Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

you

To order the regular meeting of the Fairfield Planning Commission for July 22nd, 2026. Mr. Atkinson, can we have the roll call please?

Yes.

Chair Kennedy? Present.

Vice Chair Singh?

Present.

Commissioner Ollie Sullivan? Present. Commissioner Chen?

Present.

Commissioner Matthews?

Did you say Matthews? Yes, sorry. I didn't hear it, sorry.

Commissioner Paul? Yeah. Commissioner Reese is absent.

Thank you. All right, Pledge of Allegiance. As a welcome, Commissioner Chen, will you please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? All right, thank you. Next is the approval of the agenda. Are there any changes to the agenda? There are none. Thank you. All right, do I have a motion to approve the agenda? I'll make a motion to approve the agenda. Thank you. Do I have a second? I do second. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded to approve the agenda as submitted. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All in favor? Thank you. Motion passes. Approval of minutes from June 10th. Now, we have the approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on June 10th. Are there any changes to the minutes from anybody? Nope. Okay. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes? So moved. Thank you. Second?

I second.

It's moved and seconded to approve the minutes. All in favor? Aye.

Thank you.

Any opposed? No. Motion passes. public comments we do have two online so information on public comments this is the time for the public to speak on items not on the agenda but within the jurisdiction of the planning commission provided that no action may be taken on off agenda items except as authorized by law off agenda items from the public will be taken into consideration without discussion by the commission and may be referred to staff comments will be accepted in person or via zoom we have nobody Here and there are no hands raised. So we will close public comment period. Now scheduled matters. The next item on the agenda is our scheduled matters. There are no applicant led scheduled items for this evening. We will be electing a chair and vice chair and hearing presentations from RWG staff on the Brown Act. Our first item is the election of the chair and vice chair for our planning commission meetings. At this time, I'd like the commission to nominate a candidate for chairperson of the planning commission. Is there a nomination?

Chair Kennedy, can I ask a clarification question here? Obviously, I'm newer here. Do we have any protocol or any norms that the commission has taken over the past as far as if we nominate folks that are already in a position, if we typically nominate the vice chair for chair after the second year? I'm just curious if there are any norms or commonalities. It might not be requirements but anything we've done over there there are no protocols in place okay so okay good and i did not want to send a text message to multiple people asking that because of the brown act so i figured i'd wait till the meeting good to know all right are there any emotions um yes i'd like to make a motion um to recommend um council member uh matthews for chairsperson

Okay.

I'd like to nominate Chair Kennedy to be chair again.

I have to do the first one first and then the second one second?

It's in reverse. So we do the most recent one and then go backwards. Okay.

all right so now um do i have a set so first we have to uh go off uh commissioner matthews um do we do seconds or just votes well um a second second part do we have to ask if they would like to accept the nomination before we vote on it i think we do okay I would be willing to. I'll decline. But thank you. Okay. Thank you.

Do I have a second?

Okay. I still need a second. I'll make a second. Thank you. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

I, pardon me again, point of clarification, do we take all nominations and then vote on the first one or do we take a nomination and vote on it because then that precludes the opportunity for any other nominations? Do you understand what I'm saying?

Like, you have chair, then you have vice chair.

No, I mean, do we, well, we just voted, so I guess it's a moot point, but I don't know if there were other potential nominations for chair, because we did not entertain any other nominations for chair.

I mean, we should entertain all potential motions, typically up to three. I mean, you know, then it becomes kind of unwieldy, but... There were two motions on the floor for separate chairs. If there were more, I guess that should be discussed before a vote happens. But it wasn't clear to me that that was what was happening.

Yeah, it wasn't clear to me if we had closed or if there were any other nominations. I don't have any, but I just wanted to make sure that everyone had the opportunity to.

I guess we should clarify if there are any other.

Are there any other nominations? seen none we'll take another vote all those in favor aye aye thank you uh commissioner kennedy has been a re-elected chairman of the planning commission thank you very much everybody appreciate it um at this time i'd like the commission to nominate candidates for vice chair person of the planning commission i'd like to nominate commissioner singh for vice chair thank you Are there any other nominations?

