Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Good morning, everyone. It's 9am. Welcome to the Planning Commission meeting of June 4th. This meeting is called to order. Can you please play the recording?

Pursuant to the City Council rules of procedure and order of business resolution, the members of all Boards and Commissions and the public are reminded that they must preserve order and decorum throughout the meeting. In that regard, members of the Boards and Commissions and the public are advised that any delay or disruption in the proceedings or a refusal to obey the orders of the Board or Commission or the Presiding Officer constitutes a violation of these rules. The City of Riverside is committed to fostering a workplace that provides dignity, respect, and civility to our employees, customers, and the public they serve.

Thank you. Commissioner Alderette, good morning. Will you lead us in the pledge?

Thank you.

All right, now's the time where we will open up general public comment. Will you play the recording, please?

Public comment is now open for this item. Call 951-826-8688 and follow the prompts to access the meeting. To request to speak, press star 9. When called to speak, press star 6 to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

All right. I have no speaker cards for this particular item. Is there anybody online? All right. We'll go ahead and close public comment at this point and start with our public, our first public hearing. At this time, planning commission will open the public hearing to receive public input regarding planning case PC 2026-00117. Who's here? Good morning. Good morning.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Jacob Gerard. I'm from the City Attorney's Office. As a quick disclaimer, within our office, there is an ethical wall between myself and Ms. Torres. My responsibility is to advise staff on this matter. Ms. Torres' role in this is to advise the Commission. With that, staff is requesting to continue this matter to December 5th. We are requesting to withdraw the request to withdraw the planning case was premature and made an error. At this point, the parties are currently discussing and negotiating an informal resolution of this matter. We need additional time to do that. And I won't get into the specifics of those negotiations because they still are ongoing and it was not agendized for today's hearing however um we are requesting to vacate the withdrawal request and continue the matter on the mcup revocation to december 5th 2026. so that's your request yes all right is there anything else no all right thank you we'll go ahead and open this up for public comment at this time

Public comment is now open for this item. Call 951-826-8688 and follow the prompts to access the meeting. To request to speak, press star 9. When called to speak, press star 6 to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

All right. We have two speaker cards for this item. First, I'll call up Marco McGuire. Good morning.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Planning Commission. Well, I just first want to say thanks. We've been working with the city. We've been working with the planning. Multiple times I was affirmed that this would just be on the calendar and be taken off. Just yesterday, they just told us this was going to be wanting to push for another six months, which it was kind of a shock because we've been very closely in communication with planning, and they've reassured us. multiple times it wasn't like oh we know where we want to move this just yesterday we were informed and as a business owner you know it's just a little disappointing uh we I've been very proactive uh you know I've been doing as much as I can and working with the city working with planning RIGHT AFTERWARDS, I WAS WITH THE COUNCILMAN, PHILIP, AND THINGS WERE GOING VERY POSITIVE. AND I WAS REASSURED. AND NOW I JUST FEEL THAT, YOU KNOW, DECEMBER, I JUST, I'M NOT, IT'S JUST A LITTLE CONFUSING TO ME WHEN THE CITY IS TELLING ME THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE TAKEN OFF THE CALENDAR AND WE WERE GOING TO HAVE A RESOLUTION BEFORE THIS DATE. AND SO NOW I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, DISAPPOINTED AS A BUSINESS OWNER AND, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST KIND OF CONFUSED.

SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER, CARMEN LINEZ. GOOD MORNING.

GOOD MORNING.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Commissioners. I would see no reason to continue the revocation hearing if DTE is actively working with the City on a modification of the MCUP. Additionally, DTE has agreed to apply for an entertainment permit with RDP, which DTE had previously been grandfathered. At the time that the permit became effective, DTE reached out to RDP, and we were told we did not have to apply for one. However, DTE has agreed to the City's conditions that would require an entertainment permit for safety, security, and the current MCUP would be removed, placed with RDP. Currently, we have both submitted the modification of the MCUP and the entertainment permit. Mr. Caldera informed DTE that although all the other departments have already signed off on the entertainment permit, they will not do so until the modification of the MCUP. I would like to delineate for the Commission all the steps DTE has taken since their last hearing to work with the City to support DTE's surprise of receiving an email yesterday at 2.42 stating that the revocation to withdraw, despite the fact that DTE had been assured multiple times that it would be withdrawn, that this Commission's agenda was modified to reflect the withdrawal. The reason provided by the city was that the city attorney was working on changes on the MCUP. The resolution that was referenced, I don't know what he is referring to. However, the last few months, the city attorney has never once reached out to DT in regards to this. On April 17th, Mr. Caldera sent the requirements for the modification. April 21st, per DTE's request, we met with planning. April 29th, Mr. Caldera asked the application be submitted by May 5th. On May 4th, we submitted the application. May 5th, we reached out to see if there was any other requirements. May 12th, uh planning verbally confirmed to me that it would actually be withdrawn this hearing or the revocation on may 14th dt had a virtual meeting with winnie and edgardo to discuss the modifications on may 27th we had a meeting with drc that took place um with everyone except rdp because they weren't able to make it mr edgardo had stated he would send a follow-up email I sent a follow-up email yesterday, and instead of receiving a response with the RDP meeting, I was told that the revocation withdrawal would be continued. Thank you.

Thank you.

No further comment cards in chambers. Is there anybody online? Okay. May I please have a motion to close public comment?

Motion to close.

motion in a second to close close public comment please vote thank you all right bringing it back to the commission i've got questions but i will defer to anybody else that might have any questions first commissioner montero

Thank you for this morning and attending. I do have a question for the city. What is the reason for a last-minute change given the verbal reassurance over numerous amount of times over the past two months?

So the reason for the continuance is because certain legal steps have to occur before an entertainment permit may issue, and that's what staff is currently working on.

Right. And if an entertainment permit is being issued, why continue the hearing instead of recognizing that they're working it out in good faith?

There are several alternatives being explored by staff and negotiations that need to occur with the business. Right now, it is presumptively illegal to issue an entertainment permit, at least based on our analysis, because of the pending revocation. And therefore, whether or not there are options to be exercised, we need additional time to consult with the business in order to bring this case to a resolution.

So what you're saying is that they need to get that entertainment permit, but because the revocation is still in place and you're not dropping it now that can stand in the way of them being able to qualify to get that entertainment permit.

not just because the revocation is still pending, but also because of the facts presented so far. So there are other additional legal obstacles within the RMC that need to be addressed.

So what is the exact premise for switching it at 2 42 PM the day before this hearing, even though you already knew and the staff knew that entertainment, the entertainment permit was already being worked on per emails mentioned by their attorney?

