Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

So I'm just pretending to feel like every time I do something,

I She brought it, but it works. I mean, I did something she didn't like, and she turned around on it. But, you know, when

I'm already in. Mine did not it didn't. I just clicked on, and it took me in,

though. No. They just react.

Yes, mine is not working either. You're confusing me. I can't do all this. Yes. We got you.

Who's who's absent?

Brian Downauer. He's on a biz or he's on a vacation.

How dare he?

He's a lucky

he did

go every month.

They do?

Him and his wife have made a point of traveling. They were just in, like, Spain last month. And then he got back, like, a day before our mission meeting then, and they're out again. If you can do it, do it.

Check.

Boom. Brian's out today. Alright, commissioners. If we're ready here, we'll get started.

Good. Alright.

Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to the Thursday, 05/07/2020 regular hearing of the Planning Commission. I'd like to start off with the Pledge of Allegiance. Please stand. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Arianna, report on posting the agenda and roll call, please.

The agenda was posted on Thursday, 04/30/2026 at 03:02 p. M. Roll call. Commissioner Benson? Present. Commissioner Don Howard? Absent. Commissioner Cotabondi?

Present.

Commissioner Martinez?

Here.

Commissioner Valdez?

Here.

Vice Chair, Ellie? Here. And Chair Bandel?

Here.

Perfect. Thank you. And a quick reminder to turn on your mic when speaking. Thank you.

Arianna, there any public comments for items not on today's agenda?

There are no speakers.

All right. I'm going to close public comment. We're going move on to Consent Agenda 5.1, 04/02/2026, Planning Commission regular meeting minutes. Commissioners, any questions, comments, concerns?

Make a motion we approve the minutes as written.

Second.

Can I get a confirmation on the second?

Martha, second.

Does it come up? Okay. Roll call. Commissioner Benson? Yes. Commissioner Cotabondi? Yes. Commissioner Martinez? Yes. Commissioner Valdes?

Yes.

Vice Chair, Ali? Yes. And Chair Bandel?

Yes. And yes, Ariana, it's not populating on our screen, just so you know.

Okay. We'll go ahead and do a roll call.

All right. Perfect. Moving on to public hearing 6.1, zoning ordinance amendment to modify Chapter 30, Article two and my brain stopped working, X, X of the Gilroy City Code relating to tobacco retailers and smoke shops.

Excuse me, Chair. May I give some feedback? Because I'm not even seeing the ribbon show up.

It's not working.

Okay. Just wanted to be sure that okay. Since we're working with new system.

Sharon?

Good evening, commissioners. Tonight, we're going to present to you a zoning ordinance amendment relating to tobacco retailers and smoke shops. In recent years, Gilroy has been seeing an increase in tobacco retailers, particularly smoke shops. In response to community concerns, the city council directed staff to identify ways to control this growth. Staff recommended an urgency interim ordinance prohibiting new tobacco retailer permits as allowed in California cities to protect health, welfare and safety.

City Council approved several urgency interim ordinances in late twenty twenty five and early twenty twenty six. Because these kind of ordinances are temporary, council directed staff propose more permanent regulations, which brings us to today's discussion. Staff's proposing zoning code amendments to Article two and Article 19. These amendments will create a more permanent solution and include creating the definition of a smoke shop, adding the use to the commercial table, and establishing a mechanism to restrict smoke shops in commercial and other zoning districts citywide. Right now, no such mechanisms exist.

So in Article two, this is where staff is proposing the definition of a smoke shop. Our planning manager, Michael, he surveyed cities throughout California and kind of follow some best practices and derive this definition for a smoke shop. And this reflects also staff's assessment of the key characteristics of smoke shops. We have defined smoke shops to distinguish them from general retail stores, convenience stores, gas stations and grocery stores that might have incidental tobacco sales. So this amendment will help support a more clear and consistent enforcement.

Here in Article 19, in the commercial use tables, we have included the smoke shop, added a row there to regulate business within our zoning districts. And how you use these tables, I'll give you an example. If you look at the row for a restaurant in either of those tables, where you see the X, the footnote to the tables will indicate that those are permitted with no conditions. So basically, that will be allowed. And you can see where we added the two roles for smoke shops, there's nothing in that role, nothing in the sales, which means we are proposing that they be not permitted in any zoning district.

So this is how we will be able to regulate land uses within the zoning district. And then we further want to make it even more clear. So in the footnote to each of those tables, we added a statement so that is it's clear to the user and that states smoke shops are not allowed in commercial or any other zoning district. So this clarification will help confirm to business owners that the city does not permit bookshops in any district. These proposed amendments are consistent with General Plan 2,040 land use goals and policies.

The notice for tonight's public hearing was published in the Gori Dispatch on April 17, and we have received one public comment. I think you have a copy of that on the dais. I think you received it via email as well. That was from let me see, I have a copy from the Tobacco Free Coalition of Santa Clara County supporting the amendments. And last slide is the staff recommendation for Planning Commission to recommend to City Council based on the independent analysis that the approval of the zoning amendment is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15 oh six(one)three for the adoption of ordinance regarding tobacco retailers and smoke shops and for the commission to recommend that city council adopt an ordinance to approve amendments to the zoning code.

Article two for the definition, Article 19 for the commercial tables relating to tobacco retailers and smoke shops. Thank you.

For the new commissioners and people that weren't around when we first adopted the tobacco retailer ordinance, it came from the county. It was a recommendation years ago from the county, and we was sort of a county wide type of ordinance that we adopted and tried to make fit you know, have it fit with our area. And it has been in place for a while, and this ordinance is sort of like a tune up for it. Have been regulating tobacco shops for a long time. This is more of a clarification now.

Thank you.

I have a question, put a request. Took it

down. Doesn't show on my end.

I had it on. Can I ask?

Of course.

When you say tobacco retailers and smoke shops per the recommendations, what is tobacco retailer really mean? I mean, you don't have a full smoke shop, but if you're selling cigarettes and you're selling papers and all this kind of stuff, a lot of the liquor stores are doing that. So and they're in commercial areas. So what does that really mean about prohibiting we're not prohibiting tobacco sales there then if they're in those areas and they're not a small shop? It's kind of confusing. It's a little vague to me.

So as the way we're proposing it, and this is after our plan manager surveyed cities throughout California. This 15% is a common way for cities to use as a gauge. Basically, if most of your stores, a large percent of your floor area is devoted to tobacco sales, then that's really a smoke shop versus a grocery store. That would be maybe a very small portion, then that would not be a smoke shop. But they would still need a permit for the tobacco retail portion of it, but will not be falling into the definition of a smoke shop.

