Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

That was shut down. Also the Duke Mayo for Duke. Just a final Hello sir, we're about to start. Are you in the parking lot or Oh, never mind. We'll wait for you. speed limit to get here. Know that

good evening. I would like to call the February 3rd, 2026 planning commission meeting to order. Please note this mean meeting is being hosted through live stream on the city website and by teleconference via Zoom. I'd like to remind the planning commissioners to have their microphones turned on and positions that the audience can hear. Director Monnique, may we have roll call, please? Commissioner Ver Montes here. Commissioner Hill here. Vice Chair Worth here. Chair Beam Sturfer here.

All right. Now we go invocation flax salute. We'll start with flax suits first. I pledge 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. Father God, thank you for bringing us here tonight and in good health. Lord, I pray that you guide us in our decision- making tonight. I pray for our country. I pray for our city and the leadership in our city and the safety as well. In your name we pray. Amen. Amen.

Agenda item four is public comment period for items not on the agenda. Are there any members present that would like to make a comment on the agenda or on teleconference via Zoom? Chair, I do not see any any members of the public requesting to speak online and online either. Yes, or online. Okay. Thank you. Now, moving on to the approval of the minutes from the planning commission meeting. Does the commission have any comments or corrections that they would like to make?

I do. Um just a clarification it on the uh commissioner reports it it's uh it's real small issue but um it said that uh I I met with a developer and that I appreciated the opportunity to meet with the developer and then I also um discussed the CGA the the the facade grant program. I was referencing appreciation of being able to be a participant of the ad hoc committee versus being um appreciative of meeting with the developer to to discuss a com uh the project. So just just to clarify that I'm appreciative of both but but uh it was for the participation of the hog committee. So for the record.

All right. With that change, can we have a motion? I motion to approve minutes of the planning commission meeting of January 20th, 2026. Second. I have a motion to approve the minutes by Commissioner Vera Montes. A second by Vice Chair Worth. May I have a roll call vote, please? Commissioner Ver Montes, yes. Commissioner Hill, yes. Vice Chair Worth, I. Chair Beam Ster, yes. That motion passes four to zero.

Thank you. We will now move on to receive and file for item 6A, briefing of the temporary sign fees and holiday program. Good evening. My name is Sarah Kelly. I'm the code compliance manager here in the city of Hemet. And I wanted to provide a briefing on a program that we're doing right now. Um it is beautifying hem it together and it's a temporary sign fee holiday. Uh we put together a PowerPoint to take a look at. The sign fee holiday is going to be now through April 30th. And what it is is we are waving sign permit fees for anyone that comes in and applies for them. It's going to give people um or businesses more time to plan and install permanent signs over double the normal compliance period for that. Here's some examples of temporary signs. These aren't signs in our city necessarily, but just uh examples of what we're trying to get away from having. Um we have flag signs. We have just regular banners on tops of businesses. and we would like to encourage businesses to move forward with sign uh actual signs on their businesses to help beautify our city. We're doing this to enhance the look and feel of Hemtt's commercial corridors. We want to support local businesses transitioning to permanent signage and we want to improve safety and visibility for customers and pedestrians. It's obvious that businesses are easy to find when they have lit up signage, um, different signage than just banners and flags. Next steps after April 30th, code compliance is going to start enforcement

on these temporary signs and banners. We would like to encourage these businesses to move forward with these permits. That way uh when we get to that April 30th deadline, we are not enforcing the sign ordinance on these businesses. We've already had countless business owners come into city hall and call us and contact us via email. Uh we've had six signed permits issued since a uh January 22nd. Uh so I only expect that number to increase. We've had tons of people coming in asking for parameters and what they need. Uh we've referred them to planning and building and safety for further guidance on that. Um but this is really encouraging that we already have people working on it. We've been uh the code compliance team has been walking the downtown. We've been visiting business owners. We've been making phone calls trying to get the word out and educate everybody on this prior to that deadline so that everybody can take advantage of this. Here's a copy of the sign that was mailed out to these business owners. We identified all the businesses in the city of Hemtt and uh we mailed notices to nearly 500 of them uh included with a letter from our community development director. Um, this was helpful in getting the education out, but like I said, we also walked a lot of these businesses. We're continuing to walk a lot of these businesses. Um, and I have some of the flyers in the back. Um, if anybody would like one and that's all I have.

Okay. Thank you for that presentation. Uh, does commissioners have questions for staff? I do not have any questions. No. I think it's a excuse me, I think it's a good program. Thank you for uh putting that out there. Yeah, there's 996 out there right now that that are out of compliance.