I would like to nominate Commissioner Paul for Vice Chair.

Okay. Is there any discussions? Should we ask if they'd like to accept? Do you both accept?

Yeah. I decline and favor omitted saying.

Thank you. Are there any other nominations? Thank you. Do I have a second for? Happy to second. Thank you. All those in favor?

Aye.

Thank you. Aye. Commissioner Singh, congratulations.

I have a question. I thought they were on the agenda, but I don't see them here. Are we not doing the committees?

I have an update on that during the director's report. Okay.

Great, thank you. OK, Commissioner Singh has been elected vice chairperson of the Planning Commission. Now we'll go on to item number two, the Brown Act presentation. Christian? Yes. It's all yours. Thank you.

OK, and then let's see. Is this right?

OK.

Jonathan, do you know, just to make this like, oh, I guess it's showing up there. Sorry, I apologize. Thank you, commissioners. Assistant City Attorney Christian Petrangelo, I know most of you. Commissioner Chen, welcome, warm welcome. Many of you are familiar with the Brown Act from your past service, but I wanted to give a little bit of a refresh. And then for Commissioner Chen as well, if she isn't as familiar with the Brown Act, sort of the foundation of the open meeting process. So the foundation for the Brown Act and open meeting law is to ensure that all local government meetings are open and public. The Brown Act states that all meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body of a local agency. And that's in the California Government Code. So looking at the basics of what the Brown Act states, it applies only to legislative bodies. And we're all familiar with the more obvious body, which would be the city council. But the act defines legislative bodies to also include subordinate boards and commissions, such as the planning commission, that are created by formal action of the governing body, standing committees that have a regular meeting schedule, and standing committees with continuing subject matter jurisdiction, such as a committee on budget issues, for example. And many of you may have heard of SB 707. It's a recent bill that made a lot of changes to the Brown Act. So I'll be flagging a few of these changes throughout the presentation. Not comprehensively because there are a lot of changes, but the ones that are more important to this basic refresh. And so we'll do that. I think the best place to start is what is a meeting for the purposes of the Brown Act. So there are four elements. You can see on the slide here. First is the congregation of majority of the body at the same time and location. And that includes a teleconferencing location. And that's to hear, discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item. And that has to be within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. So there's four main elements. A lot of people think that a violation of the Brown Act only occurs if there's a vote on something in secret, and that's not necessarily true. If you get a majority of the body in one place and there's any kind of discussion, deliberation on an issue within the subject matter jurisdiction of the body, that is a violation of the Brown Act. So we have to always be aware of that. Something else to keep in mind is serial meetings. And I'll go into, there are a couple main types of these. But essentially, this is when there's like a series of communications of any kind among the members. It could be direct or indirect. And it also could be through intermediaries, like say through staff. It could be through technological devices employed by a majority of the members. Again, this would be discussing, deliberating, taking action on any item of business or potential business. And so in plain English, this is basically any attempt, it could be intentional or it could be inadvertent, by majority of the body to communicate about an item of city business or potential business outside of the public, open and public meeting process. So the two types that I want to highlight are hub and spoke and the chain version. So hub and spoke basically means it's a single person sharing ideas, thoughts, positions of a member or members through, again, about city business through to multiple people. Example one person taught like a talks to be a talks to see I talked to them. What do you think to D? If these if these medications result in a majority of the body Deliberating then open in public meeting. There's a Brown Act violation and important to note that the person who is the hub doesn't have to be a a member of the body. It could be someone else. It could be staff, lobbyists, members of the public, anyone who could be a conduit of information to the individuals could act as the hub. So just keep that in mind. There's also a chain version of a serial meeting, and this is basically where it's kind of like a telephone where one person talks to the next, who talks to the next, who talks to the next, and it goes down the chain. And this is when the individual's views are exchanged, and the majority of the body ends up essentially deliberating about an issue one by one and it goes down the telephone or the chain. So keep both of those in mind.