I'm sorry. I don't quite understand the question.

What is the exact circumstance for the reason outside of the entertainment permit, since that is something that they've already worked on? What other premise? Because they have been reassured up until this point, so the legal process never changed, but your decision did. I would like to know why.

The legal process needs to change because currently they are statutorily ineligible from receiving an entertainment permit. They submitted an application. However, there is no legal mechanism by which they may receive one. And therefore, those changes need to be enacted first if that is the direction that we are going to proceed in resolving this revocation case.

Correct. So can you help me understand then why the withdrawal request has been changed versus not been changed?

We are currently exploring options that may or may not necessarily need a legislative change. There are multiple ways that we can address this, and we are currently attempting negotiations and discussing deciding which avenue is most appropriate, given the circumstances presented thus far to the Planning Commission, whether that involves a legislative change or not remains to be seen, depending on what or how the negotiations proceed.

Okay. Thank you. That's all the questions I have at this time. Thank you.

I have a couple of questions to start. May I ask Ed Gardo to come up? Good morning morning chair Can you please give us a little bit more information about your? communications and conversations with the Business owner and his team over the last several months since we had the first hearing in March sure so

So after the the hearing. I would say after internal discussions among city staff. We met with miss Carmen and business owner to kind of discuss a possible way forward that was the entertainment permit route. We told him that that could could be a resolution so they went ahead and submitted on May 1st says miss Carmen specified. And since that went into a cycle review with various departments in the city including planning or PD and those comments. were basically, so we met with them on April 27th to go over the comments and those were dispersed yesterday. So we're essentially in review and still pursuing the entertainment permit route. As city attorney's office mentioned, There was just a miscommunication about what the timing of the actual withdrawal of the revocation. But the ultimate goal is still pursuing the entertainment permit route for them.

Thank you. So you mentioned a meeting that happened on April the 27th. And I believe the commenter, Ms. Lainez, mentioned that they had been assured by you and or members of your team around that same time that today's agenda item would be as it was, a withdrawal of the revocation. So I echo the sentiments and the questions that are asked by my colleague to my left about what exactly changed between then when the assurance was, you don't have to worry about coming to this meeting. It's going to be withdrawn. Everything's moving forward fine. What exactly changed? And I don't know if that's a question for you, Edgardo, or for you, Jacob. But I need to understand that, please, more clearly.

I will defer that to Jacob.

Thank you.

So without disclosing privileged communications between myself and staff, as I mentioned earlier, there is not currently a legal mechanism by which an entertainment permit may issue under these specific circumstances presently.

And did you just figure this out a couple of days ago? I think that's where my confusion comes, right? Because up until a week or so ago, whatever, April, end of April, everything seemed to be moving along just fine. And so y'all have been working on this since March. And so my confusion is why up until a couple of days ago, the business owners are being told, that everything is fine, that everything is moving forward, that the revocation request is being withdrawn, and now suddenly is it accurate that they just got this communication yesterday? How is that? That's the part that's frustrating and confusing to me.

I understand, and I was not part of that communication. But what I can say is that there was a legal opinion from the city attorney's office to staff Based on that legal opinion, staff deemed it necessary to continue these proceedings. And unfortunately, I cannot reveal the contents of that communication that is privileged.

Okay. Commissioner Singh, I'll turn it over to you for your questions. Thank you, Madam Chair.

So I'm kind of a little bit confused here. Marco said that you guys did not know anything about this continuation, what we are talking about today.

Yes. So one thing, just to address the fact that we did receive an email yesterday at 2.42, which I do have. Jacob was a part of that email. So that was the first time we had heard that this would not be taken off calendar. This is an adversarial proceeding. It has nothing to do with changes to an entertainment permit.

So you didn't know anything before 2.45?

No. That was the first time. Thank you.

Is that true? For the city, is that true?

Yes, that communication was sent out yesterday afternoon.

No discussions before that.

Other than April 27th, no. Thank you.

And again, on April 27th, they were told that everything was fine. Commissioner Melendrez.

I guess this first question would be for Jacob. Why do we need six months of a continuance on this?

So the reason for the continuance duration is because, as Mr. Caldera has indicated, staff is interested in pursuing the issuance of an entertainment permit. If that's going to be the ultimate resolution of this proceeding, then there needs to be legislative changes to the municipal code by city council. And based on our work experience and estimates, it could take potentially six months to achieve that. However, if we are successful in making those changes and the entertainment permit is issued, then we would re-agendize this item before the Planning Commission to make the withdrawal at that point.

So statutorily, what's the timeline for a change to municipal code?

I would estimate minimum 45 days, because it first requires the introduction of the amendment, first reading, then 30 days before second reading, and then another 30 days for it to take effect. That also does not include staff time needing to draft the ordinance, review it with staff, review it with any additional executives as necessary.

And we've had two and a half, two months at this point. Do you know what the changes are that need to take place in the municipal code?

Off the top of my head, no.

But we have an idea based on what you can't disclose, what changes need to take place in order for this permit to be issued.

There needs to be an exemption crafted into the applicable chapter so we have an idea of what needs to be changed. But that is still in discussion.

And if I may, the specific section, so the entertainment permit is Title V, or it lives within Title V of the Municipal Code. And there are certain findings for an issuance of an entertainment permit, specifically Section 5.80.070A4. has a finding that neither the permittee or any responsible person or principal of the permittee has a history of committing permitting or failing to prevent significant violations of the city code or any license or permit in connection with an entertainment establishment for which he or she was a responsible person So at this point in time, we cannot make that finding. We still want to pursue the entertainment permit option. However, going through the process, and it wasn't until staff reviewed the materials, met with the applicant, and started looking at the finding and realized, oh, we can't do this at this point in time. So we are still moving forward on the path that we have been discussing with the applicant. But unfortunately, our hands are tied by this specific finding within the municipal code. So our goal is to amend the code because there are more businesses than just DTE that this could affect in the future. And we want to make sure that we don't run into the same issue again.

And I appreciate that and understand that. But the first hearing was a pretty big ordeal that we went through. And To me, it's more frustrating that we are holding up a business and we've had two and a half months to address this. That's the frustration I feel for them. And in general, the way it makes us look as a city, especially when I consider what was presented at that time. and The age of some of those allegations and how long they had been passed since it had been an issue and our Motion or at least the motion I made that day to extend this to see the city collaborate with this business owner Just furthers the frustration because we did it in good faith to make sure that the city could work collaboratively with them instead of denying the revocation hearing and forcing it to go to council which I you know, it brings that point back up today is that maybe the best move. And so I'm not okay with six months. If you're saying it can be done in 45 days, I understand summer and vacation and everything else are coming up, but I would prefer to keep a tighter timeline on any of this than extend it that far out because I don't want this to be waiting until the fifth month and to be told that we need four more beyond that and going past the holidays. So that's all I have for now.

