Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, folks, thanks for joining us. 6 o'clock, go ahead and call this meeting to order. Can we get a roll call?

Commissioner Goebel?

Here.

Commissioner Jammu? Absent. Commissioner Morales?

Present.

Commissioner Perez? Here. Chairperson Condit?

Here. Can you join me in the Pledge of Allegiance? Pledge of Allegiance. All right, citizens' communication. While the series 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 by the planning commission. Citizens are entitled to address the Planning Commission on any agenda item subject to the five-minute provision. Is there anyone tonight that would like to make public comment on an item not on the agenda? Seeing none, anybody on Zoom?

No hands raised on Zoom.

Okay, go ahead and close citizens communication. Moving on, conflict of interest. Is there anyone on the Planning Commission that would like to declare a conflict of interest? Seeing none. Moving on to the consent calendar. All matters listed on the consent calendar are considered routine in nature and will be enacted upon by a single motion unless it is otherwise requested by a commissioner or the public for special consideration. Otherwise, the recommendation of staff will be to accept and act upon by roll call vote. Is there anyone on the commission that would like to pull an item for further discussion?

Staff would like to request that we move item, excuse me, item six. Item six, from public hearing to unfinished business. We need a motion and a second.

Does that operate the same or what's the reasoning for that?

Tom, do you want to?

Sure, it'll operate the same. There's no need for a public hearing on that. It looks like it was just misplaced on the agenda.

Okay, and action can still be taken on that item, correct? That's correct. Okay. I'll go ahead and motion to move item six to, you said unfinished business? To unfinished business.

I'll second.

I got a first and a second. Here, roll call.

Commissioner Global?

Aye.

Commissioner Jammu? Aye. Commissioner Morales?

Aye.

Commissioner Perez? Aye. Chairperson Condit.

Aye. Anybody from the public that would like an item from consent pulled? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to commission and I'll make a motion on items one through four.

With the green sheet for the minutes?

Yeah, with the corrected green sheet on the minutes.

I'll second that.

We've got a first and a second. We've got a roll call.

Commissioner Global.

Aye.

Commissioner Morales.

Aye.

Commissioner Perez. Chairperson Condon.

Aye. All right. Moving on to public hearing, item number five. Turn it over to staff. I believe Ms. George.

All right, good evening chair and Commissioners tonight's item is a request for approval of a second 10 year extension. For conditional use permit number 0635 which would allow the continued operation of an existing wireless communications facility, which is a cell tower. located at 1331 Angie Avenue. This request does not involve any expansion, modifications, or operational changes to the existing facility and is solely intended to allow the facility to continue operating for an additional 10-year term. So the reason that it's coming back for commission action to renew the lease or the term of its operation is because there was a condition in the original use permit that it would be good for 10 years and subject to renewal every 10 years.

Next slide. Thank you.

So as mentioned, the applicant is requesting an approval of a 10-year extension of the conditional use permit. The request is limited to extending the expiration date of the permit and does not include any modifications to the approved tower, equipment, site layout, or operations. So if approved, the permit would remain effective through September 19, 2036. The current expiration is September 19 of 2026. So the extension would go start on September 19 and run through 2036. Next slide. Existing project site. The project site is located at 1331 Angie Avenue. It's kind of shown on your screen there and also within your staff report. It is within the Mitchell Road corridor area of the city. The site consists of approximately one acre and is already developed with the wireless communications facility and all of the associated equipment. The surrounding area is predominantly industrial and the facility has operated at this location for nearly 20 years. So a little bit of history. Conditional use permit number 0635 was originally approved by the planning commissioner in September of 2006. The approval authorized construction and operation of an 82-foot, 4-inch monopole wireless communications facility. And then in 2016, the planning commission approved a 10-year extension of the permit, extending its expiration date through September 19, 2026. The current request represents the second extension for the facility. So for land use and zoning, the property carries a light industrial general plan designation. When the original permit was approved in 2006, the planning commission determined the facility was consistent with the general plan and compatible with surrounding land uses because no changes are proposed to the facility or its operation Staff finds that the project remains consistent with the city's general plan.

Next slide.

The project site is located within the industrial park zoning district and is governed by the Mitchell road corridor specific plan. The Planning Commission previously determined that the facility was compatible with the purposes of the district when approving the permit in 2006 and reaffirmed those findings during the 2016 extension. Again, because no modifications are proposed, staff finds that the facility does remain consistent with the zoning designation and the specific plan. The facility remains operational and is in compliance with its existing approval staff is not aware of any code enforcement actions operational concerns or compliance issues associated with the facility. The applicant is requesting only the ability to continue operating the existing approved use for an additional 10 years. staff did evaluate the requests in light of existing conditions on the site and the surrounding area. Again, since the facility has operated for approximately 20 years without issue and no changes are proposed to the approved project, staff finds that the site remains adequate to support the use and that continued operation of the facility will not adversely affect surrounding properties or public health, safety or welfare. For the environmental review, staff evaluated the request pursuant to CEQA and determined that the project does remain categorically exempt under CEQA guidelines section 15301, existing facilities. The request authorizes only continued operation and does not involve any kind of expansion, modification, or intensification of the approved use. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find the project categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA guidelines and adopt a resolution approving a second 10-year extension of the Conditional Use Permit 0635, which again would extend the current operation to September 19, 2036. There's the carryover condition that at that time it would come back to Commission if it were to be re-extended again. And that concludes staff's presentation. I'm available for any questions, and the project applicant is also on the line for any questions.

All right. Thanks, Ms. George. The public hearing is now open. Does the applicant have anything to say on this item?

This is Jacob Hamilton. I'm representing the applicant, SBA. I don't have anything to add. That sounds... exactly like what the project is. And I'll be here for questions if you need it.

Okay. Thank you. Go ahead and open this up for public comment. Anybody here tonight that would like to make public comment on this item? Seeing none. Anybody on Zoom or emails?

And no emails for this item and no hands raised.

Okay, go ahead and close the public hearing portion and bring it back to the Commission for further discussion. Any questions of staff or the applicant? I guess my only question, the 10-year extension, is that just because that's how it kind of started? Is that the reasoning?

Yeah, it was just built into the original conditions of approval.

Okay. All right, well, I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve. Go ahead and second. Got a first and a second. Can we get a roll call?

Commissioner Global?

Aye.

Commissioner Morales?

Aye.

Commissioner Perez? Aye. Chairperson Condon?

Aye. Thank you. All right. Moving on to unfinished business will be item number six.