Can we ask questions during the presentation? Sure. So let's take an example of Vista Ridge where there were a plethora of town hall meetings which many of us attended. Would that have been construed as somehow a violation? So you're saying it was a matter that had not yet come but was going to come to the Planning Commission Just participating in listening to And not not Presented to this body is is really where I'm trying to write so like attending the meeting listening to the presentations and this could be You know a majority of the group or like separately at the meeting listening you're saying is an example Yeah, there were I don't think we had a majority at any of the meetings I attended but close and it could well have been right and

But if we're not deliberating the issue at the meeting, then we can be at the same thing as long as we're not talking about, hey, how would you vote on Vista Ridge?

But that still strikes me as being a hub and spoke.

I think... The issue really is if you're discussing your views on what's going on amongst each other. And that should be discouraged. I don't think there's an issue with attending a meeting, hearing presentations, if you're not engaging each other and deliberating and discussing viewpoints on it. That I think would be the main concern. That is a good question. I don't know if deliberate is actually separately defined.

I could check on that.

I view that as being pretty broad. I mean, like any kind of discussion, any semblance of exchanging of views, I think would fall within that definition.

So even if I was like Commissioner Matthews, what do you think that would be considered deliberation?

Yes, absolutely. I would say anything like seeking someone else's viewpoint. GET A SENSE OF SOMEONE'S OPINION ON SOMETHING WOULD FALL WITHIN THAT DEFINITION.

WHEN IN DOUBT, JUST BE QUIET ABOUT IT.

NOW, CHRISTIAN, TO CLARIFY, THOUGH, IF I WANT TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH CHAIR MATTHEWS ABOUT A That's two people wearing a body of seven. I can have a conversation with him to say, hey, what are your thoughts on this? I won't tell him how I'm going to vote, but I can discuss a topic one-on-one with someone. Right. But if I do that with him and then I do that with everyone, then it becomes a –

But if it leads to down the chain, that's a problem. There's also an exception on social media, and I'll discuss that. That's kind of a separate forum in how state law treats those kind of content. It's a stricter standard, so I'll also go into that. And actually, this is... well-timed with kind of what the slide goes into basically you know individual briefings are permitted you know directional you know don't describe the views of any other members don't ask members views this is actually a perfect segue and let me see if there's anything we just didn't discuss now Yeah, and as I said like in a directional it's done on an individualized basis This could be information flowing from staff to a member And in that case like the members participation should be limited to asking questions acquiring information not asking the staff member Oh, well Commissioner X what does he fit with like what did he say about this or what did this person say just kind of information gathering? in a general sense and Otherwise, if multiple members separately give staff direction and it causes staff to shape or modify their ultimate recommendations to reconcile the views of the majority, that could be a problem. It's important to be siloing the information, making sure that there's no influence among the group. And again, shouldn't be asking for others' views, and staff shouldn't be volunteering the views if they're known. Okay, and this is what I was mentioning about social media posts, and this is kind of a stricter standard. So AB 992 set down these rules where essentially two members of a legislative body are prohibited from using social media platform to discuss agency business. So it doesn't have to be a majority, it can be two. And this is, again, it's not just even writing. It isn't just words. It could be reactions to things, emojis. And so just be very careful about interacting with other members

on social media liking retweeting sharing a post would fall within that within that bucket and to clarify social media platform that would be next door facebook instagram yeah things like that yeah and to further clarify christian so the third bullet here liking retweeting sharing if i post on facebook come to the fairfield planning commission meeting on wednesday night you are free to like or share that as a fellow commissioner because you're not taking a position on an item. If I do say, come to the meeting because we're talking about Vista Ridge, that's fine. If I say, come to the meeting, we're talking about Vista Ridge and I think it's a terrible project, that is what we're referring to here is using social media to push forth your position or to highlight your thoughts on a legislative matter.

That's the concern. Yeah. Certainly, I would still encourage an abundance of caution, even if it's questionable, not liking or reacting to other commissioners' posts. But the concern would be, again, about viewpoint and sharing and engaging on substantive issues like that. And again, this isn't even an issue when a member's posting and there's the public engaging with it, per se. It's about among the group.

Also, a little bit further on that is, the social media if you do post hey come to the planning commission meeting tonight um you have to be very careful because now you're doing city business now your uh your site is now a public site and so you have to be careful about what you can and cannot delete you cannot block people because is that am i not correct on that yeah i mean they're you have to be real careful on that because if you especially if you block somebody then they can say we You're talking about city business, city events, so there's a real fine line there you have to be real careful with.