Okay. Because I'm just thinking like I know there's one liquor store that's on 1st Street and it's in the old Sparkle Market and they sell tobacco and papers and I of an overall footage square footage area, I'm not sure, but I just kind of was wondering if that's still going to be allowed in that area.

Yeah, and this would apply to grandfathered

in or something or

Right, correct. This is really targeting new users that were coming.

Okay.

And they also have to get state licenses, so they're dual licenses.

Okay. But they're sort of grandfathered in except for when they renew or something like that?

There's ways of different there can be some transfers of the license. Perspective. You're not in now, you won't get in through the zoning later.

Okay. Thank you.

So I apologize, I do have some questions. I was unable to bring them forward earlier. So you might not be able to answer this question. I noticed a lot of the smoke shops have been shut down. I'm not a smoker, so I don't know. I just notice it as I'm driving by. Is there a reason for that? Does staff have an understanding of what happened there?

Over the last several months, really, mainly police department has been the lead with some support from other departments, has been taking some enforcement actions. And part of that is also coordination with state agency or the county as well.

So is that saying that they were not compliant with licensing?

Yeah, and they may have had, you know Correct.

Okay. And I was looking at I have some concerns that there it doesn't seem to address as the other commissioner was asking. Selling of the businesses, that's not addressed in here. Well, I'm not necessarily opposed to this. I am worried about the language that we're seeing in this.

So, it says for blight, it talks about physical hazards, structures applying to the city, and it says there's been an observance of increased loitering and nuisance activity. I would assume that we have some information from what was saying what was said before about police activity with those locations.

Yeah. Are you reading the ordinance or

I'm reading the page page 12 of 141 with regards to the general plan consistency. Yeah, LU one, yes, thank you. And you know, I'm just looking at some of the language here that I have a concern about that is less of a discussion and more for a question of staff. You know, when it says for LU 4.2, it says discourages I mean, high quality commercial architecture, of course, and discourages the use of franchise architecture. You know, I'm not sure I, again, do not partake, so I don't know of any franchises smoke shop franchises.

I'm sure there are some information about you know, I wouldn't want any sort of smoke shop, anything like that near a school, but I don't know if we had had that before. And especially LU416, when people have come before us in the past and complained about another brewery or alcoholic establishment downtown saying we have too many. You know, they're told like, we've got a capitalism takes its course, but yet we're here to say now like we don't want a concentration of smoke shops. So, it looks like that's not consistent with what we're sharing with the public. So, it seems like we can sometimes identify what we want downtown and other times we can't identify what we want downtown.

I have concerns about that. But my biggest concern is, you know, how when someone sells a business, what happens? If the license gets transferred to another person, what happens? All that grandfathering in, it's not really maybe I missed it. It's not really clearly identified.

It just sounds like should there be a situation where someone is going to be selling their license that would be or selling the business and not being a business owner, don't know exactly how that works, that this would not be permitted. It just it feels poorly identified, like, what happens in all of these situations, and doesn't seem consistent with other communications that we've had in other planning commissions.

Yes. I think a lot of your questions actually are addressing another chapter under the license chapter of the code, not in the zoning, no land use. So our purpose was just to add a definition for smoke shop. And then you can see the last sentence here, the last phrase, right, as defined so it's kind of cross referenced back to this Chapter 13. That's where a lot of the questions about the grandfathering and the business transactions, that's addressed in that chapter.

And all this does is provide a definition of what a smoke shop is, and it has to be identified, then we can regulate it or we can prohibit it. And the council's direction is they want to prohibit it because there became overconcentration of them. And so we needed to say what it was and define it, then we can say we don't want anymore smoke shops as defined.

Thank you, Sharon, for providing me the information of how many smoke shops there are in Gilroy. And I did go on Google Maps and looked and there were several, but it didn't match the list that you gave us. And then in that, there's only one current smoke shop in Gilroy. So it kind of raised the question to me too, kind of what Stephanie is saying in terms of, okay, we're formulating something I think for future use, which I understand. I'm assuming that all of these series of urgent interim ordinances that were passed in the fall and the winter then reduced all of those businesses.

I mean, all of a sudden they were all gone. I think there was seven of them. And so but I also had the question around the language and the ordinance because it speaks specifically to new tobacco retailers. And I don't know and maybe that's somewhere else where the expansion of an existing grocery store opening of a vaping section within their piece, how does that play out in the long run? And is there is this not the place for that to include existing and new or is it just is it specifically just for the new?

I think again that grandfathering piece came into my mind and then the other piece is we're talking about one shop in Gilroy right now. The urgency, I mean I get it and I'm actually probably not for smoke shops and I certainly don't want them around any schools. But I think it drives the question when you see that there's only one in the entire city and then we have this I mean, the language is all about this urgency. And so it's just my comments. But I do wonder about the existing retailers who do some of this and could expand the products and the paraphernalia, how does that play in?

Is that somewhere else? And it can't be within the language of the ordinance.

Yes, this just defines what a smoke shop is. And it would be in Chapter 13, the TRPs as we now fondly refer to them, TRPs, tobacco retailer permits, and it has all the requirements of the permits, and how and the distance from schools, and councils looking at that ordinance as well and providing more direction on that. And it's the one that has the permit requirements, it has the transferring of an existing permit, it has the conditions about renewals of permits, suspending permits, revoking permits. I think I have that ordinance memorized with everything we've been doing lately. We've been doing a lot of TRP work.

So it's in that. And that is the regulatory. This is just zoning definition, and this is just a text zoning. It's not even a zoning map. Sometimes you talk about text, and then when you do a zoning map, that's when you're changing some use on the map from red to green. But when it's text, it's just the written. And this is just so we have now a defined word, a defined definition of smoke shop.

This is targeting the standalone smoke shops really, the liquor stores or the Safeways or the mini Marts like the Circle Ks aren't going to be affected by their square footage isn't greater than 15 square or 15% of the square footage.

Guess my question is, if this is supposed to be just defining a smoke shop, my concern is it says 18, they're not allowed. So, we've defined them, and we're not permitting them. So, it's VANILA not just

New ones, yeah. It's targeting new as from a land use perspective, not licensing.

VANILA Right. So, we're identifying them. We're identifying what they look like and, you know, what they would sell. And then, if they meet that definition, we are restricting them. Yes. So, it's not just defining. We're also creating policy is not the right word, but we are identifying that no new businesses that meet this description are allowed in Gilroy. So, by saying we're just defining them, that's not accurate. And that's my concern.