I'll be presenting this item tonight. Is the audio okay? Yep, we hear you good. Sounds good. I wanted to acknowledge that there has been some irregularity in the procedure here for this recommendation. So that's mainly what I'll be reporting on tonight. During the last city council meeting, this item was actually brought to city council for discussion as a moratorium, recognizing that this is something that planning commission had been considering. The city council had consensus not to continue pursuing the item and they declined to provide authorization for further staff time related to this item. So that left staff, um, with this current draft of the staff report, which was drafted prior to that meeting. So we don't have much in the way of substantive updates for you on this or any further metrics, but we did want to give you guys an opportunity to discuss it. And it was agendized as an action, so you may make the recommendation. However, that's not going to come back to the city council as an agendized item. So that's sort of the background here. I'm happy to talk about the moratorium and the state law surrounding that if you have questions on it, but I'll let you guys go ahead and direct the discussion.

Okay. Go ahead and start, I guess, with the commission first before we take it out to the public. Any commissioners have any initial thoughts?

Yeah, I have a thought on this that We need to pay attention more to what the citizens are asking for and take that into account as well as any findings that we make. And I think it's important, uh, Listen to the citizens of this city on what they want. And by the looks of some of these emails that we got today, majority of them do not want to see any more gas stations and car washes.

Thanks, Commissioner. I'll go ahead and start. I just kind of, for the record and for the public of how we got to where we are today, I put together just a brief timeline. So on May 4th of 26, a referral was made by Vice Chair Jim Mu for a discussion on a moratorium for car washes. That came back to us on May 18th, 2026. The Planning Commission gave consensus for the moratorium to move forward as an agenda item. I added the fuel stations to that recommendation. Then on June 15th, the item was brought back, not as an agenda item, but a discussion. And staff stated they needed more feedback from all the commissioners, which was given. And then on July 13th, 2026, this item was taken to the city council for discussion on whether to spend staff time to assemble a staff report and further research. the Council gave consensus three to two not to give staff more time on this item. So I guess my initial question for you, Mr. City Attorney, why was this item taken to City Council if the Planning Commission had not officially voted on an agendized item?

that's a great question and i i think it really comes down to sort of uh the authorization for staff resources right um i think you know the city uh manager saw that staff was going to be spending quite a bit of time on this and wanted to make sure that it's something that was uh productive for the for the city and uh wanted to get um direction from the city council on whether or not they wanted to entertain this as a possibility. And they decided that they didn't and they didn't want to spend any more money on it. So I think that's what it really comes down to.

Okay. So then my next question is why was the staff report completed?

It was, uh, this was separate what had been drafted prior to that. Um, and so I just added on the, uh, the procedural history there and. And, you know, in an effort to respect the commissioners and the request for an agenda item, I thought it was necessary to bring this back to you. As a discussion and as an opportunity, um, you know, I, it wasn't necessarily required, but. Just as an as an effort to to discuss it once one last time before we were off the record on it.

Yeah. Okay. That no, that makes sense. And I appreciate it being brought back. And that takes me into my next point of we do have a municipal code and a process for the planning commission to that. We have the authority to make recommendations. to the city council pursuant to section 2.05.040F of the municipal code. Is that correct?

That's correct. And it doesn't provide for much in the way of procedure for that, but it does provide you with the authority. So in an effort to respect that authority and to let you guys discuss it. And if you wanted to act on it, that's how we got here.

Okay. But so we take action tonight. It's not going anywhere is what you're saying.

It'll be reported to the city council, but there's, you know, a staff report on this item. A moratorium is fairly extensive and requires pretty robust legal findings because you're going to be changing permitted land uses. So you really want to have some legal research and legal time into the exact agenda documents. So that was gonna be a larger project for staff.

Okay, so if there's action on this item, what does it look like going back to the city council then?

It'll be likely a report from the city attorney saying that you guys made the recommendation, but in light of council's previous consensus, we didn't agendize the item.

Well, it seems like... there was some sort of mistake of why this was taken to the city council before we had the opportunity to actually vote on the item. It makes zero sense to me why that was done, if it was done out of spite to disrupt this whole process. But it's very unfortunate that that happened. So I just want to say that on the record. And I guess moving to a question, I'm sure something else will come up, Tom, but moving on to, I know one member of the council relied on not moving forward with this discussion in fear that it would impact Maverick. Will a temporary moratorium impact that approved development?

That's an ongoing litigation. I can't discuss that on the record.

I think Mr. Aguirre was about to answer, but he may not now.

So on the moratoriums, any previous approved projects are not touched by the moratorium. So this would, the moratorium is only for new projects that come into the city.

Thank you. So the answer is no, it would not impact Maverick. Okay. Any other questions from the commission? Or to take out to the public? Okay, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing now. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this item? Hold on, Shirley.

Okay, I don't wanna see it go back to the city council They've already stated their opinion, whether it matters or not. It's going to cost more money to have it investigated. And this is what I refer to as the city nickel and diamond us to death. We cannot afford these stupid little things. This should have never went to the city council first. It did. It's done. They have stated their opinion. You're not going to change the mayor's mind. He's a little hypocrite to start with. I just, the answer is no. No gas station is going to try to come here that doesn't think they're going to make money. They're going to do their due diligence to see whether we want them or not. And that's at the time when you say yes or no. But to take this back to the city council to spend any more money on it is foolish. That's my opinion. Thank you.

Anybody else for a public?

Can you please state your name for the record?

Sure as hell, you all know it by now, but it's Shirley Rogers, Ceres, California.

We know you, Shirley. All right. Anybody else for public comment?

I would just like to say that I agree with what she said. If we're going to bring any more businesses into Ceres, it should be sit-down dinner places and no more chicken places, no more gas stations. But what Shirley said is correct. And my name is Barbara Lutz.

Thank you, Barbara. Anybody else for a public comment?

