Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the Redlands Planning Commission meeting for September 8th, 2026. And we do have a quorum present. Item number, are there any public comments on items not on today's agenda? Seeing none, I will just, yes, Mr. Foote.

Excuse me, Chair. I just want to note that we received one email in the Planning Commission general comment email account inquiring about the status of the short-term rental ordinance, but nothing on today's agenda. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on to item number two, presentations. We have none. Moving on to item number three, consent calendar, which is the A, meeting minutes of August 25th, 2026. B, time extension for tentative track map number 20162. CUP number 1096, commission review and approval number 927, and C, time extension for commission review and approval number 949. Are there any public comments on the consent calendar or public speakers? Seeing none, are there any commissioners that would like to pull anything for discussion from the consent calendar?

I need to recuse myself from the second item.

Okay, with that, Director, would that be recusing himself from the entire consent agenda? Just that particular item. Okay, perfect. And is he okay to stay in the room? Perfect. Anyone else? Seeing none, do we have a motion to approve the consent calendar? I motion to approve the consent calendar. Second. Ms. Colson, could you please take a roll call vote?

Commissioner Dominguez?

Yes.

Vice Chair Elliott? Yes. Commissioner Galenhammer?

Yes.

Commissioner Swish is absent. Commissioner Smith?

Yes.

Commissioner Stanson?

Yes.

Chair Shaw? Yes.

Motion passes. Thank you. Item number four, old business. We have none. Item number five, new business. Item 5A. Item 5A is a consideration of ordinance text amendment number 373 and related specific plan amendments. A proposal to amend the zoning regulations of the Redlands Municipal Code to update the definition of alcohol beverage sales activity and establish the allowable hours of operation for serving alcohol beverages for on-site consumption to between 6 a.m. and 12 a.m. midnight of the same day and related code amendments to the provisions for conditional use permits. I will now open the public hearing for this item. Has any commissioner had any ex parte communications regarding this item? Seeing none, staff presentation by Brian Foote. Mr. Foote.