We identified about 500 a little under 500 that are out of compliance. Um and that's just uh us identifying what we can. There's, you know, five of us out, actually less than that now, but trying to identify these businesses. We're still continuing to to try and find more. And and those out of compliance, is that all temporary signs or are those just um across the broad spectrum of what the requirements are for the current sign code or

It's very broad. They could have no sign at all. They could have a sign that doesn't have a permit. It could be just feather flags or a banner on the business. There's a variety of things that could be going on and we just want to educate and help bring them into compliance. Gotcha. So, um, and then so the April 30th, uh, deadline for starting compliance if, um, what what keeps PE, um, folks from being in that compliance pipeline if if they start the permit, if they contact you, if they, you know, what how how do they get out of the compliance um, path?

Well, so we do want them to call and start working with us. Sometimes it does take a little bit of time to get plans together and and figure out what they're going to do. And we realize that um we're going to continue to work with people, but if we don't have permit applications in and things, we are going to start sending notices. We'll start with a courtesy notice again, more education, and then we'll move forward from there. Like I said, we really do want to encourage voluntary compliance.

Yeah. No, I I this is this is great. I think the city's doing everything they can to help encourage it. and you know um um offsetting the cost and giving a lot of of um of of communication. So um thank you for the uh the presentation and hopefully we get a lot of uh permits submitted hopefully. So we also uh contacted some sign all of the sign businesses in the city to let them know this was coming that way they could put ads out and try and make contact with people and and drum up some business that way into the city. That's a That's a great idea. When When does this uh When is this over, by the way? I forgot. April 30th. April 30th. Thank you. And this is citywide.

Citywide. Okay. Um one question I have though is I understand like banners and flags, especially banners are out there 24 hours a day in the front building. Flags even are sometimes left overnight just sitting out there. Uh, one of the things you listed is the A-frames. And that to me, I I don't understand why that's in the list. If somebody were to bring the A-frames in every during business hour, they put out and they bring it in. So, it's not out there 24 hours. So, why why is A-frame a part of that list when it's more something that it could be brought in daily instead of being more permanent outside?

So, there are business owners that are responsible and bring their signs in. Uh there are some business owners that are using these as a permanent signage. Um and those are still people that we want to encourage to get permanent signage. Uh if the A-frame signage is something that was approved upon when they opened their business and when they worked with planning, then uh we absolutely will will continue to allow those things that were provided uh by planning in their conditions.

Okay. So like the A-frame for example, like I want an A-frame for my business. I put out there during my business hours and bring it in when I close because I don't want people stealing it. And do I need a sign a permit and sign of a permit to have that for anytime I'm open? Because I know you guys do like 45 days with certain temporary signs and things like that. But like the A-frame, something that's a little different is something I I put out there when I open and I bring it in when I close and it's not out there 24 hours. So, do I have to pull a permit for that? you do not need to pull a permit for that. Um, we do ask that it's not in walkways and things like that that could impede pedestrian traffic. We want to encourage people to walk um in those areas. So, as long as it's not impeding anything, then you're good to go.

Okay, I think that's about it. Any other questions? All right, thank you very much.

With that, I guess we don't have to make a motion or anything. We just receive and file. All right. And we're going to open up public hearing I guess first before we receive and file. We have do a public hearing it says here. So are there any any members present that would like to make a comment on this or online and comm uh chair beam sturfer I do not see any members of the public or in the audience requesting to speak. Okay, with that, we're going to go ahead and close public hearing and then we receive and file it. All right, we now we move on to public hearing item for 7A for the zoning ordinance amendment ZOA26-001 for arts and public spaces. And we have assistant planner Nathan Morin. Right, Morin?

All right.

You never know sometimes. Good evening, chair, vice chair, commissioners, staff. Uh my name is Nathan Morren. Um I'm an assistant planner here at community development in the planning division. And tonight I will be presenting to you the zoning ordinance amendment 26-001 for the arts and public uh places um program. So tonight's request is for the planning comm planning commission to make a recommendation to adopt this ordinance um so that the city council can then go ahead and approve this ordinance. Uh tonight's meeting is a is a part two to the previous meeting we had for the work study and um as stated tonight is to now move forward to adopt this potential program. This arts and public places program fits into our strategic plan integration goals 1, three, and four. The applicant for this zoning ordinance amendment is the city of Hemet itself. This is a city-wide initiative. The planning commission um has the authority and is responsible for the review and recommendation of zoning ordinance amendments and zone map changes to the city council. Uh they're also responsible for the final review and approval of a zoning ordinance and amendment. And they are also responsible um sorry excuse that one. The um city council has 30 days um for a second reading. Um fun fact about this image. I just