Thank you commissioner and I I want to echo my agreement with what commissioner Melendrez has just brought up about the timeline it feels like. Like the city is requesting to keep this issue hanging over the business owners heads when the problem that the city needs to solve feels to me like it's a city problem. the city just discovered apparently in reviewing this permit application that there's a conflict in code that has nothing to do with this business owner so why what is the purpose of maintaining this hanging over their heads like that can you explain that to me that was the decision made by staff and unfortunately i can't get into those discussions but if uh So nobody can tell me what is the rationale for keeping this issue hanging over these business owners' heads when it sounds like they've acted in good faith up to this point. They've been assured numerous times by Edgardo and other members of the planning team. That everything is moving forward. They met the deadline for submitting the application. So why are we still trying to act punitive towards them while the city fixes this code issue? Somebody tell me that.

Well, from my understanding, and because we have that ethical wall, we have two teams working on this. And so there is a team that's working on a settlement with the applicant. And then our team is working on going through the permitting process via the MCUP modification and the entertainment permit. So if the commission would like, while we work on the MCP modification entertainment permit, We can do that in a faster time frame, and we were giving ourselves ample time to do the settlement agreement, the MCUP modification, the code amendment, and also the entertainment permit. However, we could take this off calendar and bring it back. In order to do that, we will need to re-notice the item. However, we have faith that our team will be able to process this faster. So that is one option that we can do today.

Less than the time.

Correct.

You mentioned a settlement agreement. Who can talk? I don't know if that's within our purview, but you mentioned something.

And that is not within our purview. So there's two different teams. And so that is why we have the ethical wall that our team is not familiar with those negotiations. And that is why we have to, we're just working on our path. Sure. I got it. Thank you.

So there is potential for reducing the amount of time for this continuance. Commissioner Montero.

Thank you, Lana. Okay, so I have a couple other questions. We mentioned there was a grandfather for this entertainment permit, but then they were informed that that grandfather no longer existed and they needed to apply for an entertainment permit. Or can somebody speak a little bit to that grandfathered in and how you are no longer, or was it a misinformation? Maybe the McGuire team attorney?

Sorry, there was no changes to the grandfathered, but when originally it came out, RDP said, if you're an existing business, you do not need an entertainment permit. We actually voluntarily said, we'll apply for an entertainment permit even though we do not need to. And to address the city planner's point, this is the first time I've heard of a settlement, so if there's any negotiations, it hasn't been with the business owner.

Interesting. Okay, so from what I'm hearing, is that they technically volunteered for this entertainment permit, but it's actually not necessary given current code. But we're withholding this withdrawal of this case on that premise. Can Citi speak a little bit to that? It's a little bit inconsistent, so I'm just trying to figure out why this entertainment permit has now become...

It's my understanding from previous presentations from city staff that this entertainment permit was given to the business owners as an option that would make their operations fall more under the purview of RPD or take them out from under the conditions of the MCU P and then the business owners it's my understanding agreed to go through that process even though technically they're not required to have that permit that was presented to them and accepted by the business owners as a potential solution right and now we're here okay and so speaking on that then since we've been in negotiations for 2.5 months or about roughly at this point the city's attempt was to

have the entertainment permit option as a resolution as the one resolution correct that is correct okay and just recently there was some misinformed amongst our city staff where it was actually not an option is that correct

We would still like to pursue that option.

And that's where the code amendment comes in.

That's where the code amendment comes in. And globally, that's how we would like to move forward with all entertainment uses moving forward. But for the existing businesses, because of that one finding, it puts existing businesses in a rough spot because sometimes they can't meet that finding. even though the city's overall goal is moving forward to have all entertainment uses have an entertainment permit because that's more applicable to the operations of their business.

Okay, thank you. And then given there's a 45 day runway for legislative municipal code changes required for this specific case. How does the city feel about having a 45 to maximum 60 day runway to get this done given our process allows for that runway as stated by city staff?

So we are already drafting language for this code amendment. Process-wise, we will need to first get it on. And because this is an amendment to Title V, it does not need to go before the Planning Commission. It can go straight to the City Council. However, we need to finalize the language, get it approved by all parties, because it's not just the Planning Division that's affected by it. It's also the Police Division and the... the city our attorney's office always reviews any sort of amendments to the code so that process will will take a little while but again we're actively working on it and then once it's agendized after the city council makes their determination if they approve it then it becomes effective in 45 days so it still just takes a little while we can draft it and have it on agenda i believe in 45 days but then we need the extra 45 days for it to go into effect okay so that's 90 days correct okay

And then there's been discussions with RDP regarding the entertainment permit. Are we looking like those are in favor of the legislative code that's being amended at this point in time?

Meaning, do we believe that it will be in support of the change? Correct. Yes, I believe so. Okay.

Thank you. That's all my questions.

Is it accurate that RDP has already signed off on the entertainment permit? According to Ms. Lainez's comments earlier, I think I heard her mention that the permit application was submitted on time and has already gone through most of the review process and been signed off by most folks except for maybe your department or city attorney's.

yeah so so just to be clear that they submitted for a it's 2 processes they submitted for the mcp modification and a parallel submittal was the entertainment permits so what happens before they actually go to submit the application to put the police department at all applicable departments have to sign off And the applicant has been routing that, so most departments have signed off and basically it's just with planning division and ultimately that goes to PD for final approval.

Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Commissioner Alderette.

um first first thing to clarify uh i've heard rdp and rpd and i know they slip sometimes so just just to clarify every every reference to our uh riverside downtown partnership is rpd okay sorry um i i'm echoing what our fellow commissioners have said the timeline is just it seems like it's not fair to to the business owner to to drag it out over their head over their head over their head so anything we can do to resolve this like Now it would be it would be the best the other thing too is with the Slipping on the word for it. The second thing that we're not privy to I was an ass the settlement Miss Torres, what what where is that? How what can we be privy to and what can we not be privy to?

I think what has been presented so far is what is within the purview of the Planning Commission because the Planning Commission's jurisdiction is over the application to revoke. Sure. So the settlement discussions, what they decide with planning and how they effectuate that is not before the Planning Commission.