Thank you, Chair. This item, the ordinance text amendment and the related specific plan amendments is returning to you after some minor revisions. I'll start this presentation from the beginning. So this code amendment has been initiated by the Redlands Police Department. And I'll provide a brief overview of the context of the origin of this ordinance text amendment. Then after my presentation, Deputy Chief Jeremy Floyd will have a brief presentation as well. Notably, a recent increase in crime and public safety calls, particularly in the downtown area, have been in some way related to alcohol service and alcohol consumption on-site, particularly bars and restaurants in the downtown area. SOME DATA ANALYSIS BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT INDICATES THAT A LARGE PORTION OF THE MAJOR CRIME CALLS HAVE OCCURRED BETWEEN MIDNIGHT AND 2 A.M. AND THEREFORE THAT HAS IMPACTED POLICE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL AND RESOURCES AT THE CITYWIDE LEVEL FOR THE SAME HOURS PRIMARILY BECAUSE I'LL TRY TO PROVIDE A Concise summary as best I can Those calls results in other police Officers from other elsewhere in the city being called into the downtown area and therefore that draws down the resources available in other parts of Redlands all parts of Redlands when most or all of a shift is concentrated in the downtown responding to several calls in the downtown between midnight and 2 a.m. So I'll leave it at that and I'll refer to Deputy Chief Jeremy Floyd for further explanation on that background. I'm still going. I have a few more slides, sorry. So I'll get into the actual text of the amendment that's proposed. This is a few slides. It is fairly detailed, but it's important, I think, to go through these amendments line by line for full information. So in Chapter eighteen point one nine zero of the municipal code and that's the section in the zoning code pertaining to I'll call beverage sales establishment regulations There's a definition of alcohol beverage sales activity and this amendment would expand that definition to include The active handling pouring and delivering or delivering of alcoholic beverages to patrons by employees or contractors of a licensed establishment Whether or not for commercial gain or profit so Whether or not the beverages, alcohol beverages, are being sold or given away, this definition would be expanded to include any on-site service. Next, we have a new section. It would be 18.190.065, and that would be titled Unpermitted Service of Alcohol Beverages. And this section would specify the hours that alcohol beverage on-site consumption would be prohibited. It's essentially between midnight and 2 a.m. So on-site consumption or on-site sales would be permitted only between the hours of 6 a.m. to 12 midnight of the same day. And then this would pertain only to on-site sales and service. So it would not pertain to what is referred to as off-sale. So retail sale of packaged drinks or beverages that are not consumed on-site. So that's generally the distinction in ABC license types is on-sale versus off-sale. And on-sale means on-site consumption. Off-sale means package sales, not for on-site consumption. So this particular code amendment would pertain to the on-site sales, service, or consumption of alcohol, beverages only. As I just explained, on sale is sales service or any type of delivery for consumption on the premises. The proposed cutoff time would be 12 a.m. midnight, whether or not the drinks are sold for a fee or given away for free. CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS MAY BE MADE FOR SPECIAL EVENTS AND WRITTEN PERMISSION WOULD NEED TO BE GRANTED BY THE CITY FOR SPECIAL EVENTS. TYPICALLY THOSE ARE ASSOCIATED WITH SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS, FOR EXAMPLE. AND AGAIN, I WOULD REITERATE THIS AMENDMENT WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO OFF-SALE LICENSE TYPE FOR PACKAGE SALES, FOR EXAMPLE. The revision that's before you today expands the section pertaining to conditional use permit modification, suspension, or revocation. This change would more clearly establish the grounds for potential suspension or revocation of a conditional use permit associated with alcohol sales. This section expands the verbiage to include modification just so it's clear that this section is not pertaining to just suspension or modification. It could pertain to modifications such as to conditions of approval, more specifically hours of operation for a particular conditional use permit for a particular property associated with alcohol sales. Now the grounds, the new grounds that would be inserted into this section is that the application contained any incorrect, false, or misleading information, the property or business is operated in a manner that constitutes a public nuisance, or the city has amended its municipal code or zoning code to abate or prevent public nuisances. So, as you can see, this is aimed at public nuisances. And lastly, the procedure to amend an alcohol conditional use permit shall be the same as other conditional use permits. And this refers to Chapter 18.192, which is the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. This just simply says that the procedures to go about potentially modifying or otherwise suspending or revoking an alcohol conditional use permit are the same procedures as are used in other types of conditional use permits. This section is from the Conditional Use Permits Chapter 18.192, and this particular section also addresses modification or suspension of a conditional use permit, and this is some added language just to clarify some of the procedures and the grounds upon which a permit may be modified or suspended. And those grounds include noncompliance with any of its conditions or training standards, the application contained incorrect, false, or misleading information, The city has amended its municipal or zoning code in order to abate or prevent public nuisances. Or the property and or business is operated in a manner that constitutes public nuisance. So again, these grounds are aimed at public nuisances. And the rest of the modified language just pertains to the procedures to go about potentially modifying or suspending a conditional use permit. this particular section is a further addition to that section of the zoning code pertaining to modifying or suspending a conditional use permit there are two new provisions part e and part f modifications may be requested by the permittee This is a language that just makes it crystal clear that a permittee themselves may request a modification. If so, then that procedure would be in accordance with Section 18.192.060. Again, that's a procedural requirement. In Part F, modifications or revocations initiated by the City. This just makes it clear that the City may initiate the process to modify or suspend a conditional use permit. based on any of the grounds as defined in the section there, 18.190.110, that refers back to the alcohol beverage sales establishment regulations, and that's more specifically pertaining to the grounds that I explained earlier, if there's any issues with public nuisances. And if the city initiates a modification or revocation, then that must be substantiated by a preponderance of the evidence. All right. So we've had some questions regarding how many businesses might potentially be affected by this code amendment. Staff reviewed the various types of ABC licenses that are issued to businesses in the city. Most are a type 41 that is on sale beer and wine for an eating place. And a review of the operating hours for most restaurants found that most restaurants are closing by 9 or 10 in the evening. There are approximately five restaurants that stay open until midnight. And there's one restaurant that stays open after 2 a.m. Some other types of common alcohol licenses are the type 47 on sale general for an eating place. That's, again, a restaurant license. And there are four restaurants with bars in the downtown area that close at 1230 or 1 a.m. on the weekends. And then during weekdays, they close earlier than that. In addition, there are six bars or lounges in the downtown area that close at 2 a.m. Of those six, only two stay open until 2 o'clock on select days, so not every day of the week. There's select days, typically the weekends, they stay open later until 2 a.m. Another type of ABC license, which is less common, is the on-sale general public premises. These are the bar licenses, not a restaurant license, so there's no requirement to serve food. And there's two bars or lounges in the downtown that are defined as public premises, and both of those close by 1.30 a.m. every day. In terms of general plan conformity, there are two specific policies in the general plan that pertain to improving the sense of safety in the downtown area and the joining commercial areas. In terms of environmental review, the adoption of the ordinance is exempt from further environmental review. There are three sections that we could potentially use. One is the general rule exemption 15063, 15061B3, excuse me. And then also 15378B5 for organizational activities of governments. And there's no possibility of effects on the environment as a result of the adoption of this ordinance. And the recommendation is that the Planning Commission review the draft ordinance language and find that it is appropriate and make a recommendation for approval to the City Council along with the related specific plan amendments. And that will conclude my presentation at this time. Deputy Chief Jeremy Floyd has also a brief presentation he would like to make. Thank you. Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Good evening. Uh, good evening commissioners. My name is Jeremy Floyd and I am the deputy chief of operations for the Redlands police department. Downtown Redlands is a regional destination for dining entertainment and nightlife. That activity is an important part of what makes downtown successful and vibrant. At the same time, we have to recognize the impact that late night activity has on public safety and the demand it creates for police services, particularly during the early morning hours. Looking at activity between 10 p.m. and 4 a.m. from January 1st, 2024 through August 31st, 2026, we see that the level of police activity downtown is significant. During that time, Redlands Police responded to more than 1,000 calls for service in addition to more than 650 officer-initiated activities. We also saw more than 30 DUI incidents and numerous traffic collisions. These numbers show that there is a substantial amount of police activity occurring downtown late at night, but more importantly, there is a very clear pattern of when that activity is occurring. The downtown bars account for a significant portion of that activity. During that same time, there were more than 260 calls for service. Oh, sorry. What really stands out is that what happens after midnight. Bar-related calls increase significantly with the greatest concentration occurring between midnight and 2 a.m. There were 62 calls between midnight and 1 a.m. and another 74 between 1 a.m. and 2 a.m. That means more than half of all bar-related calls during the late night period occurred in those two hours. In fact, there were approximately 60% more calls between midnight and 2 a.m. than there were during the two hours immediately before midnight. We see the same pattern when we look at more serious offenses. Violent crimes at these downtown bar locations, as continued, and in some areas increased over time despite our efforts to address these issues. There were 21 incidents in 2024, 34 in 2025, and 29 through August of this year. Assaults and batteries make up the largest portion, but the incidents also include robberies, weapons violations, shootings, and attempted homicide. These numbers are particularly concerning because they are occurring despite the additional police presence we have provided in the area and our ongoing efforts to work with downtown business owners and our partners to address these issues. We have taken steps to increase our presence and work collaboratively with businesses, but the calls and serious incidents continue, particularly during the late night hours. And this isn't limited to what happens directly at the bars. When we look at a broader downtown area, 42 of 47 assault and battery incidents occurred after midnight. along with 13 of 14 robberies and 26 of 30 DUI incidents. So the concern isn't simply that people are out downtown late at night, it's that some of the most serious calls and the greatest demand for police resources are occurring during that same period after midnight. There is also an operational impact that isn't necessarily reflected by simply counting the number of calls. A typical call at one of these bars can require the entire patrol team working at that time, which can be anywhere from seven to nine officers. That's because officers aren't just responding to the initial call. They may have to deal with large crowd, separate involved parties, identify witnesses and suspects, provide medical assistance, investigate the crime, and preserve the crime scene. In many of these cases, these incidents can also take on a significant amount of time to resolve, and it is not uncommon for more than one type of call to be occurring at the same time. While a large group of officers is committed to an assault, robbery, disturbance, or other incident, Downtown calls for service continue to occur in other parts of our city, which covers approximately 36 square miles. When an entire patrol team is committed to one downtown incident, these officers are not available to respond to those calls or provide proactive patrol in other areas of the city. This can quickly place additional demands on the remaining officers and impact our ability to maintain consistent citywide coverage. We have taken a number of steps to address this demand, including moving patrol teams to provide additional coverage downtown and utilizing overtime when resources are available. These efforts can have an immediate impact and allow us to provide additional resources during periods when we anticipate higher activity. However, they do not address the underlying issue of the continued demand during these late night hours. And relying on additional patrol staffing or overtime on a regular basis is not sustainable long-term solution. We've also continued to work closely with our partners at the Alcoholic Beverage Control with our downtown business partners to identify ways to reduce these issues and improve safety. While those partnerships have been valuable and we will continue those efforts, the calls for service, violent crime, and other public safety issues continue to occur, particularly after midnight. Ultimately, what these numbers show is a consistent pattern over the last two years and eight months. Late night police activity, bar-related calls, violent crime, and DUI incidents are heavily concentrated after midnight, with midnight to 2 a.m. being the peak period. A midnight closing time would directly address the hours when we are seeing the greatest concentration of activity and greatest demand on police resources. The goal is not to diminish downtown Redlands or the businesses that contribute to its success. The question is whether we can reduce the period of time when we are seeing the greatest public safety demand while still maintaining a vibrant and successful downtown area. The numbers show that midnight is a significant dividing point and addressing what happens after midnight could have a meaningful impact on public safety and our ability to provide police services throughout the rest of the city. Thank you, and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. If you don't mind hanging out with us for a few minutes, I'm sure commissioners are going to have questions for both staff and you. Commissioners, I'll go ahead and open it up for questions, comments. Commissioner Stanson.

So, Chief, what's going to change if you throw everybody out on the street at midnight versus throwing everybody out on the street at 2 o'clock and all these kids now have nothing to do and they're out at midnight instead of at 2? It's still going to be the same problem, isn't it?

Is it possible? We don't know that because we haven't had that effect. Typically, like I showed in the statement, the greatest concentration of our calls for service are in that time between midnight and 2 a.m. So if we closed at 2, we typically don't have those same issues before midnight. So I don't know that that would change necessarily. I don't know that the crowd that comes in after midnight would still be there before midnight. Ultimately, until we actually make this change, we wouldn't know the answer to that.

But isn't there any other ways to make the change coming up with some other ordinances that can control problem bars or something to that effect and not have to put a blanket across every business that serves alcohol in Redlands? It just seems unfair to the other businesses. That's all, you know.

So if we have an issue at a particular bar, we address that. Usually we concentrate with alcohol beverage control. Most of the issues that we find happen outside the bars, not inside the bars. Well, see, that's where I'm saying if once we dump- But they're a direct result of all being served inside the bars.