My name is Jorge Guerrero. My question to whoever made that mistake Why continue with something that was a mistake? Two mistakes don't make it right. Continue to make the same mistake over and over. And it's not just with this situation. It's with different situations that have happened in the city that a mistake is done, and it continues to happen over and over again. The Maverick gas station, a lot of people understand that it's a different type of gas station. It's going to make those diesel trucks a stopping series instead of driving by and just going either to Ripon or to Livingston, depending what direction they're traveling. But any other gas stations in town, we have an ISO right there on Whitmore and Mitchell that has been empty than bacon because another gas station went across the street more modern and you call it whatever you want to call it but run out of out of business the other gas stations um so what's going to happen in a few years we're going to have other gas stations around town that are going to be out of business looking back the same thing with the car wash there is a car wash on every main street in town. There's one on Whitmore, a new one on Whitmore. There's another one on Whitmore and Mitchell, the Quick Quack, Hatch Road. So we have access to car washes all around town. Why more car washes? Instead of focusing on trying to bring other businesses that are going to attract people, just like that diesel truck stopped. is going to attract people to stop in series, focus on bringing businesses that are going to attract people from out of town, instead of just filling out the empty lots with gas stations that, again, we don't have to drive more than a mile to find a gas station. If it was an electric vehicle charging a station, 100% in favor of that, because that's the direction that the world is going. But just having gas stations, just to have them, it's just, it makes no sense. It makes no sense to continue with those projects that are just going to fill out the land and later on just going to be vacant. Thank you.

Anybody else for a public comment? Okay, moving on to Zoom. Anybody on Zoom?

No hands raised on Zoom, but we did receive a few emails I can read into record.

Okay.

Okay.

This is for Nick Maynard, series resident. Please read this comment into the public record for agenda item six. Chair Condit and members of the Planning Commission, I am writing in support of the Planning Commission referring a temporary moratorium on new car wash and fueling station entitlements to the city council. Ceres currently has 17 fuel stations with three more already approved. If the approved car wash projects are completed, our city will have seven full-service car washes and three self-service car washes serving approximately 49,000 residents. those numbers should be enough to justify taking a temporary pause and evaluating whether continuing to approve more of the same uses is in the best long-term interest of series a moratorium would not close any existing business or permanently prohibit future development it would simply give the city time to study market saturation traffic impacts, water and infrastructure demands, environmental concerns, employment opportunities, and the opportunity cost of using limited commercial property for additional gas stations and car washes. Ceres needs economic diversity. We should be working to attract businesses that create quality jobs, generate meaningful economic activity, provide services residents are currently leaving town to obtain and strengthen the city's long-term tax base. Approving another gas station or a car wash may be the easiest development decision, but that does not necessarily make it the best decision for the community. I disagree with staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission take no action simply because the City Council did not previously reach a consensus. Planning Commission has the authority and responsibility to make recommendations concerning development within the City. The Council should receive a formal recommendation and be required to consider the issue publicly. I ask the Planning Commission to recommend that the City Council adopt a temporary moratorium while the City evaluates its zoning and development policies. At minimum, if the legal findings for an urgency moratorium cannot be established The commission should recommend stronger entitlement requirements or zoning standards for future car washes and fueling stations. Ceres residents deserve a thoughtful economic development strategy, not an endless repetition of the same limited uses. Thank you.

All right.

Good morning, Ceres Planning Committee. I feel Ceres does not need any more gas stations or car washes. We have too many already. Please let's commit to focusing on bringing quality businesses here. Be more selective and think longevity. This is super important so we do not end up with new businesses that don't last. Thank you for your time and consideration. Jen Turnbow, City of Ceres resident since 1973. Chair Condon and members of the Planning Commission, I am writing in support of the Planning Commission's efforts to evaluate whether Ceres should adopt a temporary moratorium on new car wash and fueling station entitlements while the city studies potential updates to its land use regulations. I encourage the Commission to continue exercising its authority to make recommendations to the city council, despite the council's initial lack of consensus on July 14th. The planning commission serves as the city's advisory planning body, and its responsibility is to evaluate long-term land use policy based on planning principles and evidence, even when those recommendations may not initially align with the council's position. The staff report demonstrates that Ceres already has a significantly higher concentration of these uses than population based averages. The report identifies 10 total car washes, seven full service car washes and three self service car washes. If all approved projects are constructed serving a population of approximately 49,000 residents. It further notes that the city currently averages approximately one car wash for every 4,900 residents, while national estimates are approximately two commercial car washes per 10,000 residents. Likewise, Ceres currently contains 17 fuel stations with three more approved for a total of 20 possible fueling stations resulting in approximately one fueling station for every 2,900 residents. The report concludes that these concentrations exceed statewide population-based averages while acknowledging that Highway 99 and regional traffic may justify somewhat higher demand. At the same time, the report also recognizes that the existing concentration may indicate the city is approaching market saturation and that current data alone cannot determine whether continued expansion reflects sustainable demand or an oversupply. These statistics should not be dismissed simply because serious experiences commuter and pass-through traffic. presence of Highway 99 is not by itself evidence that unlimited expansion remains consistent with sound planning policy. The purpose of a temporary moratorium is not to permanently prohibit these businesses, but rather to allow the city sufficient time to determine whether additional development supports the general plan, economic development goals, infrastructure capacity, and the long-term character of the city's commercial corridors. As noted by the City Attorney, California law already provides the City Council with the legal authority to adopt such a temporary pause. The Planning Commission's role is not to adopt the ordinance itself, but to recommend action and assist in developing the legislative record and supporting findings for the Council's consideration. I respectfully encourage the commission to continue moving this discussion forward by adopting a formal recommendation to the city council supported by specific planning findings. Those findings could include concerns regarding traffic circulation, infrastructure demand, environmental impacts associated with water consumption and underground fuel storage, preservation of commercially valuable intersections, and the city's long-term economic development objectives. These are all recognized planning considerations that California cities routinely evaluate when regulating land uses. If the City Council remains unwilling to pursue a temporary moratorium, I encourage the Commission to recommend alternative regulatory measures that would accomplish many of the same planning objectives. These include initiating amendments to Title 18 of the Municipal Code to require conditional use permits for future fueling stations and express car washes, establishing minimum spacing requirements between similar uses, creating corridor-specific development standards along Highway 99, Hatch Road, and Mitchell Road, adopting overlay districts for high-value commercial intersections, implementing enhanced design and landscape standards, requiring additional findings related to economic development and land use compatibility, or developing performance standards that better integrate these uses into the city's long-term planning goals. The Planning Commission has already recognized Dear members of the Ceres Planning Commission, I am writing as a concerned resident to respectfully ask the Planning Commission to consider the long-term needs of our community as new development projects are reviewed and approved. Many residents have noticed the continued growth of car washes and gas stations throughout Ceres. While these businesses certainly serve a purpose It feels as though our city has become saturated with them. I encourage the commission to consider whether future commercial development could better reflect the needs and interests of the families who call Ceres home. One of the greatest needs, particularly in District 2, is for more activities and recreational opportunities for children and families. Our community would greatly benefit from attractions such as indoor play center, Family entertainment venue youth creation facilities sports complexes educational activity centers or other businesses that provide safe and engaging places for children and teens. As our city continues to grow, I hope we can prioritize developments that improve quality of life encourage families to stay and spend time locally. and provide positive spaces for young people. Investing in family-friendly amenities would help make Ceres a more vibrant and connected community while supporting local economic growth. Thank you for your time, your service to our city, and your consideration of this perspective. I appreciate the work the Planning Commission does to help shape the future of Ceres, and I hope these concerns will be taken into account as future projects are considered. Sincerely, Christina Davila, Ceres President.