Well, we're defining what it is, and then we're saying that it is not an allowed use. We did that with cannabis, we did that with, I think, payday lending, we've done it with other uses where you do have to define the zoning and the definition of something. So then you can say, it's a permitted use allowed, it's not allowed, unpermitted, or it is a conditional use. And so when you look at the chart, it's going to have an X or a blank or a C, and then that becomes part of the land use regulation. But we're defining it so then we can prohibit it. That's

We're doing both in And this, then for clarification for me, when I look at we're looking at Chapter 13, Article eight, Section thirteen sixty six.

Do you have a page number on that?

I just Googled it. Okay. It's part of the code publishing. 66 is the definitions.

That's for the tobacco retail that's for TRPs.

Okay. Am I looking at the wrong thing then?

Yeah, that's the article I was referring to that has, you the regulations regarding distance to schools and

yeah. Okay. Chapter 13. Yeah. So, it says I guess, when I'm seeing that addition in red on page 36 of the PDF page 36 of the agenda packet, the red part where it says smoke shop means any establishment and explains that 15% as defined by city code.

So, that's where we're adding that definition under the six okay. So, in the code are we talking about if that's SIT thirteen sixty six definitions, where are we looking at the grandfathering in and the selling of businesses and the transferring of permits and licenses, where would that be within the code? Because

It's in the 13 yeah.

Amending the zoning code, you're not amending

Chapter 13, Section 13. Tonight, correct. But the work is going on also looking at Chapter 13, taking the feedback from the council and the commission and then going back to council with all the feedback together.

Understood. So the definition of smoke shop would be in Chapter 13 Article 813.66, right? We would be adding that as a definition of a smoke shop. Correct.

Correct? It will be cross referenced.

Okay. But our counsel indicated that when another commissioner had the concern, as I do, when a business wants to transfer a license, that that is identified in our code, would identified, or how that would happen, and how people would be grandfathered in. And I'm asking where is that?

It's in 13.

So you're saying we're basically not addressing 13 at this point, correct? We're only

doing It's the zoning zoning code only, correct. Adding definition of smoke shops because it's not defined. I

could see in the use tables, this is what we're doing. That's the basics of what we're doing is the use.

Basic, correct. Yes, adding clarity so that we have a definition. And since now we have defined it, we want to add it to the use tables and to show in which zoning district it would be permitted or not. So at least this is kind of a foundational work. Other step? Female Correct. It's one step in the entire process.

Female Thank you. Female Thank you.

Female There's two steps here, because we're identifying it, and we are not allowing them we are not allowing any new ones. So two steps.

Well, I'm saying tonight, the whole night is a step in the entire process to revamp any tobacco related regulations.

But a yes vote would also be a yes vote for denying any additional new

Correct. Yes.

And I think I'm concerned about the language that we and again, I'm not a smoker. I just worried about the language that we are using here to restrict business within our community where we have not restricted business before.

But I think you're kind of like the cart before the horse kind of where we do the zoning commercial use table and talk about what's allowed or not allowed And then the actual getting into the nitty gritty of if you have a in the future, if you have a possibility of a sale or this is just for new. But if you get into like you're talking about a situation of a sale, or a transfer or whatever, that's where you have to get really into 13, and we're not doing thirteen tonight, we're doing this section.

Yeah, and then I want to introduce our Deputy Director of Community Development, Bryce Atkins, because he's been working on 13 in terms of getting counsel's consideration on the density, for example.

Good evening, commissioners. So just wanted to relay. So the not that it's germane to the discussion on those co sections being discussed tonight. But in 13.68 subsection I, item three discusses the transition and the essentially the grandfathering of those. So the sale of to another individual through an arm's length transaction of tobacco retail business operating lawfully on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this article.

Except from this requirement, the new owner of such business is required to apply for and obtain a new tobacco retailer's permit. So the grandfathering in is still in the code section, and the council's direction at the last meeting was that they were not interested at that point in time of having a hard cutoff of that. Now that is different, again, as has been relayed, there's two components here. There's the land use part, which is being considered by the planning commission this evening. The regulatory permit, or really a license, is the business element itself.

And so even though it's hard to it's easy to try to merge them together, but in reality they're two distinct components in addressing tobacco through two different ways. So when it talks about the definition and the definition of smoke shop to the section 13.66, that's the broad general definition section in the TRP permit. And what it's referencing is, if you look at the section right before, it's talking about tobacco products, tobacco paraphernalia. It's referencing the definition because for the business component of that in the license, we define those. So instead of having two complete duplicate copies of what tobacco paraphernalia is defined as, it's just referring to that.

And then any provisions that counsel, should they choose to do on the TRP side, as far as smoke shops, would then point to this definition to define the smoke shop. So because they're interrelated, they're going point to each other, but you don't need a definition to in each one since they're cross referencing, if that makes sense. Or it may have confused even more, I'm not sure. Sorry.

I think for me the confusion was in the memo, it says the staff recommends amending article, the commercial tables to the Kilroy City Code to prohibit smoke shops in all commercial zoning districts, including the downtown specific plans. That to me is speaking that that's your recommendation to us to vote on. So, I think that may be a little bit of the confusion versus the definition versus recommendation.

Adopting this recommending that the council adopt this definition, the end result would be they would be in the future, they would be prohibited in all zoning districts. So, that's the if you don't feel like you can vote for smoke shops to be future smoke shops, we're not talking about the existing ones or grandfathered ones, but if you don't think the city should prohibit smoke shops through its land use in its zoning, then you don't have to vote for this. But that's really a yes for this means future smoke shops would be prohibited. It doesn't get into the grandfathering or the pre existing uses or the transfers or suspensions and all of that. And but so this is only zoning.

And when the changes to Chapter 13 come through, those will just go to council, I believe, because it's not a zoning. So just to add more confusion to everybody. So you won't see 13, but you're seeing Chapter 19 and Chapter 2s.

Yes. And our goal tonight too is really receive your feedback. So let me go to this table. We can get feedback from the commissioner if you want to be even more specific rather than not allowing any zoning district, right? Each column is a district. If you want to give us feedback on where you think it could be allowed, maybe with a conditional use permit or not allowed, you can give us that feedback as well. But kind of setting up the structure allows you to give staff the feedback.

Sharon, you shared the information around those seven shops and one is currently open. The others are temporarily closed. Does that mean that the probability of them might coming back could exist? They're not going be they're going to be in the grandfather first, right? They're not going to Yeah, fit we into this new

have to be careful about discussing those because they're under state, they might be under state investigations or state proceedings or they might be under DA investigations. I'm not sure. But then some of them are actually going through an administrative process with the city. So we really can't talk about those. Those are pending, you know, and there's going to be here, you know, they'll have all sorts of due process and go through hearings, but there are some that are in the process of having administrative review.