Okay.

Anyone else?

Commissioner Dominguez. Yes, I agree with Commissioner Stanson. I don't think that we should, I don't think it's fair to place all of the bars, restaurants under one umbrella because they're, I'm sure you can tell us that it's not happening with all of the locations. It's mainly maybe one or two.

So typically areas where we have issues are along Citrus and Orange and then in the parking lot behind 5th, on 5th project redlands is those are the the main areas where we have issues so along those corridors so along orange and then along citrus and then in that back parking lot okay which is for the most part most of the downtown bar area right okay thank you no one else okay i oh

You go first, Vice Chair. All right. My understanding of our current alcohol ordinance is that there is already a process for enforcement and for the potential modification of conditions of approval to revoke someone's CUP and under the deemed approved ordinance if they don't have a CUP that measures can still be taken. I don't know that I've seen that process play out in my time on the commission and I'm unaware if that's happened previously, but I'd like to better understand how our existing ordinance has been used for enforcement and where it might be falling short that is necessitating these additional amendments.

So as far as, I'm not sure what a CP, I'm sorry, I first planned a commission meeting, sorry.

This might be more of a question for staff, but I do, I think I have a question that might be more directed to you and then we can come back to the first one, which is the RBS compliance that ABC would do when there's, if it's alleged that a bar is over-serving. How often is the city engaging ABC on over-serving complaints?

I can't give you that. Direct number right now. We just got that question I would have to reach out to alcohol beverage control and find out we can find that information out I just don't have it for you today Typically we work with them quite frequently though We do have a grant with them that we work in conjunction for some other things so I can get that information I just don't have it for you today The first question about the use of our existing ordinance Mr. Foote

Or Mr. Riley.

We can both touch on that. To address your question, the ordinance, as you've read it and that you're citing, refers to CUPs, places that have CUP for alcohol sales. As Brian indicated in the presentation, the majority of the folks who are staying open until 2 are not bars. They're restaurants. They do not have CUPs. So the section that you're referring to does not apply to them.

Thank you very much, Chief, for all of the statistics that you've provided and sharing this with us. I have a couple questions. One of them is currently what is your plan to make sure that how do you staff that additional demand after midnight? And the other question is, with the incidents that happen, are the people who are involved in these incidents Redlands residents, or are you seeing that the people who are involved are not Redlands residents but are coming to Redlands?

So for your first question, typically right now on a, week-to-week basis, it's our patrol staffing, our weekend patrols, weekend nights patrol staffing that handles the issues at the bars. There have been times, for example, after we had the attempted homicide with the vehicle and the shooting down there, where we did up staff, we moved our CET team to work that, we did put some overtime out there to work that to address that, you know, at that time we had some significant issues down there, so we did that. So from time to time, we will move a team to focus on that. We know there are some times like the night before Thanksgiving where we know that it's gonna be a very, very busy night. We'll put some overtime out to have some extra officers out on those nights. But for the most part, it's the patrol team that's working that deals with the issues. I would say that the vast majority of the people that we come in contact are not from Redlands. In fact, the suspect that we arrested in that attempted homicide was from the Los Angeles area. And so most of them that we come in contact with are not from Redlands.

Thank you.

THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC NUISANCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP QUITE A BIT SO I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF YOUR DEFINITION FROM THE PUBLIC SAFETY SIDE IS THE SAME AS THE CITY'S DEFINITION BECAUSE I DIDN'T READ THAT REALLY ALONG OUR REPORT SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE OUR BUSINESSES KNOW WHAT DOES A PUBLIC NUISANCE MEAN WHEN SOMEONE DOES COME AND CALL IN FOR THOSE MATTERS. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

Well, for us, it would be anything directly related to public safety. So anything that's or affecting quality of life in the downtown area, regardless of what time it is. You know, typically we deal with specific crimes that are occurring out there. So we're going to deal with, you know, if we have an assault or a battery, we're going to deal with the penal code dealing with that. And, you know, what we can and can't do as far as the law allows us to do on that. Some things are different. Felonies versus misdemeanors changes when we can arrest or can't arrest. Okay. So there are some different things. So I would say for us, it's just anything that affects the quality of life of the downtown area or the public safety of the downtown area.

Thank you.

I don't know who was first.

Vice Chair Elliott and Commissioner Stanton. Sorry, thank you. Thank you for the information on businesses that could potentially be affected. Understanding that the problem, as it's been presented, is primarily downtown, Was that identification of businesses just in the downtown or is that in citywide? My understanding is this ordinance would apply to every business in the city, not just downtown. So are we only looking at potentially affected downtown businesses?

I understand. Brian, correct me if I'm speaking out of turn, but we've looked at all the liquor licenses in the city. We've looked at those that are open after midnight. The ones that have been identified as operating after midnight are primarily located in the downtown area. There are about 14 of them.

So to make sure I'm understanding, but the inventory of businesses is reflective of the entire city. That is correct.

Thank you.

I think I had one more. Sorry, I think I had one more question. It was just, since it does seem to be a downtown issue, is there evidence to support this being a citywide amendment? Or should it be localized to, say, like the transit villages specific plan?

It's difficult to say. The issue as we have it right now is downtown. That's not to say it wouldn't be down the street two weeks from now, or doesn't evolve as the transit villages evolve or some other area of the city evolves over time.

There's businesses that are operating outside of downtown that are operating without substantial criminal activity, like they would still be affected. I guess what I'm asking is, would it be appropriate to consider applying a remedy where the issue exists?

That's certainly up to the commission, but going back to maybe clarify what I was just saying is that the businesses across town and other areas of the city, there's no problem there because they're not open after midnight. I mean, they're limited alcohol services after midnight. They're primarily located here in the downtown.

Sorry, Commissioner Stanton.

Yes, but what I'm hearing is our primary problem is not seven days a week. It's two days a week. And two hours out of two days a week. That's what I'm hearing is Fridays and Saturday nights is where our problem is.

That's typically where the most of the problems are. It doesn't mean that we haven't had issues on other days of the week.

No, I get that, but we can't keep all the people from L.A. and everybody else out of Redlands, unfortunately. I mean, I think we're going to have the problems no matter when we do it, but seriously, it's Friday and Saturday.

Typically, it's Friday and Saturday. However, that doesn't mean that we don't have issues on other nights, but typically it's Friday and Saturday.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, my list of questions. First is for staff. To follow up on Commissioner Gillenhammer's question, what is the actual definition of a public nuisance and who decides to, who gets to decide, yes, that was a public nuisance, especially when it comes to revoking a CUP? Okay.

Nuisances are defined in the Municipal Code in Title 18, Chapter 8, excuse me, Title 8. Part of this ordinance as being proposed, alcohol sales during that window would become a public nuisance. If somebody had a CUP and it was going to be revoked, that would all come up and all the nuisance discussion would come up during the public hearing for the revocation. Not all of these businesses have CUPs, and so then they would be cited under the nuisance provisions.

Okay, so if there's an incident that happens outside of an establishment in the street, who decides who caused the public nuisance?

Well, if we can identify the bar that they came from when they were causing that problem, sometimes that's possible, sometimes it's not. It just depends on if they're truthful with us or if they admit that issue. There are several bars generally in one area, so we may not know what bar they came out of.

Right, but they could have been behaving in that bar, and that bar could have been doing everything that they should have been, and then the behavior is taken outside. That's possible, correct?

