. And if they feel like we've essentially kind of backpedaled, we'll face whatever consequence.

Okay. Well, I, again, I would make that motion to the city council. If they want to revert back to the 0.5, then by all means. So that'll be my motion.

I second.

Okay. Got a first and a second. Can we get a roll call?

Just to clarify, was that Commissioner Jammu that seconded? Yeah. Commissioner Goebel?

Aye.

Commissioner Jammu?

Aye.

Commissioner Morales?

Aye.

Commissioner Perez?

Aye.

Chairperson Condon?

Aye.

Motion passes 5-0.

Okay, moving on to unfinished business. Turn it over to staff for the...

update on the recommendation of the moratorium yes good evening commissioner chair and commissioners this evening to assist staff in preparing a future staff report and evaluating the feasibility of a potential moratorium on gas stations and car wash facilities staff is requesting additional direction regarding the concerns objectives and desired findings Specifically, staff are requesting clarification on what findings or concerns support consideration of the moratorium. Is the commission concerned about impacts to public health, safety, or welfare? Are there concerns regarding infrastructure capacity, including sewer, water, circulation, or other public facilities? Is there an environmental concern such as groundwater impacts? air quality, or the concerns related to land use compatibility, market saturation, aesthetics. Is the Commission recommending a temporary moratorium for a specific duration or an indefinite prohibition subject to future policy review? Specific outcomes is a commission seeking to achieve during the momentum. Preparation of a zoning ordinance amendment, infrastructure study, general plan update, just some guidance, additional use permits, distance between businesses. For reference, we currently have the following existing and proposed facilities within city. So car wash facilities, we have four franchise car washes, which are established, including two currently in development for a total of six. One locally owned small business car wash, located approximately 1,052 feet from the nearest existing car wash. We have two fueling station self-service car washes. One is located approximately 730 feet from a proposed new development and one 24-hour car wash facility. Including pending projects, the city could have a total of approximately eight car washes. Gas stations, a significant concentration of gas stations is located near the Mitchell and Service Road interchange serving Highway 99. Another cluster is located near the Hatch Road in Herndon area, which is also adjacent to Highway 99. Additional established stations are located along Whitmore Avenue and other commercial corridors. We have identified six stations along Whitmore Avenue from Morgan to Mitchell Road and five fueling stations or gas stations. from Morgan on service all the way to the service and Mitchell corridor. So we're asking tonight for direction from the commission to assist staff in preparing a staff report, to bring back a staff report to the commission. And that's where we are tonight.

Okay, so Julian, would it be helpful for each commissioner to give you their thoughts on this topic? Yes. Okay. Who wants to start?

Yeah. Okay. I believe the reason we were discussing it was due to market saturation, the amount of new developments that have been requested in the last few years and some of the public outreach, right? Obviously, if we don't have a moratorium, if zoning is there, it kind of inhibits us from not approving it. So it was more of market saturation. And is there really an additional need?

I also agree that the market saturation is a little ridiculous on these car washes and gas stations. I think the city is going in the wrong direction. We need to bring stuff to the city that is going to bring people to the city. Right now, I don't see our city having anything for a family to do here. So they go to Modesto, Turlock, etc., We need to bring people here that want to stay here and want to do things here. So unless you want to fill your car up or get it washed, that's about all we have right now.

You guys want to go ahead?

Yeah. So rather than a moratorium, why don't we just focus on the use value of gas stations and car washes, rather than put kind of an arbitrary number and worry about market saturation, which really isn't our purview as planning commissioners. I would argue that, say, if you want to build a new gas station in the city of Ceres, maybe 30% of your pumps need to be for EV charging or something like that. Something that puts a metric and a use value on potential development without really limiting development unto itself. And maybe even with car washes, a lot of the comments that were opposed to car washing was the lack of sales tax revenue, but perhaps there's a way we can say, you know, you have to have at least five employees, right? Local employees. I don't know if that's really our purview again as planning commission. So forgive me if I'm wrong, but I do think, I mean, a moratorium is understandable, but in my view, I think having a broader conversation about use value of those two services is, is more effective than just kind of labeling a number as some sort of ceiling.

Francisco?

I do believe that we are oversaturated with the gas stations and the car washes as well. I mean, a couple of locations you have maybe two or three car washes within a walking distance of each other. Two or three gas stations across the street from each other. So I think we really need to look into that.

Okay. I would agree with most of my colleagues. Julian, you said we have 11 gas stations just on those thoroughfares. Did you search outside of those?

Yes, we have 15 gas stations altogether.

15? How do you define gas station? So where there's a gas pump.