Hey, Stephanie, for the record, the last comment, what was the name on that one? I don't know if you said it. Oh, yes, sorry.

Josh Steele.

Okay.

Good evening, Ceres Planning Commission. My name is Courtney Mann, and I am a fourth generation Ceres resident raising the fifth generation of my family here. I am extremely disappointed that we are once again discussing the outcome of the council's decision regarding the gas station and car wash moratorium. I strongly oppose adding more gas stations and car washes to our small city. To be candid, I am deeply disappointed in those of you who voted in favor of approving another car wash on Hatch Road. You were appointed to represent the people of Ceres and to help shape a community where families want to live work and invest in their future. Instead, many residents are left with the impression that public opinion carries little weight when it conflicts with predetermined agendas. The message being sent is that what the community wants is secondary to what is most convenient for developers rather than what is best for the people who already call Ceres home. My family remains in series because of our deep roots and the support system we have here. We are fortunate to have family members who help care for our children while we work. If that support did not exist, I am not sure we would still choose to live here. I know many other families who share similar concerns about the direction of our city is heading. Excuse me. For two years, I served on the Ceres Unified School District Advisory Council, where I saw firsthand that enrollment has been declining. An entire elementary school was built with the expectation that a proposed housing development would fill it with students. That development never materialized. And today, the campus is being used for in-school suspension overflow from central valley high school and adult education programs while those programs serve important purposes the school was not built for those uses and rep it represents a costly example of planning based on projected growth that never occurred series needs to stop planning for growth that has not yet happened we cannot continue making long-term decisions based on assumptions instead of current realities. I believe there are legitimate concerns that deserve careful consideration. Traffic congestion. Throughout our city, particularly along corridors like Hatch Road, continues to worsen. Every additional gas station and drive-thru car wash generates more traffic, more vehicle trips, longer lines, more turning movements, and greater congestion on roads that are already heavily traveled. These impacts affect the daily lives and safety of the residents who already live here. There are also environmental concerns. For a city our size, Ceres already has a remarkably high number of car washes. These businesses require significant water use, generate wastewater, increase vehicle emissions from cars, idling in queues, and contribute additional noise and traffic. Before approving even more of these facilities, the city should ask whether our community is truly underserved or whether we have already exceeded what our current population reasonably needs. We also have a clear example of how these types of properties can become long-term public safety concerns. The former triple R gas station now sits abandoned and has become a location associated with homelessness and other public safety issues. While no one can predict the future of every business, this property demonstrates that vacant fuel stations can become liabilities for surrounding neighborhoods when they are no longer economically viable. Approving additional gas stations without considering long-term demand increases the possibility of of creating more vacant commercial properties that ultimately become burdens on the community. These are not hypothetical concerns. They are current conditions affecting the health, safety, and welfare of our residents today. I ask that you carefully consider the long-term vision for Ceres. We have an opportunity to build a community that reflects the values and desires of its residents, instead of repeating the same development patterns. As someone whose family is called Ceres, home for five generations, I want to be proud of the direction our city is taking. Tonight, I ask you to consider not just what can be built, but what should be built. I ask you to weigh the evidence before you, listen to the residents you represent, and make decisions that prioritize the long-term health, safety, and welfare Please read this comment into the public record. As a citizen of Ceres, I strongly disagree with adding more gas stations and car washes. As a community, we need more housing and more code enforcement. Our city has abandoned buildings and gas stations that are already making our community a very unattractive place to live and visit. As a resident, I don't invite family to area due to the poor looking quality and feel of this city. The city has gone downhill with homeless and abandoned buildings since we purchased our home. If the city wants to keep residents, Council should listen and respect what the citizens need and desire. Respectfully, Melanie Casas. Good evening. My name is Angie Riley. I am writing this email to express my thoughts on building more gas stations and car washes in our small city of Ceres. As I drove to work this morning between Morgan Road and the freeway entrance, five gas stations in that short distance, only we're servicing one patron each. I don't feel that our city needs to add any more to the 20 that currently exists. We are not in shortage of either of these service stations, and our city deserves more options than gas and a clean car. As a longtime resident of Ceres, I do not agree that our city should build our build more gas stations or car washes. Thank you for your time, Angie Riley.

Okay, I'm going to double check in the public. Anybody else that would like to make public comment? Shirley, I apologize. You already had your five minutes.

I didn't use up my whole five minutes, so bear with me. My problem is, again, the money. You know, you have the ability to okay or not okay when something comes up before you. But to spend any more money to investigate this, to send it to a city council that you already know is going to say no, would be a waste of money. These people that are saying they don't want any more gas stations. When I moved here 51 years ago, there was a bar and a church on every corner. These things solve themselves. Thank you.

All right. Do you have a public comment? Yeah, come on up.

Sorry, it's my first time here. How many minutes do I have?

You have five minutes.