Okay. Well, and the purpose of that was because it seems like from the last time we met with DTE, there was a lot of, we decided to push this forward, to be fair, because there was a lot of miscommunications, it seemed like, at that time. And so now it seems like there's more miscommunication again. And then with the settlement, them not being aware, it's like, again, it's like this pattern of miscommunications that we've got to see how we can get on the same page and expedite this.

And if I can, I'll just step in to clarify a little bit about the timeline. As you are all aware, the city does have the Sunshine Ordinance, so the agenda is published 12 days before, and then staff needs time to submit that to council to be added to the agenda. It takes two readings. There's an introduction first, and then an adoption at a second meeting. And then the ordinance would go into effect 30 days after the final adoption. So just to give you a little bit of the timeline and then staff can talk about how that would work for them.

Commissioner Alderette, did you have any other questions? I think that's it. Okay. Commissioner Singh?

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I have a broader concern, and the concern is we're supposed to be a city where businesses are coming here, thriving, doing business, and do well. And in this particular case, it concerns me that the candidate here, the business, is saying that we were told at 245 yesterday. And see, what it does is it creates uncertainty for the business. had they known or maybe they had been communicated, they had known what is going on, what they will do. So this way we come together because as a city, people depend on our city staff and telling them what's going to happen and there is no confusion about the timeline and things. So I think the broader comment is that as a business owner, I should be able to go to city and rely on what city tells me and work with that. But this creates a tremendous amount of problem from the City perspective, when we attract people now, he might go and tell 10 other people. So this is not a good city where we should be doing business because now there's nothing certain. They change their mind. They do this, they do that. So that's really broader comment I wanted to make. We should really take a look at that and learn from it. And next time, we don't repeat the same thing to come to 11th Hour and just confuse the businesses that are working with us. Now, of course, this business obviously have a lot of representation, lots of people. But now I wonder how many businesses we have in the city that confuse like this, right? So this is a bigger concern that I have.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Baird?

Yeah, thank you for the presentation today. I just want to echo, I think, this Commission's frustration with how this is going down and how we are treating DTE. We need to move on this much quicker. I really support that. You know, what I've heard from folks up here on the dais is we can do this quite a bit quicker, right, than the six months that was put forth to us. It sounds like maybe 90 days is a reasonable target. You know, we need to support our businesses in this community. It does not seem that we're communicating well. It does not seem that we're supporting our businesses here. And I'm quite sympathetic to downtown experiments circumstance and their frustrations. It sounds like the city is committed to an entertainment permit and we have a RMC barrier that's being worked on. It sounds like the applicant is committed. It sounds like there's sign-offs in the department. right uh and there's been pretty significant miscommunications that's causing frustration of this dais and the applicant so i you know i would really propose that we move this quicker that the city learned from this and here are frustrations on this dice uh for future considerations um with that i think i think the 90 days is what i've heard is as quick as this can happen and i think a fire needs to be under city staff to enable that to occur um And I think concurrently with that, it seems like the entertainment permit could be teed up and ready to be issued immediately upon the modification to the RMC. And I think that should occur, that both staff and the applicant work to have that ready to issue, right? And this be revoked immediately upon adjustment of the RMC language. I don't know if there's concurrence with the three months, 90 days here and that process, but I really think that's how this needs to proceed.

Thank you, and I appreciate that suggestion. Before we move forward to any sort of motion, I want to make sure we hear from everybody. Commissioner Melendrez, you're up.

Um, Jacob, you said earlier that you were attempting negotiations and then we heard their attorney say that they hadn't heard from anybody. Who were you attempting negotiations with or is that privileged? I was not part of any negotiations. However, whose behalf were you speaking on when you said you were attempting negotiations?

So my reference to negotiations was the discussions that Mr. Caldera referenced back in, I believe it was April and the discussions concerning moving downtown experiment from an MCP to an entertainment permit. That's what I'm referring to.

Okay. And I mean to the DTE team, is that consistent?

So, yes, there was conversations with Edgardo in regards to the modification of the MCUP first, and then the entertainment permit. However, anything in reference to a settlement is unbeknownst to us. Those are the only conversations that have been had. The city attorney has never once reached out to us personally to discuss anything else. And I would just like to voice that Jacob mentioned re-agendizing. Why not re-agendize? Why not take this off calendar? Thank you.

Commissioner Melendrez?

Yeah. Is the fact that their CUP revocation is still technically present, is that a big hang-up for what we were attempting to do in issuing the entertainment permit? So the case that's still open that we've continued.

You're referring to the revocation case? Yes.

So if the revocation case was gone and we denied it as a commission, would you be able to move forward with the entertainment permit? No. No. Why is that?

Because substantial evidence has already been presented in a public forum that demonstrates DTE has at least some basis for not complying with the current municipal code chapter as written.

And if the planning commission decided that that significant evidence that was presented wasn't sufficient for a revocation and we denied it, you still could not move forward?

No, because the current municipal code as drafted requires the chief of police to make the findings. That's the issue. So why isn't Chief Gonzalez here to speak on this? because we're requesting to continue the hearing so that we can resolve this all at one shot.

Think it through. Commissioner Mooney, I haven't called on you yet, so please go ahead.

Thank you. I want to just, as I'm listening and taking in the information that both the business and the staff are sharing with us, I did want to, as it's been said and shared, other commissioners previously that this really does this process on the city put the scrutiny on the city in a manner that really can come across as quite unprofessional and not fair and negative and I'm sure that that's not the position that the city wants to be seeing as far as doing business with Folks that want to establish businesses here in the city So I just want to underscore my observations thought I do understand sometimes timelines They can get away from you But the point is is that this really does take a priority to look deeply and carefully so if there is something that's going to affect in the manner that it has that we are avoiding at all costs the very very late and really not do business in that manner it does seem quite unfair that is the appearance that it has and so we're looking to offer anyone that comes into the city that we have a process and a structure we know that there are things that can affect that but that we have departments whether or not they're from our you know, the legal departments as well as the staff that we're working together and communicating together so that we can present in a way that's not going to put our businesses under this kind of situation, and especially being notified at such a late hour. So I just wanted to make sure to make that statement and just to support a lot of the observations that have been stated here this morning. Thank you.

thank you commissioner montero go ahead thank you madam chair um so i do empathize a lot with the business owner and i also understand and empathize with the city that sometimes we do make mistakes commissioner mooney does bring up a good point that the appearance of does not very does not point the city in a good light because it is our job to be educated and informed in our own municipal code Given we had 2.5 months to work with them and in the end discovered that we suggested recommendations that couldn't actually be followed given the current circumstances to work out this case, that means that there's been 2.5 months of tax dollars spent with staff working on a case. with a resolution that wasn't actually feasible, only to come back and penalize the business owner to extend the withdrawal, even though they've done everything on their end to follow through with what was asked of them. That rework is a problem for our city, given we're going in a forward direction to streamline our processes, create an environment that's good for our business owners, and at the same time, be more collaborative with our community versus a lot of red tape, which seems to be the constant echo with all residents across our city when it comes to business development. And that's something we are looking to try to change. I would ask that the city do consider and compromise a bit and understand that by moving forward with continuing a withdrawal comes off as a penalization, regardless of the actions of the person you are negotiating with. Thank you.