found out yesterday that apparently this image that some of us have seen for years was apparently actually painted by Thomas Concaid himself and thought that was pretty cool. It's called him at 195 1915. Tonight's uh meeting was uh publicly noticed on January 14th for a 20-day noticing requirement for the state. Um as of this point in time, we have not received any public comments regarding this uh ordinance. Uh this will be brief. A lot of this is stuff that I discussed the last time I was here presenting to you. Um there was a formation of an ad arts and culture ad hoc committee that basically meets it has the council members um sorry city mayor Krupa and council member Peterson as well as other individuals involved that kind of help uh the city create programs and then events and it's a coordination. Um on July 17th, we also created the uh Sanino Valley cultural map uh shown before you. Uh we've also had community events over the past year that were also uh brought to you by the arts and culture committee and al also local organizations. Um and tonight brings us to the arts and public places program. So, uh, again, the goals as stated previously are the following five goals. Um, I'll spare you the time in reading them again. I've already read them to you from the previous presentation, but the five goals are still the same goals as as previously. Based upon the work study, we did prepare um a a new version of the ordinance that included your suggestions and your recommendations. Um, we do have a cultural heritage criteria, a

community partnership program, um, context appropriate placements, uh, integration of the scenic highway setback requirements, general plan consistency. Um, and we did, uh, go with the recommendation for the 0.25 and the 0.5, uh, in lie of fee percentage. um just to name a few but list upon you is um the full list of those. Um as previously say this program again it is uh it applies to projects residential and non-residential for projects that have a valuation of $100,000 um as well as public projects and tenant improvements. Uh some of the additional types of projects that can qualify are capital improvement projects, projects that include public parks, um as well as publicly, uh financed, uh museums and cultural centers, non-applicable projects. There was a recommendation last time to exempt single family, single lot residential developments, and that was included in the new draft version of the ordinance. uh as well as minor accessory structures which could look like things um things that are less than 120 square feet. Uh interior improvements, maintenance and repair and emergency work are all exempt. Um as previously before these things are still um current. Uh option one is to install public art. Option two is to donate artwork and option three would be the inlua fee for the non-residential developers. For the residential developers, the option is as before is still the inla fee and the uh alternative placement plan. Um, I did prepare for you a little bit of a breakdown of what these fees could

potentially look like with different percentage rates for non-residential and residential projects. For example, if we did like a large industrial project and we did the 1%, we could potentially be having anywhere from $400,000 just in fees alone that we could acquire for a single project. uh for a multif family project uh potentially with about 250 units approximating about $50 million. We could if we do 1% $500,000 or if we do the 0.5 as recommended 250,000. Um just prepare this for your your your viewing. Um everything stated before regarding the art installations, these things are still current. I say before about the public art components, none of this has changed from previous artworks that are eligible. None of this has changed as well. These are all still the same as previously. Um, and to kind of show you how this integrates a little more into the general plan, um, chapter 10 does specifically call out the city has intentions to create a arts and public places program and we have the following goals as shown before you and there's also policies in reviewing the general plan. This proposed program does fit into all of these goals and policies. Um this project per se squa is categorically exempt under the common sense exemption. Uh there is no first there's no impact from this zoning ordinance amendment uh because there's no development associated with this at this time. Recommendation for planning commission

is respectfully to recommend that the city council adopt the proposed ordinance establishing an arts and public places program uh which has been revised also based on your recommendations from the January 20th uh public hearing and to also file a notice of exemption with the Riverside County Clerk as well with the state clearing house. Um, fun fact to point out, uh, our January 20th public hearing was also our 116th anniversary as a city. So, moving forward with programs such as this, we could potentially have events that celebrate things such as that. Uh, there is a little housekeeping I wanted to clear up. Um, as you might have noticed at the beginning of the presentation, I did emphasize public places. Looking at our general plan, there is language specifically calling out a program referred to as the arts and public places program. So the housekeeping is for the resolution, the ordinance, and the program guidelines and overview to have updated language to remove spaces and be replaced with places to be consistent with our general plan. But that's my presentation and thank you. Thank you for your presentation, Nathan, and the corrections that were the changes that were made on our suggestions. Uh, commissioners, any questions for staff?

Yeah, I just have a couple clarifying questions. So, um, on the staff report, it said it's going to be chosen case by case. Um, who's going to accept, it says, uh, locations are going to be accepted in a case by case basis. Who's going to be like in charge of that? Planning commission or somebody in charge? planning commission would also be making the recommendation for city council, but it' be working with community developments, building department, perhaps even public works and city manager's office as well. Okay. So, so um in your in the slide, I believe it was like their first or second slide. So, if somebody wants to put in something like a public art, they have to get approved by the planning commission and the city council.