Five minutes. Okay, I'm not a resident here in Ceres. However, I live nearby, and I'm actually appalled. that you guys have something like this, it's really communist because private businesses in our country really should be driven by demand as well as capital. When the government comes in and proposes, we're going to have a moratorium. A moratorium is not transient. It is not temporary. Once your policy passes, it is permanent. What does that mean? That means if any of existing stations or car washes, you know, should either go out of business because the owners age out or that, you know, nobody wants to buy it or cannot buy it. If your policy passes, you literally tells people you cannot do it. You cannot do it. You cannot do it because you're the government. Let me ask you this. Are you American? I'm crying out loud. I am so shocked. I was born in Taiwan and I cannot believe how rapidly California is losing to communism. You may not realize it because I come in here. I see you guys. You guys look like normal Americans. I'm sure you don't mean to have this policy so that you're You know nice city can become communist, but that's how communist is so scary because if first infiltrate us Disguised as something that is noble well because you know gas station. It's gonna pollute the air. It's whatever Those are just excuses because if you think about science and Why do we have trees? You know, trees cannot exist without carbon dioxide. We humans breathe in oxygen to live. Trees need carbon dioxide to live. That was God's design so that when we breathe out carbon dioxide, the tree naturally filters the carbon dioxide and give us back oxygen. That's what trees do. So for those so-called scientists, I want to ask them, what are they thinking? If for reals, God forbid, that they truly get rid of every single particle of carbon dioxide, you know what's going to happen to us? We will also die because that would also mean that we will no longer have oxygen for crying out loud. Please, you guys are good people. I can tell from your faces. Do not let deception happen. lead you, lead us to the path of communism. There is point of no return. Because I also share with you, I have a property in the Bay Area, Contra Costa County. They have built so many affordable housing. It's coming here. In the next five years, you may not be these nice faces sitting up there. That's what I experienced. Truly, I was blessed by God that I have a property here, which I bought 20 years ago, so that I am like a refugee right now in this nice county, trying to dodge communism there. Communism is like tsunami. It is coming like this wave that is devouring all of us. Please, use science. Use science. the good founding principles of our founding fathers. We all have inalienable rights. What does that mean? Everybody should have their right to exercise their brain, to decide how they want to invest their money, If they feel that they can make money having gas stations or car washes, why can't they have the opportunity or the right to do it? And with all respect, you guys are all nice people. By you sitting there, you are the government. So let me respectfully ask you, what right do you have to take away our right to exercise our freedom to pursue happiness and prosperity and liberty? Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Anybody else for a public comment? Mr. Warren? Can we get the camera turned on to the public? Thank you.

Good evening, Council. John Warren, resident, City of Ceres. I was considering whether to speak this evening. The matter is very controversial. I know some cities close by, our neighboring cities, are considering this same situation. about the large number of certain types of businesses in our community. But I do think growth has to be monitored. We have a general plan in the city and zoning that kind of dictates where certain businesses, whether it's a chicken business or a car wash business or a gas station, where they can be located. And maybe it's time Ceres does step back and take a look at their zoning plans take a look at how the design of the city we want to see move going forward maybe gas stations don't need to be in some of the locations where they're allowed now and if you take a look i hear the comments about the District 2 businesses and things over there. There's quite a few gas stations there, and we border on Crows Landing Road. I don't know when the last time any of you folks went down Crows Landing or Yosemite Boulevard. There's about 9,000 gas stations over in those locations, and they're, what, a mile away from us if we drive down Whitmore or we drive down Hatch Road. There's a lot of other businesses over there. There's certain types, but our sphere of influence reaches out and encompasses a lot more than 20 gas stations that we have. So it's something to consider. I think taking a step back, maybe a short moratorium. There's some time frames on moratorium, and they should be closely adhered to. So taking a look at that might be the thing that our city should do. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Warren. Anybody else for public comment? I see one hand raised on Zoom.

Yes, we have Brandy Meyer.

Can you hear me okay?

Yep, we can hear you.

Okay. I don't know what the answer is to this, but I just wanted to put in my two cents. I own several businesses here in series. I've been a resident for 30 plus years. I'm not sure moratorium, but I do know when I read through it, it said temporary. It's a temporary moratorium as of now. What I would like to see is more of a variety of businesses coming to Ceres. I would love to see maybe a bakery, an antique shop, another ice cream shop. We need more for our families here in Ceres. And from what I understand, we have over 25 or over 20 plus gas stations here. So I wouldn't want to encourage gas stations or those types of businesses, but I do think we need to, I don't know, maybe an ad hoc committee put together to go out and find other businesses or other investors who can bring in a variety of businesses. I would never want to discourage a business to come to Ceres, but I think the answer at this point is that we need to find a variety of other businesses that can bring in tax dollars. So that's about all I have to say. And good luck to you guys because I know this is going to be a tough decision.

All right. Thanks, Brandy. All right. Final call for public comment. Okay. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the public comment portion and bring it back to the commission. I guess, Tom, just a few more questions. I pulled up the city council agenda from July 13th, and I was at that meeting as well. The discussion was about staff time to do further research. Is that correct? And Julian, you can chime in if you'd like.

I'll let Julian answer that.

I wasn't at that city council meeting.

Yes, that is correct. It was more for financial reasons.

But specifically for to do further research on this. Correct. And for the record, there were three members who said on the dais this should go back to the planning commission for further direction. Is that correct?

I would have to check the minutes from that and I recall it was a 3-2 vote. It was a 3-2 vote.

However, yeah, go ahead, Tom. I just reviewed the video before this. And it was a 3-2 vote not to add any additional staff time to this item. And it did not explicitly include any referral back to the Planning Commission, is my understanding.

Okay. Well, I would encourage you to go back and listen to the discussion. There were two, the two who voted in favor. That vote is on the record, but council council member for district two stated this should go back to the planning commission. That's the first thing she said. So I guess with that in mind, it's now back to us. Again, this whole process is just so backwards, but we make a recommendation tonight, and it's not going back to them as an action agenda item.

I do not believe that it would be agendized as a action item. A moratorium like this would require the ordinance itself, public noticing, an extensive staff report. So those would all need to be prepared. At the maximum, it would go back as a discussion item. But I think due to the consensus provided, the council Decline to entertain that so they would just be reported to the council as a recommendation by the planning commission. The council doesn't have any obligation. To agenda such a recommendation, although that is typically what does happen.

Okay, but when this went back without our knowledge, it was not an action item to consider this. it was to consider staff time. Do you understand where I'm trying to differentiate this?

Yes, I do.

Those are two different things. If we take this back, it's an actual item as far as this process goes that we have the authority to do this. It goes back... for their official consideration. Rather, when this went to the city council on July 13th, it was, we want your opinion on staff time to do further research. Those are two different things.

I think one is intrinsic to the other in that you need staff time in order to prepare something like that for the council. So I would say that that's how they are connected. I don't know as though the city staff can prepare any further on this given the direction of the city council.

Okay. Has a process like this ever happened before to where the planning commission goes about the process pursuant to the municipal code, gives consensus, waiting for it to be agendized, and that item without any notice just goes to the city council without, you know, just going outside of the process that the municipal code has set up. Has that ever happened to your knowledge before?

To my knowledge, no, that has never happened. The city manager has the authority to bring any item to the city council. And so I think that's where he used his authority to say, look, we need some direction on if you want us to move forward with this, despite the lack of planning commission's recommendation. And that's how we got to the current procedural history. I acknowledge it's irregular, and It's difficult, but that's the current situation. And the Planning Commission authority is fairly narrow here.