Right, that's a good point. There is case law looking at these issues. Essentially, I don't have the exact language on me, but there are differences with what you can do with your personal accounts versus what would be um a court would look at as being like an official city government account um but it isn't they won't determine that necessarily based on how it's tagged or like oh this is at official or at personal if you know if you're posting certain things that are expressing a viewpoint on city business, a court may look at that as being a government account or a government speech. And so keep that in mind. I mean, oftentimes the personal and the professional can bleed a lot. And so you just have to be, you can have separate accounts for things for sure and say certain things on personal accounts and separate things for the official. But a court is going to look at the substance of what's going on there and what you're trying to to say. So it's a good point just to keep in mind the personal and professional interacting or bleeding there. So in terms of agendizing items, the general rule is that there's no discussion or decision on items that are not on the posted agenda. And this is an absolute rule for special meetings that are called. And it's the general rule for regular meetings, but there are exceptions which I'll discuss a little bit when items may be added under certain circumstances. THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT.

AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE WE HAVEN'T AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY SPECIAL MEETINGS. HAD ANY SPECIAL MEETINGS. THERE HAVE BEEN A COUPLE WHERE

Last year, we did not have a quorum. So I had to come in and cancel the meeting. And then I set up a special meeting a week or two weeks later so we could do the agenda items. So that would be where a special meeting would normally take place.

Yeah, and just keep in mind, yeah, there are going to be certain special rules around special meetings if that happens in the future as well.

And it's mainly on the city for notifications, special meetings.

So, yeah, and again, some of you may be familiar with a bunch of these on the slide, but basically for regular meetings, there are exceptions such as you know, a brief response to comments from the public or questions from the public, a clarification or a reference to staff, a brief announcement or report on activities, requests for a future report, and placement of items on a future agenda. So there are these minor exceptions to keep in mind during regular meetings. Public participation. So members of the public have a right to speak on any item of interest within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city at regular meetings, so during public comment period. A specific item of business before, during the body's consideration at any meeting. And an important thing to know is just that, yeah, the city cannot prohibit criticism of policies, procedures, programs of city or acts of city council. That's... definitely prohibited. And let me just see if there's anything. One thing to keep in mind as well, because I know with SB 707, some of this doesn't impact the Planning Commission as much as the Council, but the basic rules are having a translator if a translator is needed. If an individual utilizes a translator to give testimony, simultaneous translation equipment is not used the body must allot at least twice the standard amount of time to that speaker for the translations that's just something to keep in mind again i think there are additional there are additional rules in the new bill around that affect more select city councils for translation and those obligations but i think this one would also apply to the planning commission And just to give you a sense, there are enforcement mechanisms and consequences if the Brown Act is violated. There are civil actions that someone could bring. Those are applicable to past violations only. This could be the DA or any interested person. That could be through a cease and desist letter. And there's also potentially a misdemeanor criminal prosecution path. with action taken at a meeting that's in violation of the Brown Act. But I believe in that case, there has to be an intent to deprive the public of information. So sort of the criminal intent aspect has to be there for that. And I want to just also touch on fair process laws, because it's related to the Brown Act. But it will come into play on some of the quasi-judicial aspects of the Planning Commission's role and due process. So I just want to make sure that there's a little bit of understanding around this. And so the due process clause of the Constitution is implicated when the city conducts any kind of public hearing on, say, land use permits, conditional use permits, variances, tentative subdivision maps, annexation requests, license revocation, and, I mean, in a different context, like termination, disciplining employees. So these are quasi-judicial type proceedings where There's a determination being made on an individual's right or property, as opposed to a generally applicable ordinance, for example, which wouldn't implicate due process in the same way. So basically, before the government deprives a person of a protected interest, liberty, property, that person must be given a reasonable notice of the action and an opportunity to be heard by an impartial decision maker. There are certain, so like there's constitutional rules, of course, and then there's statutory notice requirements that also apply. So we're always paying attention to, you know, like say the planning and zoning law, imposing notice and hearing requirements for, you know, prior to certain types of actions, like modification or revocation of a conditional use permit or other permit. AND THERE ARE ALSO NOTICES, IF THERE'S AN ADOPTION AMENDMENT OF A GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN OR ZONING ORDINANCE, THERE ARE ALSO REQUIREMENTS AROUND THAT FOR DUE PROCESS. And with respect to having a reasonable opportunity to be heard, all interested parties have to have a reasonable amount of time to speak, submit evidence in support of their position. Interested parties may be invited to submit comments to the local agency in writing. And I would say, when in doubt, err on the side of allowing for more testimony. Also, I just want to emphasize the impartiality aspect, the importance of having an impartial decision maker. And I'll just give a little more context on that. And there's been a lot of case law around if it's prejudice, impartial, like a lack of impartiality going into a decision, and courts analyzing these issues. you know, to clarify like pre-existing, you know, pre-existing view on general policy issues do not create disqualifying bias necessarily, so just keep that in mind. So it isn't that you can't have any views on something going into a certain matter. That's not the case. And I think this court in Andrews versus the Labor Relations Board said due process is not required, that the decision maker be an intellectual eunuch, someone who has no views or no opinions. You're allowed to have opinions. But the concern would be, having, as you see here in the slide, a concrete proof of a specific prejudice against the person affected by the decision. And it's sufficient, bias sufficient, to impair the decision maker's ability to decide the matter on appropriate grounds. And the bias has to matter to the actual decision. So bias may occur as a result of a personal interest or if there's evidence that a member of the body has a personal animus, for example, toward the person appearing before the body, if they've made statements before the open meeting and public hearing around you know, in favor or against X project. These can be problematic, you know, statements that are problematic for the, in terms of bias going into a hearing. And so just like a few tips, if you think you can't be fair, just then recuse yourself, don't participate. Avoid statements before the closing of a hearing that suggest that your mind is made up, excuse me, made up, that you can't, are not open to the arguments being made. And behave judiciously, avoid the appearance of bias.