So, it sounds like let's say we weren't talking about smoke shops. We're talking about, I don't know, balloon shops, and they're a big thing, right? And we were going to create a definition of what that is. When we create a definition of what that is, it has to be in the downtown commercial use table, right? So, we can't create a definition for a type of business and not add it to the downtown commercial use table. Is that correct? Am I understanding that? Or any commercial use table. I'm just looking having to look at that one. Yeah.

I mean, we're adding the definition so that we can regulate it because that was the direction to staff to find a way to, you know, control the growth.

So, by identifying what they are and defining what they are, we must add them to the table, the commercial use tables? Yeah. Yes. Correct. So, I guess, when I see 18 in red the addition smoke shops are not allowed in commercial any or any other zoning district, there's no sunset to that. There's no if that's the zoning decision we make today, it's going to get regulated by city council, and since anything that they do would not be a zoning change, then we would not see it again, as was said earlier. So, this is a final decision. No more.

No. Your that's your recommendation to city council. And when we take it to council, there could be also further feedback from city council.

And if they but we haven't handled Chapter 13 yet, right? The changes for Chapter 13?

Correct. Correct. There's a parallel process almost parallel process, And this is one piece of the

So if the city council approves this, then they are that's it?

There will still be updates to chapter 13 of, you know, that's a separate part of the work, but in parallel with

But to allow any smoke shops after that, they would have to come back to planning commission because that would be a change in

That would be a recommendation from you if you recommend allowing this with the conditional use permit, say they can come back with the conditional use permit, then they'd have to go through the process to apply.

No, I'm saying if we approve this today. Recommend approval. And we recommend this and city council approves it, then if city council decides later, later beyond these two events to allow smoke shops, it would come back around to planning commission. Correct.

Or an amendment to the

Yeah, will be another amendment.

Yes, because it would a zoning change.

Yes.

Any other questions for staff?

No.

Commissioners?

No, I say let's get on with it.

Thank you, Sharon. I'm going to open it up to public hearing. Ariana, are there any speakers for this agenda item?

There are no speakers.

All right. I'm going to close public hearing. Disclosure of ex parte communications. Commissioners, I don't think anybody would, but nope, I see all nos. And five, possible action and discussion and further questions if you have any.

Yes. I would just like to have a discussion on, I read the tobacco free coalition letter. I agree with it wholeheartedly. Just recently, I think The UK has prohibited purchasing of tobacco products of people who've been born after a certain year to enforce a tobacco free community. And I understand and like I said, I agree with this.

I have concerns that we are making we are making at a time when we have, at other times, said we cannot restrict you know, capitalism needs to run its course. But now, we are saying that we want to restrict businesses. I just would like the commissioner's thoughts on that, if they have any.

Well, understand what you're saying, but I don't see that this differs from counsel's past decisions regarding smoke related products and tobacco and wanting to have a tobacco free city. And so I just I don't get the capitalism thing here in this. This is a health issue. And that's the way I'm seeing it. So I have no problem with recommending this to counsel.

And if it comes back where there's a big outcry or whatever, then they approach counsel and maybe counsel can make conditional uses allowable at a later date or when they get it. But at this point for us, I see it as a health issue and it's the way that's been going on in the city. I mean, don't allow them to do smoking in parks and other areas. And so I see this to be no different in the council's position.

It's like for any other business, being part of the chamber, we see a lot of rules and regulations for different even my business, we can't be in certain areas of the city. Some cities don't even want us there. So as a business owner, those are some of the things you got to take and got to consider before you invest in the city.

And I have a question for counsel too. In the past, I didn't see any language in here that made me concerned, with this regard. But we have seen in the past some language with restrictions such as terminology vague vagueness, like immoral advertising. Like, define that. We we don't have any exposure. I didn't see anything, but we don't have any exposure there. I mean, it's just these two things. I mean, I think

No. We no, we don't. It's not it won't impact the First Amendment,

Okay. Thank you.

Commissioners, any other questions? The floor is open for a motion, if there are none. And there will be two motions made, one for A, one for B separately.

Okay. So for as far as the A and B sections, I'm trying to figure out how to word this. I mean, I've gone to the ordinance and I'm thinking motion for the approve ordinance of the city council of city of Gowrie amending the Gowrie city code chapter 30 zoning article two definitions and article 19 commercial tables regarding tobacco retails and smoke shops. I mean do I need to do more than that or just from the title Joe?

You should on the first page nine of 141, the staff recommends. So you should recommend or there's an yeah, there's a yeah, recommend. There's a There is a resolution.

Oh, I'm sorry. You're recommending I was going right to the ordinance, I'm sorry. Okay, so then in two parts?

Yes. All right. The CEQA first and then the CEQA.

Okay, I recommend the city council based on independent analysis find that approval of the Gilroy City Code zoning amendment is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15,061, subsection B, subsection three for the adoption of an ordinance regarding tobacco retailers and smoke shops. Then we will on that one first.

There's a motion and a second.

Roll call. Commissioner Benson? Yes. Commissioner Cotabondo?

Yes.

Commissioner Martinez? Yes. Commissioner Valdez?

Yes.

Vice Chair, Ellie?

Yes.

And Chair Bando?

Yes. That was unanimous, six-zero. Okay. And

it worked.

Well, maybe she did it.

Yes. So the board portal isn't working on the commissioner's side, but it is working on my end in the display screen.

Okay. So then I go on to the second part. Motion that the city council adopt an ordinance to approve amendments to the Gilroy City Code Chapter 30 for zoning Article two definitions and 19 commercial tables relating to tobacco retailers and smoke shops.

I can second. Motion to second. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Benson? Yes. Commissioner Cotabonde?

Yes.

Commissioner Martinez? Yes. Commissioner Valdez? Yes. Vice Chair Alley? Yes. And Chair Bondo?

Yes. Thank you. That was unanimous as well. Now we're going to move on to seven, new business. Planning Commissioner view of a resolution to the City Council of City of Gilroy requesting the allocation of fiscal year 2027 Transportation Development Act Article three, pedestrian bicycle project funding from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Good

evening, commissioners, staff, and the public. I'm Nisha Patel. I'm the city engineer and transportation engineer, and tonight I'll be presenting on the city's 2027 Transportation Development Act grant allocation funding request from Metropolitan Transportation Commission. So as you may be aware, there was an accident with fatalities around Los Animas School earlier this year, and since then there has been a significant amount of discussion on what the city can do to improve traffic safety around schools. We have spent a lot of time looking for funding to perform analysis, studies, design, and construction to make safety improvements around schools.