Correct. Planning commission would be making the recommendation for approval and council would be approving it. Okay. All right. Thank you. Nathan, thank you for that. Um, I think, uh, the last time we met on this, um, I suggested that there may might be some sort of theme associated with this public art and I didn't see anything in there with that.

Yeah. So, the public art program is not so much based upon theme. It's based upon a a context for our our city's history, its culture, you know, our aspirations. Um, this isn't necessarily a one-time project that has x amount of projects. This is a project that's going to see us through, you know, years to come. So, to create a single theme um specifically for the program isn't necessarily the applicable route. It would be more so a broader scope where we can allow, you know, let's pay homage to like our hetock farm. Let's pay homage to the Ramona pageant. Let's pay, you know, homage to our our local organizations.

I think you're describing a theme. Yeah. So, not not a specific theme, but yeah, it's meant to be broad as possible. I don't know. I I would recommend that there is a theme associated with this um art culture so that it's not, you know, um different as you drive through the city, you see these different pieces of art. I think if there was a theme to it, it would kind of all hook together and make sense. So that's my recommendation

and and and perhaps that that theme would could be something that is um kind of brought back on a recurring basis um to the planning commission to the council. Um, which kind of leads to a comment that I have, um, which is that I would suggest that we have some sort of an ongoing protocol or or or process for an update to the commission, to the council on what the fee has produced. Um, you know, for for me personally, I I I'm always hesitant to add more cost to development. You know, our our we're there's a lot of things that are trying that we're trying to implement to help support and, you know, to to to bring development in. And so, when you're adding additional costs and additional fees, you you want to be able to communicate to the developers why that's important to us and why there's a value to that fee. And I think that that with with the changes and and and and some clarification in terms of how this this this these arts art pieces and and how they could enhance and and improve um uh our our community. I'm I'm fully supportive of that. I just it's important that we continually balance and are always kind of reconciling making sure that the fee is paying for what it was intended to pay for. Um, and which is also why I'm supportive of starting off at the lowest possible fee amount and let's let's see how it does. And if we come back, you know, in after a couple years and say, "Hey, you know what? It's doing a lot of good things, but we could do a lot more with a little

bit more fee." Then at least at that point, we could we could we have a case to be made to to the BIA and to others to say, "Hey, there's this is why we're we're we're jumping that that fee." That's just my own my own thought. But then also with that kind of recurring um interaction with with the with the council and the commission that can be maybe you know some here's the projects that have moved forward. Here's how they fit into a theme. Is there anything we want to adjust? It's just kind of an ongoing I I I I would I would hope that this would be an iterative evolving process that is that sticks to the to the root of the of the of the rationale for why we're establishing an additional cost to development community. And there there I think there's value there. We just need to not just like yeah there's another fee and let's let's forget where that money goes. Let's make sure we're getting value for that fee as a community and that we have an opportunity for this body and the council to review that and just does it still apply. Is it getting what we want? Do we need to increase it? Do we need to get rid get rid of it? Is just just to have some process of ensuring that it it's meeting the intent the intent of it. So that's my my thoughts. But thank you so much. also appreciate the the opportunity from last meeting to um uh provide feed feedback and and and you did a great job of capturing um all all of that. I I do think that there's a very clear distinction between a single parcel builder. They're already a member of the community. generally they're just trying to improve what they're already investing in versus a large-scale developer that's coming in that's trying to increase value and increase profit and so there there's a definite diff distinction between that so thank you

for making that change um and uh that's all that I that's all I have so thank you just for clarification last meeting we had I think other cities are charging 1% to 2% uh mostly are 1% to 1.5%.

So my my this is not really a question, it's more of a suggestion and and as a as a whole we can just make a recommendation. Um I think they should both be at least half a percent instead of a quarter of a percent and half a percent. And on the non-residentidential, that applies for commercial. I think we should at least go up to 8% based on square footage because when we start dealing with like when we have these warehouses, they have deep pockets. They can afford to pay a 1% if they're building a 400,000 half a million square foot building and they want to contribute to the art well the fees. They have deeper pockets. I think they can afford that extra half a percent towards the the art program and I I think for the commercial we should at least that half a percent should go up to like 300,000 and if it's bigger than 300,000 square feet then we go up to a percent because based on square footage size and how much land they're taking up on our property as well. That's just a suggestion that we can maybe suggest the council. Um, but in the end, it's their decision to make. And again, thank you for adding in what our suggestions were. I know it's like the hologram one. I I it's been brought up and you put it in here and everybody else's suggestions as well. So, I thank you for that. Any other questions for staff?