Yeah, and that happens quite often where they get out of the bar, and then the problem becomes an issue on the street.

Okay. So my second question, um, this is probably for staff is what other remedies does the planning commission specifically have purview over and what else have we tried or what else have we thought about, um, training security, um, things like that. Have we, have we tried any enforcements of what we currently have before we brought this remedy to the commission?

I'm trying to recall if we've had any CEP enforcement actions previously for individual properties. There's none coming to mind. And I don't want to speak for the police department on alternatives that have been explored or considered. I don't know if the Director has further insight into that question.

Mr. Again, most of the places we're talking about do not have CEPs. Most of them, aside from two, are restaurants that are operating till two. So, there are not conditions on them, and there are not limitations on how we apply their security requirements or things of that nature.

Thank you. And my last question is, have we done any research or do we know if any other cities have done a remedy like this? And was there any positive measurable effect?

The nearest city I know that's doing something similar is Murrieta. Basically, all of their alcohol licenses or permits stop at midnight, same as what we're talking about here. As far as other cities, the statistics and the details, they don't have a lot, although there are other places across the country who have done this with notable positive results.

Okay, thank you. I'm going to ask one more time for questions. Remember, we're not deliberating yet, but questions for staff or the Deputy Commissioner Gillenhammer?

So I'm just wanting to understand, you know, this process because I read that there would be like an enforcement officer that may be assigned to like this time because at midnight once it hits midnight. Like who's going to know? Is it the officer like yourself going into an establishment to make sure that they're not pouring? Or is it the city's, you know, position to hire someone and, you know, that code enforcement or that, I don't know, like that department to go into every single, there's not very many it sounds like. However, like how is this going to be played out?

We haven't determined whether it would be us or code enforcement at this point. It would be one of us, obviously. Yeah. We would probably have, especially if it was passed in the initial days, we would start with education, just like we would with any ordinance that passes. I'll give the e-bike ordinance as an example. We didn't start writing citations right away. We didn't start doing that. We went through a period of education up to a point, and then we start moving into an enforcement period. It would either be the sector officer for the downtown area or it would be code enforcement, and I think we would be once we would figure out who that would be. Likely it would be us, just because at the time of night, code enforcement typically isn't working then. So it would probably be us that would enforce it.

So that would still, I'm assuming, have significant impact on your overtime staffing, just making sure that there are rules in play, like what is public news, et cetera. So I'm just trying to unpack, what does this truly look like?

Likely we would, if we saw that a bar was obviously closed or shut down, we wouldn't need to worry about that bar. If we saw that a bar, there were still people going in and out, we would go in just to ensure that they aren't serving alcohol anymore because some of them do still have the ability to serve food. So we're not saying they need to close at midnight. They just can't serve alcohol after midnight. And with their ABC license, we do have the ability to go into the bar and make those inspections.

Okay.

So we can do that. So I think it would just be what the impact would be. It would just really depend on the compliance that we had with the ordinance, whether it would be something we would need to put overtime out for to do in addition to the patrol or if it was something patrol could handle. It would just have to – I don't think we would really know until the ordinance was passed and we really saw – what type of effect our education had and all that. So, um, but ideally it would fall on us and it would be at least one or two officers that would have to go through and do that.

And then to follow up, um, there in that definition that we saw, it did state like onsite and offsite consumption. And I like read all through the definitions and I'm just wondering about like, you know, I mean, 12 o'clock it hits right where, you know, the restaurants closed or no more pouring. However, that group of people or patrons then go to a liquor store, That's off-site consumption. And yet they could party technically if they wanted to there. So I'm just wondering, again, if we're just making sure in these definitions that we're saying on-site and on-sale, what does that actually then mean on off-site? Because these establishments like grocery stores, like liquor stores that do exist in the city that are open past midnight, some of them, they're selling off-site. where people could still continue drinking. Just wanting to, like, again, just make sure those definitions.

Yeah, I mean, that could happen. And, like, again, this ordinance is as far as service, not sales. So they would still be able to sell the off-site sales, like grocery stores, 7-Elevens. They would still be able to sell after midnight. They just can't. Obviously, they don't have the ability to serve. So, yes, people could still buy alcohol after midnight if they went to one of those off-site places. Stores, thank you.

I sure on the modifications to I think it's 18 1 9 0 is that CUP ordinance? We're proposing changes so that if the city is abating a public nuisance and adopts an ordinance that could potentially cause CUP holders to To come before the Commission, I'd like to better understand the mechanics of how that language would actually work. Like, are we potentially invalidating a whole class of conditional use permits when we adopt a new ordinance that abates a public nuisance?

Invalidating, no. Allowing them to come up for revision, yes.

But would it force everyone with that CUP type, let me just make something up, since this applies to all CUPs, say that some nuisance was identified with uses that are related to assembly. Does that mean everyone who has a CUP related to assembly and public gathering have to come before the commission for a review of their conditional use permit?

I'll be more specific, I think, because I think I know where you're going, if I may, and correct me if I'm wrong. If there's a business that had a CUP to operate selling alcohol after midnight, The potential exists that they would be called back to the Planning Commission, as could be initiated by the city or by the applicant, to come back for a revision of the CUP to modify that condition to their operational hours.

We're also modifying the language that would apply to all CUPs unrelated to alcohol.

Sure. So the potential, again, would exist if we had some issue with some other CUP somewhere. The way the code is written prior to this, what you're seeing, was we had the option to revoke. We didn't have an option to modify. So there have been instances in this city where we've had to do revocations where it might have been an option to do some revisions to their CEP to modify their operational hours, to modify the number of people that were in their building, to modify a condition that says you need to have security, those types of things.

We are also including an amendment that would say the grounds for modification or revocation would be the adoption of an ordinance that abates a public nuisance. So I'm wondering if we're capturing innocent permittees by adopting an ordinance to fix a problem somewhere else.

I understand what you're saying. So if something was deemed a public nuisance by the council and the council adopts an ordinance stating that something's a nuisance and there is a CUP for something that is a nuisance, the ability exists for the city to then initiate a revision to their CUP to eliminate that nuisance.

Can we consider a scenario where a CUP holder is the type of business that the abatement could apply to, but this particular operator is in good standing and isn't doing anything wrong. Does that still put their CUP in jeopardy? That's what I'm trying to understand.

I believe it indicates that the preponderance of the evidence would need to show that there's an issue there.

Commissioner Stanton.

So, staff, are there other options that we can look at to add language to the restaurants and to the other non-CUP users that would give some control to us that if they're a bad actor and we have alcohol problems with them or whatever, then we have something we can do? Or is our only option to blanketly shut everybody down?

The option before you tonight. to stop alcohol sales at midnight.

I get that, but I'm asking if there's other options besides this, because I don't particularly think that this is the right option 100%. It's a blanket over everybody, and I don't feel it's correct. I think if there's bad actors, we should put something in an ordinance that allows us to get rid of the bad actors quickly and fix the problem and not affect the entire industry.

we would take suggestions into account any other questions at this time not deliberating before we move on to public comment say none thank you so much we may well I'm not closing the public hearing so well we'll try not to call you back up a lot of times okay we're gonna go ahead and move on to public comment we are gonna start with our speaker slips can we please see Baron Bowman You guys could all please introduce yourself, even if I introduce you first, and then you will have three minutes to speak. Welcome.