Question on that, if you can go back one slide. I guess who would question or how would this work in practice? Let's say I've posted online how I hate fast food and I think we should only have natural food in our city and then an applicant comes forward that wants to open a fast food restaurant. Would they at the dais in that meeting say I think Commissioner Ali Sullivan should be disqualified and would that decision be made in the moment at the meeting?

I mean, I think something like a general statement that you're making online wouldn't, generally speaking, rise to the level of what they're speaking of here with bias.

It would be really most- If you said, I hate XYZ restaurant, because they're they serve too many processed foods and then they it's xyz that comes for the commission yeah they're your specific and the onus is on the applicant then to say to bring that disqualifying okay

Well, I would say, well, no, it doesn't affect. It's not going to impact me. And so I would assume that the onus is on the person who feels that they are potentially not getting an impartial decision by me as a decision maker.

Yeah. Certainly it would be in their interest to do that. I do think if there were concern, and you could obviously discuss this with legal beforehand, if there were concern from your standpoint about having some kind of bias or predisposition it would be good to address that to understand that before the actual hearing so it's not you know if you have a problem where there is a vote and then it gets invalidated potentially because of after the fact there's it's it's it's determined that there was bias so I think really it's about dealing with it before the hearing makes sense takes place I like fast food for what it's worth and You know, I think as the chair mentioned, having really like a more of a specific animus toward the applicant or the person who's bringing the project. It could be about the type of project too, but I mean, it really, it's about specificity, I would say. Like that's kind of a big part of it as opposed to general, yeah, like I don't like fast food, being posted online at some point before. It's like a general opinion on something. I think that's less of an issue, generally speaking. And... That's actually the end of the presentation. Happy to do more questions. And there's obviously more Brown Act and due process, fair process rules out there. But this was kind of a broad refresh and overview. So I hope it was helpful. Any other questions or anything?

Just one other comment on the same line of reasoning. We did actually have a commissioner who took exception to fast food because it wasn't healthy. But the- the healthness of a project is not under the purview of the Planning Commission. Is it, you know, design criteria, traffic, zoning, other issues were relevant. And therefore, even if she did have that bias against a project, you know, that's different than what we're called to review.