No. Um just to to kind of your point and and and mine relative to the fee, do we is it anticipated that there would be an opportunity and maybe this is a question for legal too that if we establish a base fee now that we can come back at a later time based on performance and say okay now based on how kind of how how we're seeing the revenue and the value and everything else we can make adjustments as as needed. Um well there's always that opportunity but we would have to come back and amend the ordinance

and to to play around with that language a little bit or um we can somehow tweak the language that we have now to you know maybe we don't necessarily have to come back each time. So we just have to see but I think the cleaner way to do it would be to come back and to see what you know what had transpired from now until then and if that decision is going to be made then we could have the findings to support that.

So we can always come back and amend it but we would have to go through the amendment of the ordinance. And I guess my chair, my my general thought is anytime you add a new fee, let's just make sure we're getting what we think we're going to be getting. um be and so if if there's an opportunity to raise it I I I think and you know there's a lot of efforts underway right now in terms of streamlining the the the the plan review process everything else to try to encourage development and support development and so we just need to kind of balance that line between um adding adding additional costs and burdens and everything else with the intent of the program. So if there's an opportunity somewhere there to have some flexibility after a certain amount of time of the program's been in place and we we we've got some value, we can determine whether or not the fees are sufficient, whether we need to be raised, whether whatever the case is. Just my general thought is start low. Results begets results or success begets success. Let's let's have some some some some something to show for it to help justify the need to increase the fee later on.

Chair, I'd like to go back and ask Nathan something. Absolutely. Um Nathan, can you go back to the fee schedule? Sure. Slide. I just want to double check. We kind of you kind of went through it kind of quick and now that um we're talking about fees, I'd like to really go through this. Okay. Single family residential valuation 350,000. So if I'm building a single family residence on a lot, that's what this is.

Yeah. So if you're this say for example if you're building a single family residence and the valuation was set to be 350,000 with these different percentage rates that's what your potential fees paid would be. So it would be875 if we do it at the current rate um or it would be 3500 if it's at the 1%. Mind you, this is the fee for the developer to pay, not for the the owner of the 2B home. But

correct, chair, just to clarify, we are only recommending this to be applied for a master development or subdivisions and it will be based on a per lot valuation. So each building permit that's issued for a single family that's paid for by the home builder would it would apply if you're a if you buy if you purchase an infill property in the city of Hemet and you want to build a home this fee would not apply to single family property owner. So, if I'm building a home on a lot, this doesn't apply. But if I am a developer and I'm building a single family home on a lot, it applies. Correct.

Right. But for two or more developments, if you're doing a single development, it would not apply. Yeah. And that and that's that's one of the one of the comments that we made last time that that was incorporated into the revised. Okay. All right, good. Heavy industrial project. So you've got three amounts 0.25.5 and 1%. Um, is this a sliding scale or is this yet to be determined?

So depending on your recommendation, if you wanted to go with the 0.5 recommendation for non-residential versus the 1%, that would be what you potential outcome could be for an example project of that value. Same same goes for single family or multifamily depending on the valuation of the project whether it's the 0.25.5 or one those would be your potential outcomes for fees paid mind you the developer can also do an art installation then not pay the fee as the other option too.

Okay so commissioner Worth you were saying let's go low early and then maybe adjust it. So what are you saying like 0.5 to start with and then maybe if it's a good program go up to 1%. Was that your recommendation? I I I would say that so I mean just to kind of put this in perspective so looking at the residential lots because that's kind of you know we we're seeing a lot of that in in in our area. Um, do you have an idea, Nathan, on kind of what the just the average total fees are per lot currently?

I do not only because I don't assess those fees. So, I don't know, Mon'nique, by chance, do you? I'm I I'm I'm just guessing. Um, you know, you start adding in water fees, you start adding in power, you start adding in all these fees. I would I would suspect and maybe you can correct me, but we're probably in the neighborhood of 50 to $60,000 per residential dwelling unit for total fees. It Well, it's going to be not based on building permit fees. It's going to b be based on the valuation of the project. What is the construction cost um that the developer reports as part of that?

I understand, but I mean this I mean for this particular one, it's like a single fountain. So, we're adding potentially up to $3,500 per home, right? Because that's a valuation of of of a project. So, if a developer comes in and he's got 50 homes, or let's make it easier math because I don't have a calculator, but a 100 homes, it's $3.5 million that he's going to have to add to his cost of building those homes. Now, granted, they that's the developer paying the fee. It's not the homeowner, but he's going to be selling the home. is going to recoup his cost. Yeah, it's getting passed on.