I'm Baron Bowman. For the last two years, I've owned the Redlands Underground. And I will say perception can be a very, very powerful thing. I purchased the bar, which had a really bad reputation for a good reason. And no matter what I do to clean it up, I can't shake it and it affects everything that I do. So one of the things that concerns me is when you're talking about definition of public nuisance, when people come out and go, well, what was at the underground? Well, people think the bar above us is part of us. It's infuriating. So, you know, 20 years ago, I lived in Riverside. I would come to downtown Redlands for the bar crawl scene. There was a vibe in Redlands that was just different than anywhere else. I thought it was a really cool place to hang out. You're going to kill the vibe. Bringing in revenue from outside the city is a good thing, absolutely a good thing. No one's going to come here for a bar crawl when it ends at midnight. They'll go to downtown Riverside where they have way more bars, way more people, and somehow they're able to handle it. They mitigate these issues. So, I mean, why can't we do what Riverside does? Why can't Redlands do that would be my first question. What is Riverside doing that Redlands can't do? And it's not just bars. There's businesses that stay open until 2, like Hate Burger and Crepes of Wrath, because they're getting sales from the bar patrons that are walking around. Changing hours will not stop irresponsible bars from over-serving. Serving minors are otherwise breaking the law, and I would argue that forcing bars to close early would no doubt result in more over-serving to try to recoup lost sales. And when you talk about buying on an off-site and drinking in your car, there's no controls for that. I can control the drinking in my bar. I have security. I have my bartenders where everybody's trained, RBS certified. We can watch it, monitor it, cut people off. No one's gonna cut themselves off drinking a bottle of vodka they just got from the liquor store. Not gonna happen. And they're still out on the streets, still causing problems. you know, and why isn't the PD and ABC coming in to monitor? Why aren't we using these tools? It's easy to shut a bar down. We're talking about passing an ordinance to give you tools to hold us accountable. There's already tools. It's really hard to get a liquor license. It's really easy to lose, lose a liquor license. I've been in this business 33 years. I've never been cited for anything. My bar has never been cited for anything. Um, The ordinance will very likely put me out of business, and I'm faced with losing everything because of the actions of others. So what's the thought process here? Do we think that we're going to have investors lining up to open bars and empty buildings when they have to close at midnight? I never would have bought my bar two years ago if I had known this ordinance was going to go through or had there been an ordinance. So, I mean, do we want to kill the livelihood of all of us that operate in good faith, that are trying to do the right thing? And believe it or not, I know we have my reputation. Come check me out. I'm doing the right things, I promise you. That's about it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Evan Sanford.

Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Evan Sanford. I'm the CEO of the Redlands Chamber of Commerce. On behalf of the Board and the nearly 600 members of the Chamber, we are opposing the proposed midnight ban on the sale of alcohol. The Chamber recognizes the City's responsibility to address legitimate concerns involving public safety. Full stop. We also believe that businesses that repeatedly create documented issues should be held accountable. However, this proposal penalizes every restaurant and bar, regardless of its location, operating history, permit conditions, or actual impact on the surrounding areas, which makes it neither a targeted nor proportionate response. Redlands restaurants contribute to local employment, tax revenue, tourism, and the continued vitality of our commercial districts. For some establishments, the hours after midnight are particularly important on weekends, holidays, and during special events. Eliminating those hours would mean lost revenue, fewer employee shifts, and reduced wages and tips. And it would also place Redlands businesses at a competitive disadvantage. to establishments in neighboring communities. A broad mandate may simply move customers elsewhere without resolving the underlying late night behavior. Even if sales are banned at midnight, are we considering the idea that people might feel a need to consume more, more quickly? That's not helpful to anyone involved, including law enforcement. As part of the Chamber's mission to promote tourism and economic development, it's our responsibility to give context to this commission. And the success and vitality of our downtown area is due to a variety of things that we have going in the right direction. Why jeopardize this and put our community on a track we used to be on? Residents and visitors alike actually want to spend their money here. Let's not give them a reason to change their mind. As mentioned, the city and the state's Department of ABC already possess tools to regulate alcohol-serving businesses. conditional use permits code enforcement and modification suspension or revocation of those permits can all be used to address these documented violations so before adopting a blanket restriction the city should demonstrate why those existing remedies are inadequate and review the relevant police call noise complaint public nuisance code enforcement data The Chamber urges the city to pursue a performance-based approach, continue to review operating hours case by case, use progressive enforcement against establishments with excessive repeated documented violations, and public safety and a successful local economy are not competing priorities. Redlands can protect its residents, support law enforcement, and hold problem establishments accountable without restricting every compliant restaurant citywide. We respectfully ask the Planning Commission not to recommend this ordinance. It won't work. The Chamber would be happy to propose a more narrow evidence-based approach that protects both public safety and responsible local restaurants. Thank you for your consideration, and no matter what the outcome is, drinks on me. Thank you.

Thank you. Nick Robinson.

Hi, my name is Nick Robinson. My wife and I are the owners of The Three Stags here in Redlands. My son Jack is here. He's the bar manager. We're a mom and pop, family-run business. We employ 32 people and I can only speak for The Three Stags. I can only tell you what our particular experience is and how we handle security issues. So here's a few points. In the past year, we've had a total of three instances where we called the police. Two of these were before midnight, one was after. We actually call back on two of those occasions to cancel the call out. People lose a lot of bravado when that call goes through. So they leave. And that's what happens most of the time. We don't tolerate belligerent customers. We have security on four nights out of seven on our busy nights. We don't over-serve. Between our pricing structure and the rules of behavior that we enforce, we tend to avoid having the kind of clientele that can become a problem for the most part. I just want to make the point that we're not the problem here. If we have to close at midnight, we will lose 7% of our yearly revenue. Now, 45% of that revenue is made over the weekend. So it matters, actually, you know, losing those two hours every, you know, 50 times a year or whatever. It makes a huge difference. And I'm also fairly confident that our landlord won't reduce our rent by 7%. If we lose income, our staff will lose income, wages, tips. We will have to reduce staff errors. We have a great team. We've had them from the beginning, and I don't want to lose them to a neighboring city. But that's what's going to happen. Closing at midnight brings the issue of problem customers forward by two hours. You're going to hear that a lot. The kind of customer who wants to take advantage of last call at 1.15 a.m. will do exactly the same thing at 11.15 p.m. So we're just going to get drunker people earlier. I think we'll see a significant drop in customers at the weekend period in Redlands. Why spend your money there when your night finishes at midnight? The 25 to 40 demographic will just go somewhere else, and they can stay out later there if they choose to. On the congregation issue that's mentioned in the background section, the people are loitering in front of bars after closing. The real problem area we found is in the car park behind our building, which has been mentioned here already tonight. This is what we've seen. We've seen people gathering and drinking there while bars are still open. From 10 o'clock to 2 in the morning, later actually, 3 and 4 in the morning, we have staff who leave at 4.30 after cleaning up. There are still people gathering in that car park. They're doing nitrous. They're selling cocktails from the backs of cars. I don't know how they get away with it, and I just don't understand why we don't have more drive-throughs there from the police. People accept they can congregate there, and that's the real problem as far as I can see. Take a drive-through the next morning. At 8 a.m., you'll see numerous empty alcohol bottles, broken glass. I get out there and clean it up in the mornings. Surely a police presence in this area during this period would deter this behavior. I know the cops are doing all they can do, but the criminal element, the element that we're talking about here, they seem to just gather there in a very blasé fashion, and I don't know why they think that's okay, but they do. Finally, I think it's worth mentioning in the months since this has become a possibility, we've found ourselves second-guessing whether to call the police at all because we don't want to be blackballed. We don't want to be listed as a problem bearer. I know that's an unintended consequence, but it's a very real one. So we do have to second-guess whether we call the cops or not now. So it's a consideration, and it shouldn't be. I appreciate your time. Thanks a lot.