We've already funded some projects and we're applying for other grant funding. The city has already funded a study for a round Las Anima school from an independent consultant traffic engineer. We have funded a study for lowering speeds in schools. Council has already approved an ordinance to allowing the reduction of prima facie speeds in school zones from 25 miles per hour to 15 miles per hour, or 20 miles per hour in accordance with AB three eighty two. The council will be taking action on specific streets for lowering speeds on June 15.

We're applying for a safe streets for all grant for a total of around 1,100,000 for a school safety action plan, concept plans for safety improvements, and demonstration quick build projects, and we're also working with Gilroy Unified School District on teenage driver and pedestrian education. So given all that was presented in the previous slide, we're here today to obtain Planning Commission support for our funding endeavor for traffic safety improvements by requesting that planning commission recommend that city council adopt a resolution to approve the Transportation Development Act article three grant funding request from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for fiscal year 2027. The Transportation Development Act TDA Article III grant provides annual funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects. This is guaranteed funding. Engineering needs to select a project that fits within the grant funding criteria.

This requires review by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board and approval by the city council. The Planning Commission is a bicycle pedestrian advisory board for the city. We need to submit the approved council resolution to MTC as part of the funding request. We're asking for a full TDA fund accumulated balance of 229,000. Funds for this grant will be used for the final design and construction of the Los Animas School Traffic Safety Improvements Project.

And the project we're requesting for, again, is the Los Enemas School traffic safety improvements. The project is expected to cost 229,000. The improvements will include striping and pavement markings, restriping of crosswalks and bike lanes, and advance warning signage. And although we're requesting our full TDA balance, any unused funds will remain available for future eligible projects. And the school zone area which we studied and prepared a concept plan requesting funding is the area within the red box.

So staff's recommendation is to receive this report, provide feedback, and recommend that the city council adopt a resolution to approve the Transportation Development Act Article three grant funding request from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for fiscal year 2027. And that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Nish. I had a question. So just for clarification, the $1,100,000 was the total that was allocated to the city of Gilroy and we've drawn roughly $900,000 of it, $870,000?

No. I was giving a summary of what we're also doing for traffic safety improvements. And that's another grant, the $1,100,000 grant that we're working on, and that's the Safe Streets for All grant. The grant that we're talking about tonight is the Transportation Development Act grant.

Thank you.

My home is within the red box. This happened in my subdivision. So I do I need to back off and not?

No. Not on this one.

Just thought I'd bring that up.

Thank you. Thank you.

I do. So kind of going with Manny's question. This is a specific grant that is that the top dollar amount allocation for the grant?

The city's given an allocation every year.

Okay.

And now we've accumulated funds, so we've accumulated 229,000. It's guaranteed funds, so all we have to do is select a project that fits within the criteria. This is a project that we had already been working on. We performed an had a traffic consultant perform an analysis, create a concept plan, and we didn't have funding for it because this is, you know, a recent issue and occurrence that happened, we were trying to address it. And so it's not in the capital improvement program.

So when MTC had reminded the city that, you know, we can put in this allocation, the grant deadline for the application is May 26, we thought this would be a good project to apply the funding.

I guess my question is, it's an annual fund, we're going to use it, we won't have an allocation for another year, fiscal year. But there are 15 schools in Gilroy, 14 within our city jurisdiction. One in Galvin, which is the early college academy. And I'm a longtime educator. I was principal at El Roble, which is on off of 3rd And Ren and I live a block away from there.

And I can go through every school in this city and I understand we're reacting to a fatality that was great tragedy to our community. We've had those in the past and we did not react on the East Side of town. And so we have two schools, major schools in the East Side, but there are schools all around our city that are in dire need of safe planning and certainly a lot of lots to be desired around foot traffic around there, much less bicycle traffic and car traffic, vehicle traffic. So my question is, I understand we're responding to a need in a pretty much newly developed residential area. And there are so needs, so I just don't know.

It sounds like you talked about capital projects that are being looked at. Does that mean that we're going to be addressing all the other schools where these needs exist?

Study that was done at Los Animas School was just a start of us looking at the traffic safety around all the schools. So we're currently working on an application. We're working on it today for the Safe Streets for All grant, and that's the grant where we're seeking $1,100,000 to look at perform a concept plan for around all the schools, do analysis around all the schools, do the concept plans around all the schools, and then do demonstration projects, quick build demonstration projects for the top 10, and then we'll they don't fund all of them, so we'll seek funding for all of them eventually. But so we are looking at all the schools. Yeah.

I have a question.

So if this one project for Los Animas is 229,000 and we're going for 1,100,000, obviously, that doesn't affect all of the schools that Martha just discussed. How do we make the decision for need within that $1,100,000

There's a school safety action plan that will be developed out of that $1,100,000, and that will help us determine the locations, the top 10 locations. And they're going to do all kinds of analysis, crash analysis, speed studies, and so that, the consultant will help us determine the priority 10 schools, and then eventually we'll be addressing all the I think there was do you remember? Is it 15 or seventeen, twelve? I don't know. There was all the public schools plus two private schools as well.

And will that come back to us, or is that just within the city employees?

It could come back to you.

Okay.

Thank

you.

I also have another John

Dowdy, I'm Public Works First of all, I want to speak in the right way here with this. The SS-4A is a grant that we're applying for. So it's not in the bag. We think we can be very competitive. But I want to be realistic that it's a grant and it's not a guarantee.

This $229,000 is a guarantee because we've been accruing it and we deal with it. So I just want to be clear about that. I think there's also a conversation that needs to be had a bit in terms of the relationships between the city, Gilroy Unified School District and responsibilities and shared responsibilities. Yes, these are public streets that are surrounding and adjacent to these schools, but these schools are also generating the need for these improvements and everything. And I think there comes a point where there's a conversation about joint and cooperative and collaborative work between that point.

I think that's part of this process as well that has to come through this point. Who pays for what, when, where and how. We are also going to be investing thousands of dollars in replacing signage for the speed limits. You notice every point where you have a flashing lights and it says 25 miles per hour, we're going to spend thousands and thousands of dollars, right, as the council and the commission ultimately may determine to reduce those speed limits down to 15 or 20 miles per hour. That's going to be an effort we're dealing with as well.

So that's going to be effective for all the public schools and then be caught up to come back to the private schools as well, who have been less than I think we have not done a great job of signage at the private schools, and we're going to spend more time dealing with those. And I say the same thing about cooperation, collaboration and partnerships with private schools in terms of how we fund those improvements that are really needed around those schools, dealing with signage and the like. So just hopefully, that is a little bit of clarity. Certainly, I think there's a role, obviously, for this commission. Should we get to a point where we're looking at prioritization, we're happy to come back and talk about that.