Did my question get answered about the why of keeping this over their heads? Did that question get answered? Okay. Go ahead.

Why do we need to keep the revocation open? I don't understand the answer. Commissioner Melinda has asked this, right? Why does that need to be remained open? Why can't we just deny today and in good faith the applicant and the city work to complete the entertainment and the MCUP? Right.

Legislative changes are separate from the NCUP modification.

It seems to the chair's comment that this is being continued to keep it over downtown experiment's head in the negotiation of the entertainment permit and the NCUP. Is that the case?

Yeah, I think the primary reason for for keeping it on for not dismissing it at this point is basically there still has yet to be negotiations with the business owner so there's not There's not a set resolution so that we're just trying we're trying to keep options open at this point.

Thank you for the candor and to be clear if We were to deny the continuance. There's nothing prohibiting The issuance post the RMC language modification of being issued for the the MCP Modification and the debt and the the entertainment permit to repeat that question. Yeah, so if you don't need the revocation to remain open to continue to actually issue the entertainment permit and the MCUP modification that the applicant has submitted to the city.

That is correct.

And it's under the purview of this dais to deny the continuance and the revocation, right, if we so choose at this hearing. Is that correct?

Repeat that, please.

We can deny the request for continuance, and we can deny the revocation, so we choose at this hearing. Is that before us today? Okay.

Yes, the Planning Commission has the authority to decide whether they can make the findings required by the RMC for revocation. And if you do not make those findings, then you can deny the revocation.

Thank you.

Is everybody clear on that? Commissioner Alderette.

And then so we're beating a dead horse for a second. Just to clarify. Yeah, we need to be clear. What we kept hearing was we have to continue this because it would jeopardize the modifications because Chief has to clear it. But that has nothing to do with the revocation. Is that correct? Did I say that the right way?

Go ahead and repeat that question.

So from what I understood when Commissioner Melendez asked what would happen if we deny this revocation, you said it has to stay open because it would jeopardize the process moving forward because they have some outstanding that the chief has to actually wipe clean. That's the way I understood it.

But that's not accurate.

OK. No. So when I was responding earlier, I believe the question posed was, if the Planning Commission denies revocation now, could an entertainment permit be issued? That was my understanding. My response was no, because under Chapter 5.80, the police chief is required to make findings including that the business does not have a history of violating any other provision of the MEOs pull code or any other permit that they hold.

So let me, so I, I think I see this, this angle, but that has nothing to do with the revocation that has the revocation has nothing to do with those findings. We can still deny the revocation and then chief still has to do his thing no matter what, whether we have the revocation or not. Is that correct? Right.

So I just want to make sure that I'm clear. Cause there's, there's a lot, um, what is on our agenda? The published agenda is a request to withdraw the revocation case. That has been modified in real time during this meeting, and now we're now being asked to continue. So I want to make sure that we're all clear on what our actual options are. So if we say we don't want to continue this, we want to deal with this right now, then are we reverting back to the item that's actually on the agenda, or are we doing something else?

Because the item was continued from March 12th, as a revocation, you can still make the findings of a revocation or not. The report attached is just a supplemental report that was requesting a withdrawal. So the item of the revocation is still on the Planning Commission's agenda. Got it.

Yeah, got it. So it's still the do we want to revoke their correct?

And you can again continue your rules allow you as being requested.

Yes, or or not. And then take action on the actual correct original item. Correct. Okay. Is everybody clear on that? All right, Commissioner, all the red you already spoke. Did you have something else? Okay. Commissioner Melendrez.

And I just want to confirm, if we deny revocation, their process for the entertainment permit can continue absent this?

I don't know the facts of what's going on with the entertainment permit, so I can't comment on that.

So, Jacob, if we deny revocation... Does that affect in any way their application for the entertainment permit going forward in your process for adjusting the municipal code?

So denying revocation in our position would not affect the standpoint of staff currently that they are statutorily ineligible. It would also not change whether or not the municipal code is amended later. Does that answer your question? Yes. Okay.

Any other questions, Commissioner, at this point? Commissioner Alderette?

So as I see where we might be going, my only concern is that we have to hold the city's feet to the fire. So I'm going back and forth besides each side. If we go one way, then we kind of wash our hands of it. But the other side, so I was going to ask, is 90 days realistic? Is that like drop dead or 60? Is 60 days realistic?

I'm going to have to get some assistance from the clerk's office because I'm not 100% clear on the council's summer schedule. I do know there is a June 23rd meeting, and I'm not sure if we can get on that agenda. So I don't know how sparse the July calendar is.

So the July 16th agenda is publishing today and then the June 23rd will publish next week. So then we go into summer session. I believe the next city council meeting for July is July 7th. So, and then again, we are under the Sunshine Ordinance, so we do publish 12 days in advance. So we would need to have all those reports in 12, well, actually, two weeks. So we would need, for the July 7th, we would probably need those reports in by next week.

So I'm not doing the math. I'm just saying if we were to make a motion to say, hey, you have to have realistic expectations and it has to happen, in my opinion, it has to happen as soon as possible. And it's kind of a balance between both sides. A little bit to the city, a little bit to the DTE. But this is like it. This is done. We got however many days, 30 days, 60 days, 90 days, you know. And then get her done get her done yeah that's my two words okay is that

I think it makes sense to ask you, Jacob, and Gardo, whoever else needs to answer that question, is that a reasonable 90 days? I mean, it's already been shared with us that ordinance changes can happen as quickly as possibly 45 days, given a little bit of extra padding in terms of timeline, 90 days. Can you get it done?

because again you've already had two and a half months correct yeah we could definitely use that time and then it is possible to get it done it'd be tight not ideal but if that's what the Commission wishes that or decides to but with that's a possibility

may I please ask miss Carmen or mr. McGuire to come back up I just want to understanding that this was just you were just notified of all the all this yesterday it's probably still a lot to take in all of our comments and all of our questions today but is this something that you'd be willing as a compromise to accept as opposed to the six months dragging this out to only drag it out because it's still dragging it out in my opinion um for 90 days is that something that you'd be willing to accept as a compromise so at this point i think it's unfair to the business the dt the look in the city is that dt is a bad business this is a revocation

and this is going to be looming for another 90 days, over the McGuire's head, the owners, this is not a good look for any business. And just to mention, we do need to get the modification of the MCUP, which city attorney has not addressed, before the entertainment permit can even be issued. And my understanding is that RDP has a purview to the entertainment permit, not planning. So we have to work with RDP regardless of. I don't agree. RPD. I'm sorry. So I don't see why we need to continue having this looming over the business and the reputation. There have been no violations. There has been no changes in circumstances to support the city's position.