It's getting passed on. Well, there it's it's we're adding cost to the price of home. And and I and I'm I'm I'm not against that. I All I'm getting at is let's make sure there's value. Let's make sure that the that the the the burden we're putting to the development community is worth the juice is worth the squeeze or Okay. So what I'm hearing from you is you would you would be okay with starting off at 0.5% 0.5 I would be my general recommendation is start low get value come back and see and and assess um I I understand there's other

cities that have done the same thing. I am not familiar with with like a like a I don't know a return on investment analysis, you know, and it would be interesting to see kind of how how that is. But just from a general kind of high level, I well I I try to balance between we want to encourage development, right, and we want to also improve the our community, right? Because the word's going to get around with developers that this is out there and this is happening. And I I I would agree. I would I would start at 0.5. That would be my recommendation. I agree.

0.5 and to city council and say, "Hey, let's start low and get people used to it." And then like you said, Commissioner Everorth, if it's a successful program and it doesn't turn people away, then maybe we could crank it up to 1% somewhere down the road few years. I think since other neighboring cities are at 1% coming in at half a percent is still quite a bargain compared to other cities. Yeah.

But I I think there should be a tier system somewhat. And when it comes to square footage of a single building, I think it should go up to 1%. Like even if it's bigger than a half a million square feet and larger, you know, if a building is taking up that much land, obviously they got the they got the pockets to be able to do another half a percent more, but you know, like these big warehouses that come in here, you know, 1% isn't going to stop them from coming in. And so I I think we half a percent is good and I think we should elevate it more based on the square footage of how much land that building is taking up.

Right. And the surrounding cities are at 1% or more. That's a discriminator for us at half a percent. Or if I may, chair, um, another option may be, if this might be a little easier, would be just to have a vague language in the actual guidelines itself and pretty much defer it to city council for them to review at the time based on market rate, um, proportionality, square footage, and city council can have the option to make it a 1% or point or a quarter or 50 or 0 50 depending on the, you know, the totality of the circumstances. That way, we wouldn't have to go back to the ordinance and do an amendment. It would be more of a resolution.

Yeah. I mean, that's an option. Okay, that's an option, but it kind of gets away from the discriminator and highlighting stick with a half a percent and just put it on put it in ink at half a percent. Yeah. So, uh, chair, just to clarify or just to are we hearing that that the, um, consensus is half a percent across the board for commercial and industrial and residential development, or are we going half a percent for master developments, for residential, and 1% for industrial commercial? I just think for a sake of confusion, just half a percent. And when somebody asked that question, we all know how to answer that.

Yep. across the board

and and and I think I I think chair that you know one of the things so so talking about kind of those large commercial warehouse types of things it's like if if we were to you know work with them to get more investment into our community is art really the way we'd want it maybe it's traffic maybe it's infrastructure maybe there's other things that would be of more value to offset you know the environmental impacts that they're that they're producing and so maybe there's maybe It's if if we're consistent across the board relative to this particular program, it gives us more opportunity to kind of leverage e or utilize um every other programs and and and mitigation measures to have them pay their I hate to use this term because it have them pay their their share of of the impact of coming in and the benefit of of of being part of our our community. So I think if we just kind of keep in mind that this is specifically for the purpose of art. Let's it would I think it would be a good idea to just let's start it see how it works. Um, we have a lot of opportunities, I think, with those larger commercial projects to improve some other elements of our community like traffic and bridges and things of that nature that uh we we we may want to have some latitude in the future to adjust fees there or adjust participation and mitigation measures there.

What are you suggesting? 5%. I'm half a percent.

Yeah, I'm I'm I'm fine with that. I I I just think uh keep it keep it simple, keep it lower initially with an understand as as a recommendation from the the commission with an understanding of that we're trying to balance as a body, we're trying to balance the um the the the the promotion of development activity with the value created to our community and it's a brand new program. Um, what I would really like to see as part of this program is regular updates, um, on how it's going, what's the what that's a slideshow of art. You know, what's what's what's what's being installed? Um, and and just kind of a budgetary update. You know, this is how this is the revenue. We'd like to do this, this, and this, but we don't have enough money. So maybe the recommendation is we increase the fee and then that can be a an an amendment but at least get it started see how it works and then come back and kind of revisit. So

and you mentioned that planning commission will review some of these to a certain scale and then we suggest it to this council as a suggestion. Yeah, for our installations you'll be making the recommendation for city council to approve it and then there is some that it will just go through the city on the smaller scales. which I trust the city enough that I mean one development wouldn't maybe have a Ramona bowl theme and across the street they wouldn't put you know fairy tale theme you know across the street so I hope the city would a fair shrimp theme yeah I mix that so but I think as a whole does everybody kind of agree that we suggest to council half a percent