I hope we're talking about that because it means we got the grant and that we can move forward with that. So that's a good thing with that. And the dynamics and the process of getting to that is the easy part when you've got the money in hand. So it's an imperfect world that we work in when we're applying for grants.

Also noticed on the grant application that there and you talk about the viability of securing the grant, that this is not an equity priority community. It is not a priority development area or a transit oriented community, which I think would add a favor to the application if it was. So I was wondering if there were any other areas within Gilroy Brown schools that would fit these definitions that might give us a better chance of securing those funds.

Well, again, we if we're talking about the current one that we're asking for your approval, that's a guaranteed money. It doesn't there's no more money that's there. And I think the question may have been what happens if the $229,000 isn't adequate, and that means that we'll have to come back and evaluate and have the council consider whether we will allocate additional capital funds to that project. So I think there was really a question sort of posed earlier on about that. We hope that it's adequate, but everything that involves the street is extremely expensive.

Everything involving construction, prevailing wage and all the like drives the price significantly on all these improvements.

My question was really has the staff done a prioritization of areas within the city where the need is greater. So I know that there was a fatality at this particular place, but there are other areas within the city that could qualify for this money that are more as or just as urgent or even more urgent where accidents have happened, other things have occurred?

That's certainly within the commission's realm to decide tonight, and we don't recommend it because we and I think the council made commitments to the community. I think the council, made commitments to Gilroy Unified School District Board that we would, evaluate the issues that potentially led to, the concerns there. I think the consultant will be coming to the council June 15, and I encourage folks to participate and pay attention to that and that final report. There's a lot that goes into it. But the bottom line is, is that from draft work that we've seen, there are needs that can be addressed and dealt with.

And what we're looking at that, frankly, is a point of reference to start to look at what are the needs of the other schools. And the speed limit is not, I know, perfect solution, but it also was a start, and that will be affecting every school.

Mr. Dabby, I had a question. You don't see this, but it's on Page 63 of my packet here, and it gives a breakdown of the funds that make up the $229,000,000 and there's a $15,000 PS and E. I don't know what PS and E stands for. I don't know if you know.

What's the plan specs and

engine estimates. Okay. And then construction is $2.14 roughly.

Yes. It's the design piece. It's got it.

Is it actual signage stuff too when construction like something is really going happen?

Some of it's likely to include some signage. It's going to be likely refreshing and improving and maybe adding additional crosswalks, various pieces

Yes. To

Being as this is in my immediate neighborhood, I mean, it's like a block from my house. And we had two fatalities there. We didn't have one. We had the husband and wife done. That's the most we've ever had in any school related project that I've ever heard of. The speed limit on Charles Luxe really also needs addressing. I don't know if that's in your plan.

That's part of this.

Because that's like a little boulevard there and yes.

That's part of the speed limit adjustments.

It's got to be because I mean, I've tried to get out of the intersection off of either Sanchez or Lopez and it's like good night. And ever since the school's been open since we live over there now over nine years, those people are crazy, those parents when they're they triple park, it's just it's much better now since this has happened, but wow. Yes.

Well, if I could, the Chair, I think part of what we anticipate coming out of the report is also potential adjustments and changes that could be made within the school site itself. We have a driveway that's less around 100 feet off of from Luchessa there, creates backup, creates problems and challenges and issues. And in a perfect world, you would have at least 150 feet between that point, the intersection point and that let. So we're some of this starts to look at also what can be done internally and not necessarily to have to go make wholesale reconstruction of driveways, but how could you reconfigure those and maybe eliminate that as an entry point and look at other options. So we want to look at all of those things with our consultant and come back and talk about.

And that's why part of that issue is about partnership and collaboration because it's not just about what's happening on there. I've had the staff has had the luxury and our consultants to look at drone footage that was shot at and over Sydney Casper looking back to the school. And it's very, eye opening when you see just the rush hour. I call it the rush hour in the morning and the rush hour in the afternoon. And I understand the challenges and issues that the district faces at different times and how to deal with things.

But when I look at it from a transportation demand management, what's part of that action that's done across places is to change the hours that people come. And if you went to two bell schedules and just shifted them fifteen minutes apart or whatever with that deal, maybe not possible. But you would have half the number of people coming and crunching at fifteen minute intervals there to deal with that and lessen that triple double, triple stacking.

It's hard to

say. Maybe it's a pie in the sky.

It's hard to say because some of these people start lining up twenty minutes ahead or whatever. And I see now as we're internal off of Lopez and I live on Panino, but they're coming more into our subdivision to park. I don't care about that. Park here and walk in, that helps already, people are doing that.

I just I only mentioned that because of a broader perspective of looking beyond just the typical assign, a marking on the pavement. It's looking beyond that point, looking at behavior and looking at how maybe to modify behavior, sometimes by regulation and sometimes by asking people to do things differently.

I have two questions. One is, we were I can't remember, we've had a couple presentations, couple of actions on throughout our community to putting to add bike lanes. That is something different than SS-4A,

correct?

Adding, yes, that's different Every with that time we I'll just say every time we do pavement management project, we evaluate and look at how can we improve, make safer or add bike lanes and linkages and connections with that point. Anything we do, there are, I will say, likely will be a few changes that would involve bike related issues in the project that the 229,000 would deal with. But it wouldn't be necessarily adding new and extending new bike facilities.

Question was that we had something come before us with adding bike lanes within the city.

That was the complete streets?

That's it, complete streets. The Thank other question I had, what was the cost of the consultant, if you know.

I know it, but I'll give it to the experts.

It was around 40,000.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any other questions for staff? Thank you, Nisha. Thank you, Mr. Jaudi. I'm going to open it up to public comment. Are there any public speakers on this agenda item?

There are no speakers.

All right. I'm going to close public comment. And commissioners, the floor is open for a motion or discussion. Yes, we just received. Okay. Well, thank you. I guess we just received the report.

Would recommend a city council. Do you have a recommendation slide, right?

Yes. Okay.

I make a motion that we receive this report and provide feedback, which we are doing, and recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution to approve the Transportation Development Act Article III grant funding request from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for fiscal year 2027.

I will second. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Benson? Yes. Commissioner Cotabonde? Yes. Commissioner Martinez?

Yes.

Commissioner Valdez? Yes. Vice Chair, Ali? Yes. And Chair Bandel?

Yes. Thank you. That was unanimous. Moving on to 7.2, Civic Center Master Plan Presentation.

Thank you. Losing me out of trouble. Thank you, Sharon. Commission Chair, commissioners and community, John Dowdy, again, Public Works Director. Pleased to be here As we sit in this approximate 14 acre civic center site, we're here to talk about, I think, something that's quite interesting and long looking, shall we say.