Okay. Well, I am requesting the city manager be at our next meeting to explain why this process was done backwards and why the item was taken to the city council and basically sabotaged basically this whole process. So it's a very difficult time.

I will add that I believe that there might have been an additional referral item from a city council member that was sort of in the sphere of this. And so it might have been in an effort to address both of these items together. I think they were doing sort of a referral-oriented meeting previously. I'm not 100% sure on that. But I do know that a council member had referenced your discussion and had wanted to... consider something, I don't know if it was exactly the same, but consider something that was associated with it. And those two things combined might have prompted the procedure.

Okay. Well, I would like the city manager to give some sort of report perhaps at our next meeting to explain this because it's disheartening to, it discourages the planning commission for making recommendations pursuant to the municipal code that we have power to do so. So if we tonight in our referral section or new business matters initiated by the planning commission, if somebody makes a recommendation, how do we not know It's going to turn into a debacle like this. Again, it's just disheartening to see. Okay. Yeah, go ahead.

I mean, at the end of the day, the recommendation was put in front of the city council. And I get that you guys didn't flush it out completely.

With all due respect, it was not the recommendation. It was to staff time. That's what the discussion was about. I was at the meeting. It was not the official recommendation. temporary moratorium. That discussion may have turned to that, and that's the council's will. However, the discussion was about staff time. So it has turned this process into just a circus.

Well, I think you do need to understand at some point that the planning commission doesn't have the authority to have specific staff time allocated to their requests. Within reason, of course, but

Understand that that's ultimately again. I want to follow the process It starts here. Will you make the recommendation we give consensus? It's agendized we vote on it and then it's taken to the City Council and We gave consensus and it was taken to the City Council without an agendized item to where we had a public hearing where people could show up and give their thoughts. The public, you know, is honestly the loser in this because they didn't get to participate and now they're here tonight giving their opinion. We had eight emails, seven emails, members of the public and we're going to take action but it's going nowhere. It's embarrassing. Oh, I know you got no responses. It's okay. It's just my comments. Okay, I have more discussion on this. So I want to refer to the item of the staff report. So the map identifies 17 fueling stations within the city of Ceres. And the map identifies three fueling stations under development or in progress. However, the map does not include fueling stations on Joyce Avenue, Circle K slash 76. It does not include George's Gas 76 on Central Avenue. It does not include SC Fuels on 237 East Whitmore Ave. And it does not include the abandoned Triple R on Whitmore and Mitchell. The map also does not include a rumored gas station in front of Walmart. So with that in mind, we have a flawed staff report based on the numbers, but I have a couple of different scenarios that I'm just gonna submit to the record and then the members here and people on Zoom. So going off of the data presented in the staff report, 17 fueling stations and three in development, we have 4.08 fueling station per 10,000 residents. The state average is 2.65 gas stations per 10,000 residents. So with that, we're almost double. And Modesto, their average is 3.62 gas stations per 10,000 residents. We're 4.08 under 17 fueling stations and three in development. So if we add the four gas stations that were not included in the staff report, that number jumps up to 4.9 fueling stations per 10,000 residents. So again, the state average, 2.6, and accurate fueling stations is 24 in our city, and that's 4.9 per 10,000 residents. To give perspective, Let's see here. Again, Modesto 3.6, their population is over 200,000 people. And Tracy has an average of 2.6 as well. Their population is over 100,000 people. And we have 49,000 people in our city. And we have 4.9 fueling stations per 10,000 persons. The numbers are there. And it's, again, just very discouraging to see that this, you know, we see all the social media comments we heard tonight. A lot of people are in favor of this. We have too many gas stations in our city and car washes. There's limited data on that. City of Manteca is in the process of doing a similar temporary moratorium. and Ceres is failing in this topic. So those are my comments. I know I spoke a lot tonight, but I'm gonna open it up to my other commissioners for questions.

Yeah, Tom, I have a question. My understanding is that the moratorium was discussed as possibly opening up the city to litigation by developers hoping to develop a gas station or car wash having the correct permits and then given any sort of kind of response from the planning commission would possibly open us up for litigation. Is that something that's true or is that more speculation?

Well, I wouldn't say it would be from necessarily particular project applicants, but they would rather attack the validity of the moratorium as a whole, right? You have to find some concrete, you have to make some concrete findings about health, safety, welfare to ensure that the moratorium is permissible under state law. And so that's a broad category, that's a broad area, and the city has broad police power to regulate those things, but we really need to come from a position of conformance with that state law in order to pass a moratorium similar to this. Whereas the the effects on the community are less apparent for gas stations and car washes than they might be for another type of use. Say like you see a lot of the data centers going through moratorium right now. That's a little bit of a more visible challenge to the community. So something like this, you just really wanna make sure that you're in conformance with the state law before passing it.

Okay, that's helpful, thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to say that it's really nice to get this feedback, the emails, and having people come to the meeting. This feedback helps us get the data that allows us to do this kind of work. So I appreciate that. I do think a little bit of the process has been lost in this discussion, very much so the moratorium is a legal category. And similar to what Tom said, I think that threshold to develop a moratorium hadn't really been met in terms of the research and the staff time. And also, of course, is the idea of paying staffers to do more work to research this. So economic development is not a one-man show. We are not the only folks involved in this. So I understand kind of the frustration with having just these new projects in development, but I think I voted against it because I thought, one, it would open us up to litigation, and two, we were denying shovel-ready projects that had already been approved by our various departments. So I just wanted to kind of discuss more of the nuance, that the anger and the expression is necessary and helpful. But I'm wondering if we can do something similar to a moratorium that isn't quite at that legal threshold, more like suggested guidelines for future fuel and car wash stations that have a hiring kind of requirement for serious residents, or maybe 50% of their pumps have to be EV chargers. Is that something that can kind of get around the inability to develop a moratorium? Or is that a suggestion that maybe is a little bit too far reaching for this platform? I don't know if staff wants to jump in.

So a big portion of the moratorium is to provide time for the city to study its land use and to propose future regulations for those types of uses. So I think your suggestion makes a lot of sense in that you won't be imposing the moratorium, but you'll still be thinking about the studying and evaluating the land uses, which is a component of what you're typically doing during that moratorium period.

Okay. I don't know if that's like a motion we can do. Sorry, Chair, I'll defer to you.

Yeah, I think we'll see if anybody else has any comments. When we discussed this item the initial time, the consensus was 5-0, correct? Okay. I was just curious. Dori said she voted no. I thought it was unanimous. I was just curious. Okay. Bob, you got any comments? Francisco?