so I do agree with uh commissioner worth saying that we should keep it low at first um I wasn't opposed to the 025 to see where it goes but instead of having to like amend that is there any way we can recommend it be revised after a couple of years without having to amend it or it has to be amended like a a revi like a twoyear every two years we revise that fee you know whether it's going good or it's going bad depending on the program well if you have a set amount in the actual ordinance itself so if it's quarter and you want to maybe go maybe 1% we would have to amend that quarter amount Gotcha. So you can't just say like um

this program would be re-evaluated after two years. Well, you can't you can't include that and we can say but it would be as amended from time to time. So we would yeah to go back and it and I think that's a good process to go to go through to give the opportunity for just to get the ball rolling kind of thing. Do you think lower is better? It may not be us on the you know so it may be the next group that they can make a a decision but at least to come back to the body is not that much of an I still think half a percent because neighboring cities are at one. So we're half that. We're half that bargain. Yeah. So

and just across the board half a percent. So when somebody asks staff or somebody well what's the percentage for resident or what's percentage for commercial and I think it no I might be point it just needs to be across the board so just simple for everybody. Gotcha. So that's our recommendation. Yeah we got all that down half a percent. Pencil's down. I think that's about it. Other than any other questions for Nathan? No I think we've suffered him enough. No thank you. and and and and again, thank thank you. You you obviously took some really good notes from our last um from your last presentation and appreciate um you incorporating all of those. So, thank you. Thank you, Nathan.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. And with that, we're going to open up public hearing. Are there any members present or online? I would make a like to make a comment. Chair, I do not see any member of the public in the audience requesting to speak. And I don't see anyone online requesting to speak. Okay. So, with that, we're going to go ahead and close it. And I don't think we have to make a motion, do we? Yes. Yes. The public. So, chair, if we make a motion, we need to add the half a percent. The half a percent and and the theme. Correct. And the theme. Yes. Like the theme idea.

Yeah. Would would we also I mean as far as the recommendation so would that theme some sort of a regular update back to the the commission as well would that would does that need to be incorporated into the into the motion because those are not necessarily parts of the of the ordinance but just recommendations from the from the commission. Yeah, you can just separate that. So you could just incorporate the revisions to the point five as part of the ordinance. As part of the ordinance and then have gotcha. Okay, let's see if I can get this right. I'll add to it as you need.

Okay. Um, it is recommended uh I make a motion to recommend that the city council adopt the proposed ordinance established establishing an art and public places program which has been revised based on recommendations made by the planning commission during the work study session on 20 January 26 and the public hearing on 3 February 26 and two find that the project is categorically exempt from the California environment Air Quality Act in accordance with California Public Resources Code section 211080.17 as defined by section 66314 to 66332 of the government code and SQA guidelines section 15061B3 the common sense exemption as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. And three, that we recommend a 0.5% fee across the board for the developer. And four, that there be a theme applied such as HEMT legacy referencing and future aspirations of the city, something to that effect. and I believe separately a re-evaluation at a certain point in time. Yeah, just to add a little bit um a a a scheduled ongoing update of the progress and the and the value added by this this program for the purpose of um communicating to the to um our residents and also reassessing

um the need to adjust the fee uh move moving forward. And do you second that? I second that motion. I I guess it was like two motions with one second. Sorry. Yeah, I should have made that. Yeah, I should have stated that. So, we're we're making a motion to to send this off to council with the half a percent. Yep. Across the board. Yep. And we're going to request a a a type of theme. Yep. Yep. And then we're going to request an updated report. Yep. And and quarterly or I mean no

I know Sam's busy so we don't want to do too much regular update a yearly update to to be determined. It it doesn't necessarily just as some regular update back to the commission on the success of the an annual update. Okay. An annual update. Yep. Very good. All right. And then is there a second to that? Second. I hope someone was taking good notes. That's why I have a motion by Commissioner Hill, second by Commissioner Ver Montes. I'll have roll call vote, please. Commissioner Vera Montes, yes. Commissioner Hill, yes. Vice Chair Worth, I. Chair Beam Ster,

yes. That motion passes four to zero. All right, city attorney Leo Sari, what reports do we have today?

Thank you, Chair. I just have a legislative update on an interesting one. It's AB752. Um, this measure requires local agencies to approve daycare center operations within or on the same grounds as multi-ousing by right. This measure designates the projects as residential uses for zoning purposes. Additionally, this measure prohibits a local jurisdiction from imposing a charge, tax fee, or a business license equivalent instrument or permit for the privilege of operating a daycare center that is within or on the same grounds as a multifamily housing. And that's all my reporting.