Right. So that kind of goes to the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. I think that's an argument in favor of there not being bias, per se, because it is something that's not related to what the Planning Commission is is determining or deliberating on, right? I think that that's a good point. You know, it isn't always black and white or like they're the kind of like facts that might contribute to, like if it was that combined with other statements that were made about certain, yeah, say certain fast food chains or yeah, like a physical project or projects in town or histories, you know, that were unpopular. I mean, I think it, the facts could kind of add up, but in that case, that's something where it's a general opinion and it's also not something like, yeah, the Planning Commission isn't dealing with, you know, like the health food or like, you know, that type of issue. So I think there's less of a risk involved in that kind of statement or opinion.

I have a question on Zoom meetings. Usually we have two meetings in a month and say in a year we'll have 24 meetings. But as far as this year is concerned, this is our second meeting and this is the seventh month. How many meetings can we do on Zoom with a reasonable cause?

So I believe that, you know, the SB 707 consolidated. So since you have like traditional teleconferencing rules and you have the COVID era, which is now SB 707, the just cause rules. So I believe the rules around like the number that you can attend are more about like the just cause. So SB 707 basically consolidated the COVID rules into this one statute that says, I believe for a body like this where it's two meetings a month, that this is under just cause. So you have to show it's an emergency, health issues, they're outlined in the statute. that it's, I believe, up to five times a year. An individual can do that. I can double check. For traditional teleconferencing, which would involve all the agendizing of where people are and having Agenda's posted at the locations and the public can access the remote location. I don't believe there's any limitation per se. It's just like those stricter rules have to be followed. But if you're asking for a just cause remote participation, I think for this type of body with two times a month, it could be up to five times a year, I think. I'm pretty sure about that. Any other questions?

No other questions?

All right.

Thank you, Christian. I hope that was helpful. Thank you.

And I think Jonathan's got a couple things to go over.

Are you going to do this in your director's report? Okay. We'll go on to Mr. Atkinson and your director's report.

Thank you. So first and foremost, I want to congratulate Commissioner Hanna Cordero Chen on her appointment to the Planning Commission. I also want to congratulate Commissioners Aiden Ollie Sullivan and Shashi Paul on their reappointment to the Planning Commission. Staff looks forward to continuing to work with the Planning Commission moving forward. I have an update regarding community development department staffing. So Jeff Thomas, who is our chief building official, he left the city of Fairfield last month after six plus years for an opportunity in another jurisdiction. Currently, Gary West is serving as our interim chief building official. There will be a recruitment later this year for a permanent chief building official. And as far as future meetings goes, we have the following items will be coming to the Planning Commission in the near future. So as I mentioned last month, Our ADU or accessory dwelling unit regulations are not consistent with the changes that have been made at the state level. So we will be having a study session to discuss the proposed changes to our ADU ordinance. And that will be followed at a later meeting by the formal zoning ordinance amendment for the new ADU regulations. And in that particular case, the planning commission would serve as an advisory body to the city council. We will also have a similar to tonight's presentation on the Brown Act. We will have our city attorney give a CEQA or California Environmental Quality Act presentation. And I mentioned last month that we were embarking on phase two of the general plan implementation. So phase two is going to include a collection of new zoning districts, zoning ordinance amendments. So there will be different times where we come to the Planning Commission to review proposed changes to the zoning ordinance, or simply just have a study session on different aspects of the phase two of the general plan implementation. And I'll just give a high level overview. We have a handful of development projects that aren't quite ready to come in front of the planning commission, but those will be ready in due time and will be coming before the planning commission for review. and i just want to note that we are currently anticipating having our next planning commission meeting at this time on august 26th of course we have you know meeting scheduled before that there has been no formal cancellation but right now we have an item that's gearing up for the 26th of august and i previously mentioned at our last meeting that the appointment of a community development block grant or CDBG advisory committee member was going to be a future item. I wanted to note after doing some analysis or research, so Commissioner Paul is the Currently, the Planning Commission representative for the CDBG Advisory Committee. So just as a result of that particular item, the appointment of a member would be tabled for the foreseeable future. I think to Commissioner Matthews, your question earlier about other committee appointment, there are no other ones that are queued up right now. It was simply the CDBG.