No. I mean, as we sit here reading and going through all these emails, I think the people have spoken.

This item doesn't require any action to be taken or you can make a motion. Anything that will be done will be done by the minutes. There's no associated resolution.

Yeah, I'm trying to figure out making sure I got all my points across. Tom, did you put together a staff report or did Julian?

I added the background and the legal components of it.

Okay. Who added the gas stations?

Are you referring to the map? Yes, sir. The map I did. All the yellow dots are the current gas stations that we have. The green dots, the lightly green dots, are the ones that have been approved by commission.

Okay. Can we confirm on the record that Circle K-76 is not on that map, on Joyce Ave.? Which is by the 7-11 headed towards the 99. Has Jamba Juice attached to it?

Oh, up Herndon.

Herndon, yes. Oh, the one that's supposed to be to the left of the two dots there? Okay.

So confirming that one is not on the map. There's Chevron. There's the 76. That is not on there. Okay. And confirming George's Gas 76 on Central Ave is not on that map.

I stand correct.

Yes, it is not on here. SC Fuels on East Whitmore is not on that map as well. And Triple R on Whitmore is not on that map.

Triple R is not because it's not a gas station that's in service. So it's an abandoned gas station. It is a gas station, though. But it's not an operated gas station. So it's a dead site. So due to circumstances that are beyond our control, that is a dead site. So it's not a gas station. It was at one time a gas station, but it's not an active gas station. So it is not on here. What was the other one that you said?

SC Fuels. The one in front of Rockefeller? No, it headed towards Crow's Landing. I don't believe that's Rockefeller. It would be past Flyers if you're headed toward down. On the right-hand side, that is a county gas station. That is not in the city of Ceres. Okay. It's in our city limits. I mean, it's in District 2. It's not in our district. No. In front of Gallo? No, not at – well, I believe that is Gallo across the street, yes. Yes, so that is county.

Okay.

Okay. So we're missing two, I believe three with triple R, but two gas stations off of that list. Okay. Thank you. Yep, thank you. So again, I'm going to revert back to We are way over the state average and local average. Modesto has 3.62. Tracy has 2.6. Stockton has 2.9. And these are cities with populations well, well more than ours. And it's oversaturation of gas stations and cities. There should be more studies done on car washes as well. But I'm going to make a motion. I would like to separate these two items. And I'm, again, however staff decides to take it back to city council, it is what it is. This process has been... whatever the right term for it is, but I'm gonna make a motion to recommend to the city council to put a temporary moratorium on fueling stations in the city of Ceres for one year, revisiting the moratorium after one calendar year passes due to the inconsistencies with the general plan over saturation data and local state averages while changing the findings to those stated.

Just to jump in there, I apologize. They can only implement a 45-day moratorium. Then it would have to be extended.

I will change it to 45 days to do that.

I'll go ahead and second that.

We got a first and a second. Can we get a roll call?

Commissioner Global?

Aye.

Commissioner Morales?

Aye.

Commissioner Perez? Nay. Chairperson Condon?

Aye.

Okay, motion passes 3-1.

Okay, and second, I will make a motion to recommend to the city council to put a temporary moratorium on car washes in the city of Ceres for 45 days, revisiting the moratorium after those 45 days passes due to the inconsistencies of the general plan, oversaturation, public concern, and data while changing the findings to those stated. Second that. Person is second. Can we get a roll call?

That was Global that seconded?

Yeah.

Aye. Commissioner Global?

Aye.

Commissioner Morales? Aye. Commissioner Perez?

Aye.

Chairperson Condit?

Aye.

Motion passes 3-1 with one absent.

Okay, moving on. Unfinished business, none. New business, none. Matters initiated by planning commission staff. I would like the city manager at our next planning commission meeting to discuss the municipal code section 2.05.040F and an explanation for why this process on item six turned out the way it did. And reports. Anybody have any reports? Seeing none. We'll go ahead and adjourn to our next meeting on. Yeah, I have to adjourn this, though. Adjourn to August 3rd, 2026 at 6 p.m. And we are going to convene to the series downtown revitalization area board right now. So go ahead and adjourn this one. Yeah, we'll go and take a five minute break. Alrighty, folks, we're going to get started here. We're going to call this meeting to order, and we'll get a roll call.

Commissioner Global? Commissioner Morales?

Present.

Commissioner Jammu, absent. Commissioner Perez? Chairperson Condit?

Here. Conflict of interest.

Anybody have a conflict of interest?

No.

Consent calendar. All matters listed on the consent calendar consider 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 it and act upon by roll call vote. I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Aguirre here.

So good evening Planning Commission Chair. This evening, I'll give you a little history on the Downtown Revitalization Board for the new Planning Commissioners. So the Ceres Downtown Revitalization Area was established pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area of 1979 and adopted an ordinance in 1988. by the city council for the purpose of the district was to provide a funding mechanism through business assessments to support activities improvements that would enhance and promote the downtown area. In 1995, the city council adopted an ordinance which expanded the flexibility of how assessments could be utilized for programs and projects specifically for the downtown area. The state law requires that the city council establish an advisory board for the district. The advisory board is responsible for making recommendations to the city council regarding expenditures of assessments, revenues, and may also provide recommendations concerning the method and basis of levying assessments within the district. When initially established, the advisory board was comprised of business owners located within the boundaries of the downtown revitalization area. So that boundary is from El Camino North to Magnolia. The business is just north of Magnolia to the east side of six, all the way east to Sixth Street. Only those businesses to and then all the way from El Camino to Magnolia, where it meets on the intersection by Polar Street. To ensure continued administration of the boundaries, over time participation by business owners had declined, resulting in reoccurring difficulties in maintaining a quorum necessary to conduct official business. So in 1998, the Planning Commission was appointed as the advisory board, and the Planning Commission has continued to fulfill this role since that time, providing recommendations to city council regarding the downtown revitalization. So this evening, we're here, one, first, second, third, and fourth quarter are presented. These should be coming to you quarterly due to staff, We had an overturn in the finance department and then in our department. So we apologize for them coming to you all at one time, but normally they would come after each quarter to present to you a report and also to indicate the expenses and what assessments were collected during those quarters. So the last two years, unfortunately, the city council has voted not to levy the assessments. So as you can see on the quarter reports, there is zero assessments that were collected, but we did have a significant expenditures that we had to pay out through in this account. So tonight, we're just asking for the advisory board to approve the quarterly reports and then also to approve the annual report for the 26-27 year. In that report, basically, it's the improvements and activities to be proposed is to continue with... if granted the assessments to come in and then utilizing that funding that's in this set aside separate account. It's a standalone budget account for the downtown businesses to utilize that to pay for the lighting. The landscaping contract has been canceled due to, there was no funding into that account. To improve, I think they wanna do like way signs to help, kind of emphasize the downtown businesses and stuff. So that is just a placeholder. So part of it is we have to present to the advisory board any expenditures that this bid would like to expend during the year. So basically we have placeholders. So as you can see on the, it's the attachment, sorry. It's exhibit D, which is the proposed budget for 2627. The projected revenue, we anticipate to collect approximately $7,000 from businesses. The expenditures for this year is roughly 2,750. That it will include electricity or the downtown lighting, We put advertisement in there just if there was like a major event that they wanted to hold and the businesses wanted to advertise it. they would be allowed to pull from this funding to do large advertisement outside of what like the city or any other would do. And then contract services, it was discussed that they wanted to do like Christmas lighting on the trees downtown during Christmas time. So we had to put a placeholder in there for approximately $1,000. Not sure if that's what it was going to cost, but these are just placeholders in there. As you can see, wayfinding signs, downtown incentive programs, and FACAD. renovation, those are just on holding back in 2017. They were approved as expenditures. The funding has, we've had a lot of funding in there, but over time it has de-plenished. The last two years it really deplenished because there was no assessment. And so we're asking for the board to approve the expenditures, approve the other report, and then this would then go to city council for approval, and then for them to set a public hearing 30 days from the approval. to vote on the levy assessment and the levy assessment then the businesses would be notified by mail or the public hearing to come in either oppose or agree with the the assessment at the time or the council could wish to not collect the assessment and then either vote to disband the bid or continue the assessment until the funding is deplenished. Right now, we're looking at going into 2027 with approximately a little bit over $2,000 in that account. That's it.