I have a quick question for you. is that so with all the stuff that's been going on in Minnesota,

um does that are some of those exemptions things that would affect the the need for the daycare centers to report or be accountable? I I I there was a lot of exemptions that you that you went through. I didn't quite catch them. Um, the measure prohibits a local jurisdiction from imposing a charge tax fee for a business license equivalent instrument. Equivalent instrument, I would have to look into what that really means. Um, but from its face, I don't believe so. But I I don't know to be honest. Um, it's a very it's a new it's new legislation just started. So,

it's yeah, kind of concerning. Hopefully there's no learing centers and just learning centers. All right. Item 8B, community development reports. Director Monnique.

Thank you, Chair. Um I um wanted to first um welcome uh Shereice Johnson, our new administrative assistant uh who is now officially our planning commission secretary. And I also want to thank uh Jordan Walton, our assistant planner for as for excuse me, associate planner uh for um helping us out uh during this time um in transition. So I just want to say thank you to to the team for that and I want to say welcome to Shereice. Um also there is a an email that uh was sent out to the commission this evening. Uh what I'm looking for is confirmation from the commissioners who will be attending the planning commissioners academy which is hosted by the league of city California cities uh March uh Wednesday March 11th through the 13th. That's a Wednesday through Friday. Um and that is going to be in Anaheim. If you are u going to attend, please uh confirm and uh via email by Friday so that um our department can um register and provide accommodations for for that um academy. Um that is all I have.

Okay. And that the 11 to the 13th? Yes. Okay. And then uh future agenda items, Director Monnique. Yes. Uh future agenda items include the western park redesign that is coming uh back to the planning commission. Um

March 3rd is tenatively scheduled. Uh we do have future developments such as via deosttos tenative track map. Uh we do have a prohousing designation program that's under review right now. Um uh we do have a consultant that was um that's been working with WRCOG and analyzing the city for um um our current housing element and how we can um participate in the pro housing designation and looking at a scoring um a scoring proposal for the city. We do have the 2025 general plan annual progress report as well as the 2025 code cycle updates for residential construction. uh the pre-approved ADU plans that we had discussed in a prior uh work study um as well as the um RTA Wentworth facility expansion

report. Thank you very much. And last is the planning commissioner reports. Commissioner Vermont, I have nothing to report. Commissioner Hill.

Yeah. I just wanted to say we had a community meeting with Council Member Clark in District 1. I think it was represented. Okay. I wish there were more residents that showed up, but um it was really um put on very well. I think Mark did a great job of presenting, you know, the state of the city to everybody there. It was very impressive. Um, and I think u we should have more of those to get the city aware of what's going on because it's a lot of good news going on right now, but you wouldn't know it unless you kind of got into the weeds and the detail and heard uh some of the good things that are happening across the board. Fire, police, city, city manager, even the even the finances of the city itself. So, appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Worth. Um the only thing that I uh just I wanted to ask and I had a conversation with some members uh of the exchange club um a service group in the valley and uh there was a uh request to possibly have at one of their next meetings um a briefing by our community development director on status of the of just things that are going on kind of similar to what I'm sure he'll just talked about or Um, uh, Commissioner Y just talked about, is that something that we would be able to do? And if and and maybe we can talk off off off off off offline as far as the logistics, but um, is that is that is that a standard or is that a normal process to um if there's a request from service groups in our valley to go to one of their meetings and provide an update?

Uh, we certainly can. Um I would recommend that we um um separately discuss um the procedures for that. It may be through the city manager's office that the request is submitted um so that we can further explore what kind of um opportunities are there u to engage with the community. Uh but definitely uh interested and and be happy to follow up on that. Okay. Thank you. I'll uh I'll I'll link those things up. Thank you. And that's it. Thank you, Chair Beam Sturfer.

I too attended as a spectator Connie Clark's Councilwoman Clark's uh town hall meeting. And uh I too would like to see that happen a little more often in the different districts. It was, you know, you were there. There was seemed like half the staff was the population at the place. Unfortunately, I would love to seen a lot more residents there. U but it was it was fun. It was fun to see what they have and and and what Mark proposed of what we have a surplus and the budget and these different things that the city is on the up and I I agree I agree more district should have those town hall meetings in their district. Um, I think I would like to add to the future agenda item an update with all of our grants for the residents of HMT and the business owners of HMT and and anything that's not related to fire or police and just kind of have a future agenda item update as to the progress of these grants. Uh, well know is it 80% complete, 100% complete money allocated, you know, such as like the trash enclosure. I know that's still floating around and you know I just kind of like to maybe hear as at the council like the commission would like to hear as a whole like where the money's going, how is it benefiting, what's the status, what's the ETA, what's the sunset dates, you know, and just add that to the future agenda items so we kind of know where our money's going and and maybe see some before and after pictures or something. But other than that, I have nothing else to report. And with there being no further business to discuss, this meeting will be adjourned to the next planning commission meeting scheduled for February 17th, 2026 at 6 p.m.