Thank you.

Commissioner Montero we got to make it yes so I just this is a question for Commission so in regards to deciding whether we want to move forward with the 90 days or just completely discontinued this revocation Is the 90 days we're wanting to consider to hold the city accountable to make sure it actually gets done? Is that my understanding?

Yeah, I believe that's the overall sentiment. Okay. however right the the unintended i think consequence to that would be still having this hanging over the business owners heads when they have up until this point since we originally continued this matter right done everything that they've supposed to been doing right submitting whatever paperwork you know having the conversations complying and so that's something that we need to decide as a body do we want to right okay and then what do we want to hold this hold the city accountable with this 90-day deadline at the expense of also having this continuing to stay yeah at the cost of still having this continue to stay over their heads

So, then I guess my last question is for the business. Can you elaborate a little bit more on how this extension really negatively affects your operation and how it suspends maybe certain operational operations within your business? Because I do understand that if the revocation goes through, then you're automatically door shut, right? So, can you elaborate on how this, continues to impact you so we can have further understanding in the public?

So the business owner in Good Faith has been working with the city. We've done every single thing that has been asked of us on a timely matter. To hold the revocation over the business, that gives them the option at any time to just be able to revoke the MCUP and DTE, close the doors, regardless of what Good Faith efforts we've made to work with the city. So, yes, it does hold them accountable, but, you know, as the city staff, they should work with the business owners regardless of. It shouldn't require 90 days in front of a commission for them to do that. Correct. Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Melendrez.

Can I have you come back up real quick? I'm sorry.

It feels like Catholic mass.

Would you, I guess here's my concern. We'll just say with past experiences. I agree with what I'm hearing from some of our commissioners that at least it gives us a standing to keep this in front of us to hold accountability to the city to continue to move forward with this. If we deny the revocation, I don't know what the motivation is to get anything done moving down the road to get the entertainment permit. That's just me throwing an old hat on that I wore at one point. So I, I am concerned about that, but at the same time, having this open affects the business, the reputation and how it's seen. I guess my question for you is what would you be most comfortable with? And do you feel you could get the entertainment permit done without the revocation still hanging over your, you know, or being in front of us at the same time, hanging over your head?

I believe we can. So Mr. McGuire owns multiple businesses, one of which has an entertainment permit, which is Estrella. So we've gone through the process. We've worked with the Riverside Police Department in the past. I have never had an issue with working with the police department in regards to the entertainment permit. Again, this was voluntarily. I understand code. I'm not sure exactly why it prevents a business from voluntarily submitting an entertainment permit. you know, that's on the city's purview. However, the process isn't complicated as long as staff communicates and not throw things at our desk the night before something is supposed to be done. So I think that that would be what we're more comfortable with in order to work with the city, continue working with the city attorney. And ultimately, it's not planning who's going to approve the entertainment permit. It's the Riverside Police Department. And they're not here to speak on it, but we are going to work like we have in the past with the police department.

OK.

Thank you. Commissioner Baird.

Yeah, I think the 90 days holds the city in the downtown experiment. uh to a timeline to get this done right i think it's important that it that it is continued for that reason um that it holds both the downtown experiment um to be committed to getting that done right it provides some leverage there i think that is appropriate but it also puts a real fire under the city to take this matter seriously and get this resolved on behalf of the of the city um you know so i would you know i know there's some speakers here but i would i would definitely move for that

um so you're back to you're bringing us back to potentially a 90-day day continue continuing to this matter okay consider that everyone commissioner all the way alderette oh so you're good but commissioner melindrez is back i am back go ahead i i i mean are you going to make a motion brian or do you can i make a motion but i'll be happy i want to make sure everybody's questions concerns comments heard we're good okay yeah I'll go ahead and make a motion to continue planning case two zero two six zero zero one one seven four maximum of 90 days second we have a motion in a second on the revised continuance to 90 days as opposed to six months is there any further discussion Any further discussion? All right, let's vote. What do we have? One, two, three. Okay. Motion carries. I don't know if there's still an appeal period on this. Okay, thank you. All right, motion carries. So we have a 90-day continuance. Thank you, everyone.

I just want to tell you guys thank you. I'm just a business owner. I'm just an operator. We get along really well with the city, so I appreciate your guys' time. I know this has been dragging on, but as a business owner, I'm going to take a lot of accountability, and I'll be back here in three months and hopefully get this resolved. Get it done. Thank you.

Yes, absolutely be resolved and done.

Better be damn done. I don't want to hear nothing else about it. All right. Thank you, everyone. At this time, the Planning Commission will open the public hearing to receive public input regarding planning case PC 2024-001684. Good morning. Hi, good morning. Thank you for your patience.