OK. Any questions of Julian?

yeah i've got a couple questions for you julian on exhibit a you're showing all four quarters um with what i can't figure out is you're showing an ending cash balance of $20,127.

So yes, and I do apologize because that's when the quarter report was created at the end of June, but we still had outstanding invoices from the Grover Landscaping that had not been processed yet. So if you look at the bottom contract services, Rover was 1820 per month. So we still needed their invoices to come in and get cleared.

So you're saying that ending cash balance is 2000? Yes.

Okay.

Has that been updated online?

That was just on the budget. If you look at the Exhibit D, it just says approximately balance rollover is $2,311.59. Okay.

Because you're showing contract services of $3,640 a month that were subtracted. So why is there another Grover invoices? Did she put it in there? Hang on. You're showing that we paid Grover $14,560 for the year.

So Grover's account should be $21,840 for 12 months. So if you look at year to date, $14,560. And I apologize if it didn't get calculated correctly. So I do apologize. And we can make that correction and bring it back

So does Grover come weekly or?

So Grover would come once a week on Fridays, but they no longer will come effective June 30th. They're no longer contracted with the city.

So they were coming once a week?

They were coming once a week, yes.

And who is doing that service now?

That service will fall back on the city of Ceres.

Well, I'll go ahead and open it up to the public. Any members of the public that would like to speak on this item? Mr. Warren?

Have we voted on the, is this for the consent item still?

Or the annual report? I think we're still on the consent.

Okay.

That can be opened up to the public or...

I think we skipped over the consent. So can we vote on the consent?

Yeah, yeah. Hold on one second, Mr. Warren. I'll go ahead and motion to approve item seven, and then we'll take it to the public hearing. I'll second that. Okay. We got a first and second on consent. Can we get a roll call?

Commissioner Global?

Aye.

Commissioner Morales?

Aye.

Commissioner Perez? Aye. Chairperson Condon?

Aye.

OK, now we will open the public hearing.

Good evening, commissioners, John Warren, . I remember there was some discussion on the assessment and the cost of doing business with landscaping and the lighting and stuff previously. And there was some question as to if there was a mechanism in place to collect the money that the levies or the city would charge the revitalization board would approve for who's going to collect the dollars and what account it would go into. And has that been resolved as to whether the businesses in downtown actually have to pay these levies? and who collects them and what mechanism is in place to make those collections.

We will have staff answer that.

That would be my question. I remember that from before, that there was no mechanism to collect the revenues that were going into the fund, and that some of the businesses down there are not paying, basically, their fair share, which makes it hard on the ones that are. And also, whether the city can afford hire or have an outside agency come in and take care of the landscaping versus the city staff.

Thank you. Any other members of the public that would like to comment on this item? Yep.

Yep.

Come on up. State your name.

I am freedom by God above America by Brown Act. I don't need to tell you my name. I'm using a fictitious name since I'm here. I just want to share with you that if I were ever going to want to come to Ceres, and I did a little bit of a research on your city, you are a very young city. The average age of your community is about 30-something years old. So there's a lot of activities that perhaps you can provide for the families to come because once you revitalize your downtown, you still want people to come, right? So I think what you were talking about, and by the way, I really respect and admire that you pointed out at the previous meeting that the order of that particular agendized item was done in a backwards way. So I feel that this topic also, when you want to revitalize, and I was hoping to hear your objectives, perhaps Those need to be pinpointed first. And then, you know, it's easier then for the public to be able to participate because then we know, oh, they have revitalized certain things and then we can come and spend money. And that's how you are able to get more of tax dollars because we spend money and that therefore the revitalization is not just a point in time, but it will be perpetual. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else for public comment? All right. Anybody on Zoom?

No hands raised.

Okay. Go ahead and close the public hearing process and bring it back to the commission for action. Julie, can we answer Mr. Warren's question as far as is there something set up to collect the levy?

So we are looking at utilizing HDL, who does the quarterly mill tax. So it would be linked to their quarterly mill tax to ensure that the businesses are submitting their quarterly assessments, where before our third party collector was not doing their due diligence. So we do have something in place.

Any other questions of the commission? An action is required, correct? This goes back to the city council? That is correct.

It's just to accept the annual plan and then for it to go to city council for approval for the annual report and then for them to set a public hearing 30 days from that for a levy assessment. which will be a public hearing noted, and each business will have a letter sent to them for that public hearing.

I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve.

I'll go ahead and second.

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

Commissioner Global.

Aye.

Commissioner Morales.

Aye.

Commissioner Perez. Aye. Chairperson Condon.

Aye.

Motion passes 4-0 with one absent.

Okay. New business none. And we will adjourn the series downtown revitalization area board.