Thank you. Okay, forgive me if I get this name wrong. Patrick, is it Roskton? Rossen, welcome.

Good evening. My name is Patrick Roskam. I'm the current board president for the Redlands Chamber of Commerce. I want to start by being clear that we very much appreciate the Redlands Police Department and we take the safety concerns that they've raised seriously. Nobody at the chamber wants a less safe downtown. Our disagreement is not about the goal. It's about whether a midnight cutoff is the right tool. Our concern is that a blanket midnight cutoff doesn't target the problem. It targets every business that happens to be open late. That includes the restaurants, bars, event venues that have spent years building downtown Redlands into a place that people actually want to spend a Friday and Saturday night. The hours between midnight and close are often the difference between a profitable week and a break-even one for the operators that are down there. When those hours disappear, so do the shifts for bartenders, servers, security staff, kitchen crews, and also the sales tax and revenue that comes with them. And the customers are not going to disappear. They're just going to go out to Loma Linda, San Bernardino, or Yucaipa, where the ordinance is not going to apply. And then we're going to end up exporting the revenue to those cities and then importing that problem back at 2 a.m. after they've been out there drinking. It's not going to turn out to be a safety improvement. So we would like to see alternative methods of creating a safer downtown while still allowing our businesses to operate as they happen. Thank you very much for your time.

Okay. Ditto. Okay. That is the rest of the speaker slips. Is there anyone else in the audience that's here to speak on this matter? Seeing none, do we have any comments on Zoom? No. Did we receive any written comments?

No written comments on this matter.

We'll now close the public hearing for this item. Turn it over to the commissioners for deliberations. And if whoever speaks first, if we could just hold the motions and make sure that we give everyone a chance to speak, that'd be great. Who'd like to start? Commissioner Swish.

Thank you all for sharing your experiences. And before I start, I want to just really thank our local businesses. They are a core component of what makes Redlands a special place to live. As I listen to everyone who presented, this becomes clear to me that this is a public health and public safety issue. that the intention of this is not to punish certain establishments or punish the bars or punish the restaurants, although it is an unintended consequence if this passes. This public safety issue clearly is linked to intoxication from the data that was presented by the police department. It becomes a bit irrelevant than what happens in the bars or in the restaurants because as we discussed there are already tools to address those violations. If an establishment violates something there are tools to address those violations. The question then becomes, as another person had mentioned, I apologize, I don't remember the name now, is that whether this is the correct tool or it's not the correct tool. From my experience in having been a therapist in behavioral health and looking at population health analysis, that link is undeniable, right? The link between intoxication and issues, problems that may happen, and they may not happen in the bars or in the restaurants themselves, but they can happen anywhere else. The other piece that's worth also noting that a lot of the people who are involved in these incidents come from outside. They may also come drunk, right? They may be coming here intoxicated. When we have that, we also have a responsibility towards our residents in here to make sure that Redlands is a safe place, a safe place for those who are at the restaurants, a safe place for others who might not be at the restaurants, someone who is 10 blocks away that might be crossing the street at night. I would like to encourage us to make sure that we don't approach this by doing nothing, right? We have to do something. It's a real problem. It's a real public health problem. But I want to make sure that it is not perceived that this is to punish the restaurants themselves, that everybody holds some level of responsibility. As we're looking at this, there seems to be some additional information that we don't have. As was mentioned, Sean had mentioned that other cities such as Marietta has implemented a stop at midnight that had notable positive results. What are the notable positive results? Were there other consequences? Were the restaurants and bars impacted? How much was it impacted? Was the city impacted or not? This is all information that would be helpful for us as a Commission to understand. Similarly, with the data regarding the documentations of nuisances, where is it happening? right um i know we mentioned um that most of the people involved were not from here well how how many is it 50 is it and then going back to kind of what our role as as commissioners um what type of city are we, right? I mean, do we want to say, okay, we are a party city that want to just have bar crawls? Well, I don't know. If that is the case, then we evaluate it differently. So I think it's really important for us to take those things into consideration and make sure that we do something rather than just not do anything at all. Thank you.

Commissioner Stanton.

I agree. We need to do something. I don't think Closing at midnight is the right thing at this moment in time. I really think the staff needs to come back to us with some other tools that we could work with to help the police department and close down the problem children, so to speak. I mean, I know that there's got to be some ordinances that we can put on for the... add ordinances that would protect us with the restaurants because we've already got it with the CUPs. So there has to be something that we can do and actually put some teeth into it that takes care of the problems. And I don't think closing at midnight is going to take care of the problems. I think we're still going to have them. I think exactly what's... What he said is that we're going to have people that are going to drink heavily at 11 to 12 and they're going to walk out trashed. And then they're going to get in their cars and they're going to go, okay, let's go to Yucaipa. Let's go somewhere else. Let's go to the donut hole because they're not affected. I mean, you know, all we're doing is sending our businesses someplace else. I think we need, the staff needs to give us tools that we can give to the police department that they've got some teeth. that we can close down the businesses that have problems. If they're over-serving, if they're creating issues, then they shouldn't be there. But if they're, like the Staggs, family-run business, they've had three calls over the years, they work hard to maintain their clientele and keep their prices up so that they're not bringing in the riff-raff and all that, I don't think that they should be affected and have to close at midnight. The state says two o'clock in the morning for alcohol, And we're going to be one of two cities in the entire state that closes down at midnight. I don't think that's right. I don't think it's right for our restaurants. I don't think it's right to put everybody into one bag. I think we need to take care. I think, staff, can you bring back to us, one, some information on how Marietta is taking care of these problems and exactly what Commissioner Swish said on whether or not what the good and the bad is that comes out of it. I'd really like to know that before I vote to close the city, close it down at midnight. And also, too, can you come back to us with something that we can give the police department some teeth on a restaurant that's creating issues, if they're a nuisance, that we can shut them down without closing everybody down at midnight? Is that possible?

Well, I think let's stick to to deliberations right now and then we can just ask him as possible to come back with something.

So, anyways, that's my 2 cents.

Okay, I'm going to talk and then I'm going to go to vice chair Elliot. I want to start by saying I think this is a really great problem to have because I think that everyone wants the same solution. My guess is there's not a bar owner in this room that wants these issues, that we all want the same type of patrons in Redlands. I think that there's probably a combined solution and the Planning Commission doesn't necessarily have purview over that entire solution, but we do have purview over a piece of it. I think that the police department needs to weigh in and city council needs to weigh in, but that's not what we can do here. What I would like to see to mimic what Commissioner Sanson said is what is in our peer review. How can the commission help this combined solution that is within our control? I commend the police department. I just don't. I don't think it's going to work. I think it's just going to push it back.

Thank you.