Yes. Rockville Hills Park Commissioner Gravy was our representative on the Rockville Hills Park Committee, and he's no longer on the commission.

I will have further conversation with our public works department and we'll come back to you with an update on that item. And so before you on the dais, you'll see a section from our municipal code. And given that we are embarking on essentially a new planning commission year. So planning commission years are basically the fiscal year. I thought this would be a great time just for a friendly reminder on just general housekeeping. So as I mentioned, there is a planning commission attendance policy. It's outlined in section 2.24.1 of the Fairfield Municipal Code. And just a few things to keep in mind. This is just for just general awareness. So a planning commissioner may have a maximum of two unexcused absences within any 12-month period. The following absences are detailed as exempt in our municipal code. So those are medical or family emergencies. any unforeseen or urgent circumstances, or simply you have to miss a meeting and you've notified the chair or secretary in advance. And there's some language regarding if there's like some urgent matter or emergency that comes up, like we totally understand that life happens. So there's some language regarding just notifying the chair or the secretary. I JUST WANTED TO JUST NOTE IN GENERAL THIS POLICY JUST INCLUDES HELPFUL INFORMATION FOR JUST TO KEEP IN MIND YES JONATHAN PARDON MY IGNORANCE HERE WHO IS THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION OH SORRY WOULD BE THAT WOULD BE ME I ASSUME SO GREAT YES AND UM YEAH SO I JUST I JUST WANT TO KNOW I PROVIDED HARD COPIES FOR REFERENCE AND THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT FOR TONIGHT THANK YOU GREAT THANK YOU NOW WE'LL GO TO THE COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS

Real briefly, I'll just say, Commissioner Chen, thank you for wanting to serve your city. And we're very happy to have you here as part of our commission. Commissioner Holly Sullivan and Commissioner Paul, welcome back. Thank you. Now we'll start with, I won't put you on the spot first. I'll let somebody else go first. So I'll start here with Vice Chairman Singh and go down the line. No comments.

thank you commissioner matthews uh just ditto the welcome no other comments commissioner paul yeah same thing welcome our new colleague that's perfect and again i will also welcome you to the commission i'm no longer the the new person so um i i don't know much but anything i can do to help you as you uh get into this i'd be happy to be a resource to you commissioner jim

Thank you all so much. I feel very honored that I get to serve on this commission with you all. I admire all of the experience and all of the insights that you all bring. And I am truly passionate about this city. I'm a product of this city. I went to school here, K through 12th grade. I'm raising my family here, and it's a choice that I've made. So any way that we can help better build this our ecosystem here. I'm all for it and I actually do have something to share with you all. This morning I attended the City of Fairfield Homeless Roundtable meeting that's hosted by the City of Fairfield and the Fairfield Police Department and it was a today's meeting had a lot of networking and then also a panel of people who have lived experience of being unhoused And they did talk about what it's like to be experiencing that in the city of Fairfield and in Solano County and the challenges that they experience with finding housing or even temporary shelter beds. And so it was just a really good reminder of a perspective to take in as I'm coming on to this commission. So I'm just wanting to share that.

Great, thank you. Just a couple things for me. Some new businesses since our last meeting. Train for Life, a studio downtown Fairfield, had their grand opening this past weekend. They had at least 100 people there. It was a very, very good turnout. the pickler opened over in the old party city location and they had a couple hundred people there for their grand opening it was great commissioner paul thank you for showing up at that as well um c's candy had a relocation they moved from the mall out to uh to Green Valley. And then tomorrow, if you're all available, from 10 to 11, the Archer's Den is opening downtown Fairfield. It's in the old antique mall. Let me see the address. Of course, I don't have it. Do you have it? 735 Texas Street. So again, that's from 10 to 11. We always like to have our commissioners come and show up and have more commissioners there than city council members. It's kind of an ongoing thing. So love to see everybody there tomorrow. And otherwise, I have nothing more to say. Does anybody else have anything? We are now adjourned. Thank you.