Thank you all. I'll wait for the PowerPoint to go on. All right, thank you, Chairwoman and members of the Commission. Yana Fursud, Associate Planner. The case before you this morning is a request for a conditional use permit to permit a charter school. The 0.57-acre project site is comprised of a single parcel developed with Vista Norte Public Charter School and Casablanca Home of Neighborly Services. Surrounding land uses include single-family residential to the west and north across Casablanca Street, vacant land to the south across Railroad Avenue, and east across Winstrom Streets. These photos depict the edge conditions of the site. Photo one and two show the site from Railroad Avenue. Photo three shows the site from the intersection at Casablanca and Winston Street. And photo four shows the site from Casablanca Street. These photos depict the existing parking conditions of the surrounding streets. The project site is zoned R17000, single family residential, which allows for charter school facilities subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. The site consists of two buildings, a 2,708-square-foot structure occupied by Vista Norte Public Charter, shown in light blue, and a 2,306-square-foot structure utilized by Casablanca Home of Neighborly Services and the charter school shown in dark blue. The site also includes 12 onsite parking spaces and an outdoor playground area. The charter school operates Monday through Friday from 7.30 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. Students enrolled are between the ages of 14 and 23. Students primarily work on assignments at home and attend onsite weekly meetings for about an hour or two to discuss assignments and participate in assessments. A teacher sees about five students at a time with no more than 50 students on site. Community programs provided by Casa Blanca Home of Neighborly Services operates from 5 p.m. to 8 o'clock p.m. and has been operating since the 1960s. It continues to provide services such as parenting classes, counseling, and similar educational and support programs to the surrounding community. Additional community services include a daily food pantry and a weekly food drive, The food pantry operates Monday through Friday from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., and the weekly food drive is held every Wednesday from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. Vehicular access to the site will remain available through an entrance driveway on Railroad Avenue, with a separate exit driveway also located on Railroad Avenue. The project includes a building with classrooms for the charter school and a second building with offices and additional classrooms for the charter school and the Casa Blanca Home of Neighborly Services. The project will continue to provide critical educational resource for the Casablanca neighborhood with continued education and also offer programs and food support to the nearby residents. The site is consistent with all the development standards of the zoning code and citywide design guidelines. Staff recommends that the planning commission determine that the project is exempt from CEQA per section 15301, existing facilities of the CEQA guidelines, as the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and improve the project based on the findings outlined in the staff report and summarized in the attached findings and subject to the recommended conditions. This concludes staff's presentation. The applicant's team is present and available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. May I ask the applicant to please come forward and state your name? Good morning, and thank you for your patience.

Good morning, Chair and Commission. My name is Travis Chopp. I'm the applicant.

And do you agree with all the staff's conditions and recommendations related to this item?

Yes, we do.

All right. Do you have anything else you would like to add at this time?

No, no. I do have some staff and people with us if there's any questions about the program itself, as well as the director of the community center, if anybody has any specific questions there.

All right. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much.

All right. We'll go ahead and open this up for public comment.

Public comment is now open for this item. Call 951-826-8688 and follow the prompts to access the meeting. To request to speak, press star nine. When called to speak, press star six to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

I have no speaker cards for this item. Are there anybody, nobody's online? All right. Seems like we have no comments on this item. May I ask for a motion to close public comment? We have a motion in multiple seconds. Please vote. All right. Thank you. Motion carries. Any questions or comments from the commissioners? Commissioner Baird.

Sure, thank you staff and applicant for bringing this forth. I understand this is being brought to us because it's an existing non-compliant use. Is that, just want to confirm that that's the case? This was voluntarily brought by the applicant?

That is correct, Commissioner. The school is operating, but they voluntarily brought the CUP forward.

Wonderful. And then second question was I saw time of use restrictions in the CUP. How does that work with the school being restricted to, I think, 7 to 5, but then on the same property we have the neighborly services working after hours? Are they under a different CUP on the same address? Can you explain how we have those time restriction commitments? I want to make sure there's clarity there for this commission and the applicants.

Sure. Thank you, Commissioner. I can take a stab at it. Maybe there's more detailed questions here. But generally, when we have two businesses operating on the same site, we like to offset them a little bit, particularly in a site that's a little bit tight. So we have adequate parking, circulation. It's not impacting the surrounding neighborhood there. So there are some time restraints on this. The school has indicated that they can operate within those hours. And if you'd like more information, we can defer to them to talk about that there. But that's generally when their students would be attending.

right or on site there and that has no restriction on the casablanca home and neighborly services correct it does not okay great my last comment was just um thank you for the services you provide in the community right both the charter school um in the neighborhood and the home of neighborly services you know i've i've participated in events there really do appreciate um both of your work right um in the community so thank you for being bringing this forth complying And I'm certainly in support of what we have before us today.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Monteiro?

Hi Travis. Good to meet you. Um, so there's been a lot of, you know, public support with Alta Vista, um, public charter school. Um, a lot of people have mentioned, you know, it's great with the flexible schedules, the small classroom sizes. Uh, there has been a little bit of critique with test scores and things, um, of that nature, along with limited extracurricular activity, which, um, I understand the hours might impede on being able to have some of those extracurricular afterschool hours. I definitely love what you're doing for the community. I'm huge on education, so thank you for that. Can you elaborate a little bit more in how you are continuing to, I guess for lack of better words, finesse your curriculum and increase the test scores so that the public charter school is continued to be useful for the entire community and a positive impact? Because we do have some folks that do have concerns sometimes with public charter schools operating in our city.

I understand. I'm not the best person to answer that question. I'm going to defer to Memo. He's the principal of the location.

Okay, thank you.

Good morning, everyone. Memo Velasco, principal at Casablanca. What I can say on that is we're constantly working, even with the district, we have a differentiated assistance program where we specifically target areas of growth, like testing scores, and these are things that we continue to track, that we continue to work on. We have an extended leadership team, which consists of an assessment department that specifically tracks and helps with the improvement on those things on a regular basis.

Great. Good to hear that you have some KPIs helping to continue to measure the growth and progress. Thank you for that.

We do.

Thank you. Commissioner Singh? Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a question for applicant. My main question is that how does your school differ from the other high schools? The reason it got my attention is that you have students from 14 to 23. So this is for my education, though. I think it sounds like a great project to me, and I've heard about charter schools a lot. So can you talk a little bit about that?

Yeah, absolutely. It is an independent study program, meaning that students meet with their teachers one to two times a week for one hour to two hour appointments, which is when they receive work in the form of a credit, a unit, a packet. Students complete these packets at home, and they come to school and ask questions, review the material, work with tutors or paraprofessionals if they need to, and leave the center with an additional credit.

So is this like a home study program?

It is not home study. It is independent study in the sense that the majority of the work, yes, definitely is done at home or outside our school behind a computer. Yes.

So do you have teachers who teach that?

We have teachers that facilitate the credits. We have teachers that are available via phone call, text, or online to be able to answer questions that perhaps students have when they're working on these units at home.

So any student who is going to high school, can they enroll with your school too and have additional facility for them to learn?

Yeah, absolutely. Our students will earn a high school diploma when they complete their credits with us.

Now your scores, because one of the concerns that as educators I have in our city, we like to see our scores go up, right? So what would you do different that these scores, right, they have an annual test, they go up? What would you do differently?

Yeah, we obviously work on continuing to improve those test scores, starting with informing our students of those assessments, creating possible sessions where students come in and take additional classes that can prepare them for those assessments, work on things specifically. Our teachers know where students are academically. They are constantly tracking their progress and they are specific on creating those additional workshops, small instruction classes that sometimes are geared to specifically help them with improving those test scores.

But why 14 to 23? What is the rationale behind 14 to 23?

A lot of our students are behind in credits and unfortunately they cannot continue in the traditional school setting. So they come with us behind with credits and we are able to service them until the age of 23.