Okay. I don't feel like I have everything that I need to make an informed decision this evening. And so as I go through my comments, I'll conclude with a recommendation to the Commission that we consider a continuance. So keep that in mind as I make these comments. I would like to see the crime data myself, and I would like to see it bracketed by hours, since that's what we're being asked to assess. It's difficult for me to tease out qualitatively, is it 12 a.m. to 2 a.m. that's the problem, or is it the last two hours of operation that's the problem? I can't tell the difference with the data that I have right now. I'm similarly concerned about over-serving in a compressed time frame by operators who may be trying to make up for lost revenue or patrons who are just trying to get it in before last call. I don't have a good understanding on what has changed in the last three years to cause our statistics to change. Again, I haven't seen those statistics personally. But the bars that we have operating in downtown, I don't think I could be totally mistaken, but My sense is that our bar population downtown hasn't changed that much, but we're seeing a change in human behavior. What is driving that? I'd like to understand that. I would like to see data-driven case studies to help inform our decision-making. I did some research myself Case studies that I was able to find were from Miami Beach. They did curtail their hours from 4 a.m. to 2 a.m. However, that study was done at a time where the results could not be fully vetted. The city of Baltimore is another that took a similar approach. However, they did this within a neighborhood, and their results found that it just, problems moved into other neighborhoods. And that's something that we could expect to see here if we apply something citywide that our neighboring cities could be affected. Other case studies are a little less relevant out of Netherlands and Australia. So it doesn't look like there is an abundance of information, but I think with doing more than a 15-minute Google search, we might be able to find something that could help the Commission understand what are the ramifications, what is the difference between the last two hours or specific hours of 12 to 2 a.m. On a more procedural note, I would like to see the segregation of our alcohol issue and how we might structure all other CUPs that are unrelated to alcohol uses. I feel like that conversation can get muddied with the issue at hand, and I think that might be appropriate to handle separately. I think that might be okay because it sounds like the primary drivers of the bad behavior are not CUP holders. With that, my recommendation to the commission, and happy to make a motion when the time is appropriate, that we continue this item with a request to see the data ourselves and to have those case studies so that we can better evaluate the proposal and what the outcomes and consequences might be. Thank you.

Commissioner Gillenhammer. Another city that I read, sorry, Director Riley, was Temecula, actually. That is also another city that has capped or closed at 12 o'clock. But I would like to know as well, just like in terms of not just the business side, but the public safety side of those cities and that data. So just having side-by-side information like Vice Chair Elliott said, I would like to continue this as well. But being able to understand fully those cities that decided to do this. And then you had mentioned someone in the crowd, Riverside, you know, just another city that hasn't, but been able to mitigate problems and how are they able to do that? So just wanting to see, you know, maybe two cities like Temecula Marietta that we've pointed out, and then maybe Riverside is, you know, another city that closes at 2 a.m. That'd be great.

Anyone else?

Yes, now is there anything that we can do since it does seem to be behind in that little area? The alley area is there any thing that we can also that maybe the police can actually mitigate? Maybe posting somebody out there doing something so that the problem Is kind of away from the downtown area? Maybe that's something that you guys can bring you know look into also I I know that's going to require more manpower, but code enforcement is going to also require more hours over time. Police department having more people out there looking at the different locations, that's going to cost money to the city also. So why not look into possibly maybe having patrol out there in that area? Maybe that would help. Yeah, I think we should push this out.

So you're adding a request to specifically ask what the Commission can do to help mitigate the problems in the parking lots? Correct. Okay. Commissioner Smith.

Director, just as a question for procedure, if this Commission were to just vote no, this would still move on to City Council?

That is correct. If you voted to recommend denial of the ordinance, it would still go to council.

So if we vote to table this and ask for staff to bring back others, it will sit with us until we either vote no or yes?

That is the case.

Commissioner Stanton.

I agree with Commissioner Elliott 100%, and I would just like to add in her motion that we would ask for some other options on how we could put some teeth into an ordinance that could help support the police department and their problem without closing at midnight.

Anyone else? Commissioner Swish?

I really appreciate all of the really valuable insight into this. There's one more thing I kind of kept thinking about, which is what makes us attractive for others to come from somewhere else to here to party and cause problems, essentially. And I can't help but think that this would be a deterrent. If someone, and we don't know if it's going to work, if it's not going to work. Sometimes you do something, you see how it does, and then you reevaluate. But I can't imagine someone thinking like, oh, Redland stopped serving alcohol at 12, we're going to go there and party. So it seems like it will still be a deterrent without necessarily impacting the Redlands residents. I understand there's a lot of stipulation on how it would impact the businesses, and I think we need to know Truly, has it impacted, does it impact, can businesses adapt? Are some of the things that we're talking about that people will cram their drinking, is it true that that will happen or is it just stipulation? Because the residents in Redlands who are going out to have dinner and have a beverage with their, they're not the ones that are trying to get drunk and intoxicated, right? So these are things, I think, that are worth taking into consideration. Either way, regardless of what we decide, I believe that it would be deterrent.

Can I just say really quickly? Oh, I'm so sorry. I closed... Sir, I'm sorry, but I closed the public hearing.

I know, but I... 7% we will lose, and that's all I have to say.

Thank you. Sorry, guys, but I have closed the public hearing, so please, we're doing our best up here. If you could just respect our process.

Okay.

Director, would it be appropriate if Vice Chair Elliott makes a motion to continuance but you can still note everyone's request for information that they're asking or does it all need to be in one motion?

I think it can be broad for the continuance to bring it back with items.

Okay. So I just wanted to make, I forgot in my notes and I just wanted to make sure that I note that As a commissioner, I am very concerned about the economic effects that not only that it has on the current business owners, but we're building a city here. And it's going, it could potentially deter people from coming into our city. And then as it's appropriate for the commission, because a lot of this, the commission doesn't have purview over, this is a city council issue. But if it does fall into commission purview somehow, understanding what we can do about the fact that a bar owner has rules and regulations and security that they handle inside. They're not police, so it's not their job to follow someone that they kicked out of their restaurant out and make sure that they're behaving. I mean, we can't expect them to do that, and yet we don't want to punish them for that either. I'm feeling like this probably does not fall under commission purview, but if there's anything when you're doing your research on how it is that we can help solve this problem, if there's anything that we can do to help in that regard too. Okay, does everyone have their questions? to the director and staff for things that they want researched.

If you decide to vote on a continuance commissioner, I wanted to also echo that. Like, is there no loitering outside bars? Like, I want to know that, you know, is that illegal to loiter outside a bar establishment or in a parking lot of a bar or a restaurant?

Deputy chief Floyd, are you still here? You want to address that?

Do you mind?

He's technically staffed, so.

So the street out in front is a public street. People can be on that street. There's not a loitering ordinance necessarily for the street. The issue with that is that would be at best a citation that we would not take somebody to jail so it necessarily wouldn't solve the issue that we were having if we were having disorderly people. Simply citing them for loitering probably wouldn't solve the problem because it would just be a citation. we likely wouldn't even take them into custody. It's technically an arrest, and I would have to look, and I don't know if the loitering ordinance is an infraction or a misdemeanor. If it's an infraction, then it's simply just a citation, and it wouldn't necessarily solve the problem. Did you have another question? I'm sorry.

About the parking lot, about congregating, loitering in parking lots.

Yeah, and to that issue, and to Commissioner Dominguez's issue, Those are things that we can enforce. I know somebody brought up that there were basically a bar and a car selling cocktails out of a car. We can enforce that. That is something we can enforce. I would ask anybody that sees something like that to simply call dispatch and let us know about it because we do have, like I said before, officers dealing with these issues are the patrol team that's dealing with the entire city so they may not be you know after 2 a.m or something they may want it just depends on the call load in the city what kind of other incidents we're dealing with throughout the city. So we may not always have somebody right there in that area. But if we get a call for service, then we will respond to that call for service and address it. I will let that team know that these are some issues and to try to do a little bit more through there.

Recording in progress. Recording stopped. Recording in progress.