So a self-service pump? Self-service pump. So we have on Whitmore, we have Whitmore and Morgan, Whitmore and Blaker, Whitmore, and I believe it's on the other side of Rockefeller, there's one there. Then we have the one on... The Chevron on Central. And then we have the one on Whitmore and Mitchell. And then the Chevron on Mitchell. And we have the Herndon 4. So most of our saturations for gas stations are in the corridors right off the freeway where you want them. Those are your high volume. So on and off, easily accessible. So that is for on the economic side. Those are where you want your gas stations. Unfortunately, we don't have any on Mitchell and Hatch Road. That's leaving out of town. But we do have them on our main corridor. So our high traffic corridors in the city, you'll find a gas station. For market saturation, the city is not the owners of the property. So it's land use. So if it is a permitted use, they come into our office. On the economic side, I'm going to encourage them. It is something that, you know, we have. They may not bring sales tax, but they do bring property taxes to the city. So there's meal taxes. There's other revenue that these businesses do bring into the city. So, you know, we have 49,000 population. We have approximately, what is it, there's 8,000. Bar washes, it's about average for our population. But just the direction that you want as the commission so that we can bring that staff report is all we need tonight.

Okay, because this has already gotten consensus. Okay. So some of the things that I would like to be brought back when this does get on the agenda is comparison between other cities, fueling stations per 10,000 resident, and also car washes per 10,000 resident. The area average along with the state average And I will, I want to submit into the record, the city of Manteca is voting on this topic tomorrow, and I have a printout of their agenda on this topic, and I think it'd be very helpful for staff. As far as final direction of what this body can vote on, I think a temporary moratorium, zoning code amendment, CUP requirement, which would require not only the planning commission, but also the city council. And also the other option could be a general plan amendment. Again, I think it's time that we listen to the community on this topic. And I think Since my understanding, since this already got consensus, it was going to be on the agenda tonight, but staff needed more time. So I think we should push out, if possible, if IT could assist to push out a short survey that could live on our website and encourage people to give their thoughts and invite them to the planning commission meeting when this topic is back. If that's not possible, that's fine. I would, when I do vote on this topic, I would like the city council to at least do a survey or more outreach to the community to not just leave a Facebook comment, but actually show up to a meeting and give your thoughts and opinion. So I know that was a lot, but that's kind of my thoughts on this item. Thank you, Jessica.

Well, one point here is some of this stuff is probably going to have to be approved by the city manager if we start to spend too much staff time or too many funds.

So... Well, again, Tom, with all due respect, we all gave consensus on this item already. So...

I understand that. I'm just saying, you know, for staff, for outreach and things like that, that might be beyond your powers as commissioners. So you can certainly request it. It's just a matter of it, if it will be approved or not.

Yeah, I understand that. Julian's working out of class and this, again, this isn't even his duties, but I understand that. And consensus has been given and with my opinion, it could be voted on the next meeting. Yeah. Okay, Julie, anything else?

That's it, thank you. Okay, all righty.

Moving on to new business, item number seven. Ms. George.

Good evening, Commissioner Morales. I'm not trying to face my back to you. I feel so rude right now. So there's no presentation for this next item, but there is a staff report. The next item is a discussion regarding planning commission compensation established pursuant to resolution number 89-183. So the result of tonight's direction will be in the form of a staff report to the city council for further action. So currently a little bit of background, planning commissioners receive a stipend of $80 a month for attendance at planning commission meetings. So this item was brought forward at the request of the chair for discussion by the full commission regarding whether the current stipend should remain in place. So as background, that compensation is established by city council resolution and any change to the current stipend structure, whether it's elimination or modification would ultimately require action by the city council. So we want to open it up. We want to get discussion. We want to get direction. But the three possibilities that I came up with while thinking through this were the following. So first, the commission can determine that the current stipend structure should remain in place, in which case no further action would be necessary. It would start and end tonight. The second action is if the commission wishes to recommend elimination of the stipend, commission may adopt the attached resolution recommending that the city council repeal resolution number 89-183 and also amend the series municipal code. So your payment is actually required as part of the municipal code. So it's not just a repeal of the resolution. It's actually an amendment to the municipal code as well. And then third, if the commission would like to pursue modifications to the current compensation structure, rather than the full repeal, the commission could provide direction to staff and staff would return to the planning commission with a future item. So if we're just modifying that resolution, the stipend amount, we would take it back to planning commission prior to bringing it to city council. If we're not changing the structure at all, we're not going to bring it back at all. If we're doing a full repeal, we'll just take that staff report straight to city council.

Thank you, Ms. Schwartz. Commissioners, any questions of staff? I have a question. Do we happen to know if other municipalities in our area pay the planning commission? Do we have that information or not?

I don't have that information. I can speak on my personal experience in other cities. Most cities do pay a stipend.

And which cities can you reference?

I don't know that I can on the record. I can get back to you privately.

Okay. Sorry. Yeah, go ahead. Any commissioners?

Yeah, just questions in terms of... Yeah, I'm going to hold off. Thank you.