Thank you. I think it's a great project. Thank you for doing this. You're welcome. Let me actually add to that.

I don't know if this will hurt or help, but one of the things that we do a lot different from a traditional high school is it's much more of a one-on-one learning environment. Traditional public schools have 30 to 45 students per class with one teacher. The total possible students a singular teacher is going to deal with in an entire semester or learning period is going to be 45. That's their maximum caseload. Right now, it's much more like 15 or 20, and we keep a consistent total enrollment of around 200 to 260. We've never reached a 450 cap. That's just in case we explode for some reason. And no more than five students are in front of any teacher at any given time. It's a lot more one-on-one. Where are you struggling? What don't you understand? Rather than just doing a cookie-cutter presentation and hoping everybody figures it out, it's much more one-on-one learning and direct that way.

Now would you say your students are very motivated or you just have to do something special to motivate them to learn?

I would say they're already pretty motivated because it's a choice to be there. They're not being forced. This is a choice to be there. They're not, you know, they want to come there. They're very happy to be there. We give them a lot of resources as well. A lot of our students We feed and clothe and help them because they're all at risk. They're all there because traditional school didn't work or something's going on at home that they can't go to school for it or things like that. So we try to do more than just education there, and we're able to partner with the community center, and he provides a lot of meals for students as well. That's part of the daily food pantry, and it's a really very nice, cohesive partnership that we have with them.

Thank you. It's really nice to hear from you, and thank you for doing what you're doing for the city. It's a pleasure.

Commissioner Mooney. A question of clarity, just so I understand the whole independent study and the charter school. Thank you so much for bringing that to the city of services. I thought over 18 goes to the adult ed. So these students have IEPs. Is that why you're serving them till 23?

Based on our chartered petition, we are able to service students up to the age of 23.

Okay. Just because usually once they turn 18, they would do through the adult ed program, so I was kind of confused about that. Yeah, no, they can remain in that program until that age. Okay. Very good.

Thank you. Commissioner Alderette?

Again, I've had family and friends that have gone through these similar programs. Do you also, just my own curiosity, is there's students that go there to excel because it's packet-based so they actually can get ahead in life, graduate high school a year early, things like that? Yeah, absolutely.

Good question. Typically, students, just to give you a number, that complete about six credits per month would move at the traditional pace of a student at traditional school that completes like the 60 credits per year. But yeah, they have the ability to turn in 8, 10, or up to 12 credits per month, which could obviously potentially have them graduate a lot sooner.

Commissioner Montero, please.

Yes, can you just speak a little bit to, you mentioned some of the instruction and materials, a majority of it go home. How much, I guess, of instructional material is given on site? You mentioned classroom sizes being 15 to 20, which is a pretty good size. We haven't had that since like the 90s usually with how much growth we've had. So can you tell me a little bit how much of the instructional material that you're providing to students is given on-site versus sent home to do with their parents?

I would say about 80% of the material that students are sent home with, it's completed by them at home. The other maybe 20%, it's them coming in and meeting with our tutors on regular appointments where they complete or work on those packets with them directly.

And so the instructional material and learning section is all written and sent home versus verbally discussed and covered in person?

That is correct. It's mainly created for students to be able to read those instructions and complete those packets completely by themselves unless they have any questions.

You mentioned there's some parents that are underserved or sometimes there's students that come because they have problems at home. What's the additional support you provide your students if You know, they have a home environment that isn't conducive to their educational learning.

We have a team of counselors, but that is their main role. Besides obviously checking on their academics, it is to make sure that they have those things met. And that's where that information is provided, through additional classes that we have or guiding them to the proper resources within the community.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

all right um i just want to before i ask for a motion go on record and thank you for bringing this to us um to get yourself in compliance i'm very familiar with what you do i love the fact that you collaborate hey jerry how you doing sir um that you collaborate with the home of neighborly services i love what they do and in collaboration you do a lot for the costa blanca and surrounding community so thank you I love the fact that you're there, that you're serving at-risk youth folks and giving families more choices for their youth education and giving students that have fallen behind in other educational settings, for whatever reason, an opportunity to catch up and thrive. So thank you again. And with that, seeing no additional comments or questions, may I ask for a motion?

I move to approve Planning Case PR2024-001684. I'll second.

All right. We have a motion and a second to approve. Please vote. All right. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. There is a 10-day appeal period. Please contact the Planning Division for appeal information. We now move to the consent calendar. Thank you, guys. Consent calendar is just a minute from our May 21st meeting. May I have a motion to approve? Motion and a second are on the table. Please vote. All right, motion carries. Items for future consideration.

Madam? None.

What's coming up? Is it accurate that our next meeting is canceled? Is that what you told us last time?

That is correct. We don't have any items for the next Planning Commission meeting, so that will be canceled. We're looking for some additional items for the following one, but we'll be in communication with you guys.

Thank you, Brian. I'll be on vacation, so that's great. Oh, fantastic.

We timed it just for you, Commissioner.

Thank you.

Thank you. I get to leave for backpacking early that morning, so I'm very appreciative of that. I do have one item that I wanted to bring for possible consideration or at least discussion at a future Commission meeting. So after our last meeting, I went home and I pulled out my Robert's Rules of Order book because, yes, I do own one. And so I was reviewing that, and I got a sense that I may have, in previous meetings, not managed appropriately our meetings or some of our conversations according to Robert's rules. And then my husband, who's on the Parks Commission, reminded me that when he went through the orientation slash training meeting earlier this year, that there are some commissions that use Robert's rules. There are other commissions that operate under council meeting guidelines. And so I want to understand... number one, which one of those is better and more efficient for use in our meetings, assuming that we do have a choice. I didn't realize that we potentially had a choice. So I would like to just have that as a discussion item. And if we do stick with Robert's rules, maybe a mini refresher for us to make sure that we are operating in the right way. That's really important to me. Is that something we can talk about?

I'm sorry.

Yes.

So I just wanted to let you know, we do have the annual code of ethics in review scheduled to come to all the boards and commissions. And we are anticipating having it coming to planning commission, possibly July 2nd or the 16th, because then it does have to go to the board of ethics in August and then to full city council in September. So to answer that, we could probably address that at that time. Okay.

Sounds good. Thank you so much.

I will just add quickly that I believe in March or April you readopted your rules.

I just didn't remember that there was an option to do something different.

Yeah, it's discussed in Article 1 of that, so we can go over that in the next one. Okay.

Thank you. I had nothing else. Is there anything else from anybody else? All right. We will stand adjourned at 1026. Thank you so much.