The last civic center master plan was prepared in 2002. And, about eighteen months ago, the city embarked on a process of, updating and reevaluating and looking at where where we might be now as it comes to the Civic Center master plan. The city hired the consultant from ELS, an architecture firm and who has subcontracted with EMC, and representatives of both of those firms are here to speak. We have a pretty long it's been in your packet and a pretty long presentation. And frankly, we can go one of two ways.

We're welcome to, and we're here and prepared to present that presentation to you. We can do a very expedited version of that and just take the questions and comments and go from there. Or we can pretty much assume that you have looked at the packet and anybody from the community has kind of looked at the packet and take questions and comments from you. So we're open to however the Chair and the Commission wish to proceed tonight.

The middle ground? The middle ground option.

Get the highlights and then get to the comments. You heard it, Clarence. So I'll introduce Clarence and bring him up from ELS. Thank you.

Thank you, John. Mr. Chair and members of the commission, nice to see all of you. And I'm glad you at least want to see a little bit, so that's great. This was a just a terrifically fun project and so meaningful. I think in a lot of ways we got to really know the Gilroy community through this process, and a lot about their ambitions as well for the future. And I think that's what this plan sort of brings to you all tonight as a review. So just a little bit about our process. We had four community workshops. They all looked something like this.

One was delivered in full Spanish. But it was a series of kind of introducing issues that led to three concepts, which ultimately led to a single plan. We did go through a series of images quickly. We wanted to let everybody know what the possibilities were of what could be in the master plan. From urban parks, we always thought this was actually a big park project for the most part.

We also looked at different ways the park could be used. We also looked at a number of building types, three main building types in particular, a community center, a recreation center, a senior center combined with one of those, and even a new city hall as well. So it was a pretty broad swath of improvements for the new downtown civic center area as we envisioned it. As we sort of got through all these images, again, just trying to give everybody a flavor of what could go into the center, we then started looking at Morgan Hill as compared to Gilroy. This was brought up really after the second community meeting we had.

There was a lot of talk about Morgan Hill and how it compares, and why they had certain things and Gilroy didn't. And so it was kind of interesting, we did a little comparison, and by population and land area, pretty close in size. And it's interesting, you get to the central part of Morgan Hill, and essentially, you know, there are three main features, the aquatic center, the community rec center, and kind of the main cultural hub, they're all about six minutes apart driving. So pretty close, I mean, a pretty nice spread of things. Everybody seemed to love this idea and why couldn't we have one in Gilroy.

The thing to note there is the big circle, that's about 180 feet square, or rather in diameter, square feet. This is their big rec center, 66,000 square feet, and then a pretty big regional aquatic center as well. So lots of things. So today, those are the numbers. The community center in Gilroy is about a third of the size of what Morgan Hill has. The rec center is about a quarter of what Morgan Hill has. And there's no municipal water for fun in Gilroy. But the Civic Master Plan tries to bring those numbers up. And this is what you end up with. So we're pretty close on the community center.

The rec center is approaching a level of equity there. And then we're adding 6,000 square feet of water, which is actually a fair amount for a community this size. It's important to note that Morgan Hill is a regional aquatic center, so quite a bit different. So very quickly, we went through downtown and what that means. This is our site.

And I love this series of images because those are all the existing buildings black. And then if you turn on all of the asphalt paving, what you basically end up with is about 10% of space that's left for green. So it's kind of a tough environment, especially on a hot day. And what the plan proposes to do is to essentially keep the library and the police building, and then the Wheeler Auditorium and Annex would go away. And essentially everything else is planned around those two buildings.

So we're trying to make music out of those two buildings and the land that we have left. So we came up with three ideas, again went through a pretty extensive community process. And from there that yielded the preferred concept. And that's what this looks like. And the preferred concept, it's broken up into three parts.

The first part here, the east block of it, it has a rec and aquatic center up on the top of the sheet, and a new multi generational senior youth and arts center down at the bottom of the sheet. And right at the heart is the Gilroy Civic Park. And just to give you a little bit, we have the library of course, and then City Hall, that would be a new City Hall, and the Police Building kind of anchors the block at the end. So there's that circle, that's the Morgan Hill Central Circle or the big outdoor theater area. So we have one of those here.

You can also fit a football field in there, just to give you a sense of scale. And we'll just quickly march through here. This is what the massing of it looks like. All of this, again, starts with the police building and the library. And then we start to kind of incrementally build an architectural theme around that.

But everything is built around a central park. And that's the heart of this whole idea. So we think that these buildings will be again super eco friendly, all electric, lots of PVs, probably reusing a lot of the PVs that are currently out there. We'll find ways to sort of recycle a lot of those materials. And so if we look at the first part, the East Block, these are the kinds of things that would happen in the Central Park Zone. So lots of fun there. This is kind of looking at the new City Hall. There could be a new splash pad. That's all a part of this. That's something that goes all the time.

The Rec Center and Aquatic Center has activities that look something like this. This is a quick peek of the entry to that new building. And then what it could look like if you're on the inside of the aquatics environment. Then we go down to the senior center, the multi generational area. Again, this has a theater, a dining hall, a half gym.

And the rec center has a full gym. But that was something that came out of the public process as well. So this is the exterior of that building, and then what it looks like on the interior. And then we go to the middle of the block. Again, this is right across the way from the library, so a new city hall. We want the council chambers to have its kind of view out onto the park as well. We think that would be pretty nice. And remember this diagram here. Again, Morgan Hill, all of these great things are a six minute drive apart. But in our center, they're a ninety second walk apart.

So we think we did a little better. And we get a great new aquatic center and rec center, new senior center, and a new city hall. And all of that's within walking distance. So this is where we ended up. It's been a fun process. And I'm going to invite Teri up here from EMC, and she is going to give you a quick update on our work under CEQA.

Thank you, Clarence. Good evening, commissioners. Again, Teri, Whistler, Adam, principal with EMC Planning Group. We're part of the team that is assisting with moving the city through the California Environmental Quality Act process. So we've prepared an EIR and I'm going to just give you a little bit about the process that we've been through and where we are in that process and then a little bit about the environmental impacts we've identified.

So, the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, requires a certain process for public agencies to consider approving a project, and the master plan is considered a project. So, we prepared a notice of preparation of an EIR that was sent to various public agencies asking them for their input on what we should be evaluating in an EIR. That was sent out in September 2025 for thirty days. We received two comments, two comment letters, one from California Department of Transportation and one from the California Toxic Substances Control. So, comments were addressed in the environmental impact report that we prepared.