Okay. Well, I'll make a motion to repeal Resolution 89-183 and establish no stipend and amend the Municipal Code. Again, City Council voted on the budget recently. The surplus was about $20,000. We cut from parks and rec heavily, including Christmas Tree Lane and Trunk or Treat recreational events. This is a total public service is just about giving back to your community. These meetings typically last an hour. This one lasted quite an hour and a half. Again, we don't do this for $80 a month. It's about giving back to our community. And so that'll be my motion. But commissioners, with all due respect, you vote your conscience. And it's not a personal issue.

I was just hoping to have a little bit more discussion.

Oh, yeah. I was waiting before I made a motion. So it was just silent. So I just, yeah.

Yeah, I'm just curious, because this is the second time we've had a discussion. I did notice my comments from a couple meetings ago weren't in the minutes. But I did want to just say that anecdotally, when you sell something on Facebook Marketplace, you always put a price on it, because if you say something is free, it is in the wind, right? That turn of effective communication usually goes south, just from my own experiences. And I would argue that by putting a a stipend to this work. We talked about individual site visits, right? The background work that we do. I think people just take things a little bit more seriously when there's a small price tag to it. I do know that kind of a larger discussion about city finances is really up to the city council, but I would argue that this gives validity to our work in a way that you know, gets better, I think, better outcomes in terms of our investment and our time. And as someone who has to find babysitting for multiple kids on Monday nights, that 80 bucks goes quite far. And I really appreciate it. So I feel like there's a reciprocal relationship between my service and the service of the city to make this happen for people who don't completely have the means to kind of cover that themselves. So this allows for people of all incomes to take part in city government. But now I'm just riffing, so thank you.

Any other thoughts from commissioners? And to confirm, we get $80 a month no matter if we have a meeting, two meetings, or no meetings, correct? That is correct. Yeah, that's my understanding. Okay.

I know one thing Dori said last time, which kind of makes sense too, is for people that do need childcare and everything like that, why not be per meeting? That's another basis to think about or consider.

Is it possible to do a motion of modification? You know, being paid per meeting, say if it's $80 flat fee for the month, we assume it's $40 per meeting. Maybe perhaps if one is canceled, that means that's a $40 stipend for that particular month. And I think there are gradations we can do that are effective without having to rewrite the municipal code.

Yeah, there's certainly different options. So just looking for a motion.

I think there's already a motion on the table.

Yeah, I think that one died with lack of a second.

I mean, can I make a motion?

Sorry, my Parley Pro is very outdated. A motion to amend the stipend to be rather than a flat monthly fee, have it be per meeting and have it be adjusted to our schedule needs. So if a meeting is canceled, you obviously don't need to get paid for that.

And before there's a second, if there's going to be a second, I just want to clarify that the amending or modifying the stipend structure would come back to planning commission. So we would not go straight to city council.

Well, would it be possible to do it by minute order? I'm sorry for interrupting. If it's agendized to make an action currently.

Are you asking me?

Oh, well, I'm saying I believe we can make a minute order to make the recommendation to city council since we've agendized action on this item.

Yeah, that works. I just didn't know if the commissioners wanted additional analysis.

Yeah, I think we're at that point now. A second. Okay, we've got a first and a second. Do we have a roll call?

Commissioner Global?

And this is to modify it, not get rid of it?

This is to modify, well, staff, you go ahead.

Yeah, so my understanding, and Commissioner Perez, please make sure I have it right, is to modify the current structure as it is right now is $80 a month regardless. So the new structure would be $40 a meeting. So if there's two meetings, you would still get $80. But if a meeting is canceled, you would only get 40 or zero, depending on how many were attended.

So mine would be nay.

Commissioner Jemmue?

Aye.

Commissioner Morales?

Aye.

Commissioner Perez?

Aye.

Chairperson Condon?

Nay.

Motion passes 3 to 2.

All right, moving on. Matters initiated by the Planning Commission staff, none. Reports. While we had Ms. George and Leah here, I had a question on temporary use permits. Which governing body has the power to modify, revoke temporary use permits once they're approved by city staff, or is there no such thing? Just kind of looking for clarification.

Yeah, so a temporary use permit is reviewed and approved administratively by staff for a set or defined time limit. And as a use permit, it can be revoked, and it would be revoked by staff. A general comment on TUPs is that there is a contact provided prior to the beginning of the temporary use permit activities so that if at any time during the TUP life, if they're not complying with one of their conditions, it can be revoked.

Revoked by staff or would it take by the city council or planning commission?

It would be by staff.

Okay.

Like if they're found not compliant with their use permit, we would cease their operation. Got it.

Well, that's it for me. Any other reports from staff or commissioners?

No?

All right. We'll go ahead and adjourn this meeting. And our next meeting is on July 6th, 6 p.m.