So, we did prepare a draft EIR. It went out for public review for forty five days starting in 02/03/2026. And we're currently in the process of preparing a final EIR. A final EIR basically responds to the comments that were received during the forty five day public review period. We did receive 36 comments or 36 comment letters and or emails, and those are all incorporated into the final EIR and then the final EIR also includes any changes that are required to the draft EIR based upon responding to the comments.

And where we are right now, again, is preparing that final IR. We anticipate a draft of that final IR going to city staff within the next several working days for them to review. And once it's approved at a city staff level, then it will go to the city council for certification. City council needs to certify the EIR before they can consider approving master plan. So just a quick summary of the environmental impacts we identified in the EIR.

The first one is the loss of the historic resource, which is the Wheeler Auditorium, and that considered a significant impact. We also consider it unavoidable because there's really nothing you can do to mitigate the loss of the historic resource. The other impacts we identified that are all mitigated to a less than significant level are construction air quality emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, potential impacts to roosting special status bats, potential impacts to nesting birds, potential impacts to protected trees, and potential impacts to unknown buried archaeological resources or Native American human remains. And that kind of tells us a little bit about the CEQA process. And I think that's the end of the presentation.

So, you have any questions, we'd be happy to answer those for you.

Teri, did was there any evidence of remains of historic value on the sites?

No, there was nothing on the surface. You never know what could be buried.

Yes, mean, but this has all been here for quite a while until, yes. Very disturbed on So the

I had a question about the EIR. Clarification So on process. The EIR is a draft until it's approved, correct? And then it's considered final?

Well, it's a draft when we send it out for public review, and then we get comments, and we prepare a final, which consists of the comments and response to comments. Any changes that are necessary to the draft EIR, those two documents combined constitute the So, it is a final EIR, but until the city council certifies it, it's not well, it's a final EIR, but the city council certifies it, then it's more official, yes.

And so, this it sounds like this is not going to come to the planning commission. This will be approved by staff?

I think it's approved by the city council.

Certified.

Yes.

So, it will not come to planning commission at

all? Okay.

I had a question about process. So, is the master plan project plans that will come through Planning Commission and Council, correct? The master plan, the design, Which is going to counsel?

Yes. Sorry. The decision was made that, again, this was not it's a master plan, but a very light master plan, frankly. You it there is no provision. You would still require having to come back through various process to proceed with any building, any construction, any design.

So this is still at a very high level. The EIR itself, note, I'm sure, with that deal when you look at the impacts evaluated the best it can. But down the road, there may be additional secret considerations to be given to this. But this would not, at this point, come back as a commission item.

Would the any phases of this come back to planning commission? Just I sense questions probably coming from the planning commission. Would any of this come to planning commission, or is this going to be all with counsel?

Well, think it's there's kind of two pieces. There's the master plan, which is not a specific plan. It's not an area plan. It's not those would be kinds of plans that would come back to you as a commission and be absolutely subject to this. This falls in kind of a unique area of really a facilities master plan, and that's why it was the team determined to go that route.

Review and approval ultimately of the design of the buildings, the architectural site review, all of those things, none of this would override any actions that would be required under the municipal code zoning ordinance, and that could include, obviously, the commission's review and approval of any and all of those things depending on, again, what the zoning ordinance says at that moment in time and related to that. So it's very likely that some of this would ultimately be coming back to the commission as projects become forward. Again, just to be clear, this is not a project that you're going to fund pay as you go. This project would require likely a series over a period of years probably to basically go out with bonds. This would also certainly require a vote of the community for those bonds much like what was done with the library.

And so this is just a very early beginning to a conversation that the community will potentially be having down the road in terms of what it wants. I think obviously any consideration of a bond measure, much like if you look at Gilroy Unified School District, you look at Gavilan, there's a prioritization process that generally occurs there. There's input from the community around. I know there's been input provided up to this point in various pieces to determine what would be packaged together as a proposal out for bond measure at some date in the future or not.

And that was kind of addressed some of my question about how funding in some city council conversations. So, if approved by city and I'm not using the right terminology. When it goes to city council, and let's say it is approved, at that point in time, that's when we're looking at possibly putting something like this on the ballot?

This would be the basis typically for that, yes.

And how much would it cost to put this on the ballot?

I have no clue. I mean, have a

clue. Before we were looking at something that was about $30,000

This would I mean, typically, you would run this during you would not typically put this on a special election. You would put this on a general election where you're already paying. It really depends what we've found is that because of district elections, it has changed the nature of the costing, which is actually to our advantage to some extent, which is surprising in terms of the number of seats that are open and being voted on in that election. So there's a lot of variables in it, but it's not a cheap thing to go to the ballot. It's in over $100,000 and somewhere above that at some point usually to put an item on with that.

Thank you. Another thing too, because this doesn't have funding to build it, if there's any kind of public budgeting, we would see that. We would recommend that to counsel. So CIP. Even if it includes bonds, it's still going to be in the CIP. We will see the CIP probably in phases because this is only going to I mean, when we did the I was a staff person when we did the fire we did the police department, we did the library and we did the fire station. And that was a I mean, I think they're barely getting finished with the bond now from that.

We're just finishing looking to finish up with some remodel to the library Yes, to finish

that I many, many years, many, many dollars and many so that's probably what's going to happen here unless you get some special funding or you get some philanthropy and a big donation. So you never know. It will Which back to us for

is everybody is hopeful for, obviously.

Commissioners, any further questions or comments? All right. Thank you. We thank you. All right. Moving on to 8.1, Planning Division staff approvals. Commissioners, any questions? That's in our packet. All right. Run nine, Planning Division Report.

No report. Thank you. Nice.

Jolie, assistant. Is there any way we can get some kind of a report about what's in the hopper for staff approvals because I'm seeing stuff go now in Monterey Street between

10th And

Luchessa and some fencing going up and tarping and stuff like that. And I have people calling me and I was just like, can we know what's in the hopper even if you just send it to us in the email or Yes, in it's the the

link on the website. And the reason we provide a link so that it's dynamic. Whenever you go to that, it's the most up to date rather than a static attachment. So it's at the bottom of that last page of the staff report. Yes. And that list and if you have any questions, definitely feel free to call us. We can answer specific questions about specific projects. Great. Thank you.

I think about three years ago, the commission voted not to receive that because it would it was yes, was a huge spreadsheet and it was multicolor. So we suggested that it just stay on the website.

Yes. And sometimes I know commissioners would keep a copy from several months ago and ask questions like, no, we've already updated that. And so also to be more green. So it's all electronic.

And I even remember that staff had removed some content and we were like, no, no, no, no, it back in. So I remember that too.

Well, great. Thank you, everybody. I'm going to adjourn this to our next meeting of 06/04/2026 at six p. M. Thank you.