Technology is awesome. And then one other thing that was brought up was Riverside. I believe that Riverside has a dedicated team to their downtown area for their bar specifically. We do not have that. They're a much larger agency. They have resources that we simply just don't have. We are in a good spot now where we're almost fully staffed. And we do plan on opening some of our specialties back that we had to unfortunately get rid of due to our staffing issues. So we should be able to have more specialties out that can address some of these issues, hopefully in the near future. But Riverside is, like I said, a much bigger city, and I believe they do have a team dedicated to that area, specifically for the downtown area there.

Thank you. I just want to remind the commission that if this continuance passes and when staff comes back, that these are all really great questions and information we want to know, but our purview is very specific. And some of these things are going to be completely outside of our purview. And we need to make sure that we're making decisions that are based on information that is within our purview and not things that the city council needs to address. And this is one of those situations where that gets really unclear because we're all very passionate about the same issue, but. When staff does come back, hopefully they'll be able to direct us as to exactly what we have purview over versus other agencies. Commissioner Swach.

Quick question to Director Riley. I was curious, how did this start with this ordinance? Was this presented to city council and then an ordinance formed? Just what triggered it? What was the history behind it?

Starting sometime before I had this position, it was contemplated between city management and the police department, is my understanding.

I believe the incident that triggered us seriously taking a look at this was the attempted homicide downtown with the vehicle and the shooting that occurred right after that. I think that incident specifically is what had us start taking a look at this ordinance.

Thank you. Okay, Commissioner Dominguez.

Oh wait, sir, I'm sorry. I have a question for you. I know that the gentleman from the three stags was talking about calling in complaints or whatever and now he's afraid to call because then it's going to be put into your report there. So if they happen to call and say there's a bar in a car outside in the alley, is that gonna go against them? Because I think we don't want that. We don't want to deter them from calling that.

Absolutely not. In fact, I'm sorry you feel that way, sir, but I would encourage, I would actually encourage any bar to call us because if you have a problem, somebody that's causing a problem inside the bar, and we can come and address that issue before it goes outside, because a lot of times what happens, the issue will move outside where there's a bigger crowd, everybody's intoxicated, it becomes a bigger issue. If we can address that issue while it's still kind of small and limited to just a couple of people, it actually helps us address the issue. So I would encourage anybody to call. It's not going to put a target or anything like that. Like I said, this issue has to do with you know, alcohol and intoxication. And unfortunately, when you get a large crowd of people that are intoxicated, problems are going to happen. So if we can mitigate those problems and get to them early before they become a bigger issue, that's actually going to help us out quite a bit.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments before we move to a motion? Okay.

Would someone like to make a motion? Vice Chair Elliott. And first I just want to thank staff and PD for all the operators and owners and my fellow commissioners I think we're all here to try To meet this with curiosity and understand the data and the patterns and to find that solution so that we do have a safe Community that we feel good about being in while also making sure that we're a prosperous city So I want to thank everyone for their time Um, and just extend my appreciation because I do understand that this is an issue that carries a lot of passion with it. Um, and I hope that we've demonstrated that we are curious and we do want to understand the fundamentals and that's why I'm going to make this motion to continue this item to a date uncertain and request that staff provide the commission with the specific data case studies, outcome data, um, best practices and alternatives, uh, alternative enforcement measures.

Do I have a second?

Second.

It has been moved by Vice Chair Elliott and seconded by Commissioner Stanson to continue Ordinance Text Amendment Number 373 and related specific plan amendments. Ms. Coulson, could you please take a roll call vote?

Mr. Dominguez? Yes. Vice Chair Elliott? Yes. Commissioner Galenhammer? Yes. Commissioner Swish?

Yes.

Commissioner Smith?

Yes.

Commissioner Stanson?

Yes.

Chair Shaw? Yes.

Okay, motion carries. Thank you very much. Item 5B. Item 5B is a presentation by the city attorney regarding the requirements for open public meetings in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act. Staff presentation by Ms. Eva Garcia. Ms. Garcia.

Good afternoon. Great to be here. I know... Thank you. I know you had some lengthy discussions. I could wait and give you all a break, if you'd like, in no rush. So if that's something Chair and the rest of the commissioners would like is a little break before I start, this will be run about another hour. So I just wanted to let you know. Oh, okay.

In that case, we will take a 10-minute break. Very good. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and resume the meeting, and we're going to go back to item 5B. Ms. Garcia, please.

Thank you, Chair. Mr. Riley asked me to come and visit with you to do a Brown Act training. How many of you have already had either some one-on-one training or done something on the webinar? So most of you have, and that's what I thought was the case. So I'm going to breeze through all of the all the minimum requirements under the Brown Act. I might highlight some new changes to the law, but I made this hypothetical heavy so that we can go through hypotheticals and talk through some real life, some hypothetical situations that you might encounter as planning commissioners. So does that sound good for everybody? Okay, perfect. So we'll start. So as you know, the Brown Act is a state law, And it requires that all elected and appointed bodies, what we call legislative bodies, conduct their business in public and allow the public to comment and that their decisions be open to the public so folks know what decisions are being made by the body. That's essentially the Brown Act. It's called the Sunshine Law in the state of California. And there are some requirements that we'll be going through that apply to you. A lot of the requirements after the law has changed in Brown Act, a lot of the changes in law really apply to city council for the main part of the statute. But I'm just going to highlight the ones that apply to you as a body. So this is an overall picture of what the Brown Act looks like. It really, in its essence, it requires a quorum. It kicks in. The Brown Act kicks in. when there's a quorum of a legislative body meeting to discuss issues within its subject matter jurisdiction. When you have those four elements, then you are required under the Brown Act to post an agenda, conduct your meeting in public, and allow the public to participate, like during public comment. So what's a legislative body? As you know, Planning Commission's a legislative body. Under the Brown Act, the Commission was created by ordinance. That's what triggers the application of the Brown Act. And also, I don't want this to go unnoticed, but state law requires that each city have a planning agency. Sometimes a planning agency is the city council, but here the council has delegated the planning functions to the commission and to a planning department. So under state law, you're also a legislative body. And therefore, the Brown Act applies. So what's a quorum? You are a seven-member body. So a quorum is 50% plus one of the total membership of the Planning Commission. That's a quorum. Anything less is not a quorum. So four members is a quorum for purposes of this body. City Council, three members makes up a quorum because there are only five members there. You're a larger group, so the quorum requirements is slightly higher than the Council. Quorum members equals a quorum. The brown neck is triggered when there's a meeting. So we've got the, we know we're a legislative body as a planning commission. We know what the quorum requirement is. It's four. And now we have to have a meeting. The meeting is triggered when any of these definitions apply. A meeting is defined as any congregation of a majority of the members. When they say majority of the members, they're really talking about quorum. of the legislative at the same time or place to hear, discuss, or deliberate on any item that's within your subject matter jurisdiction. So this could be like face-to-face type meetings. This is kind of your basic rule. But then meetings can also take place in other ways as addressed in the Brown Act. It could be face-to-face meetings, Zoom meetings, Teams, now that we have some advanced technological abilities to meet. It can also, a meeting can take place when you use a third party to act like a messenger or a go-between, someone who's delivering messages amongst the legislative body members, particularly meeting with individuals on the Planning Commission, for instance, and sharing what the others are saying about a particular item. That can trigger a meeting. And then these other technological devices, cell phones and text messages between a quorum of the Planning Commission, or emails via computer, whether that's your personal computer or some public computer, emails about your subject matter jurisdiction that occur within planning commissioners could trigger a meeting under the Brown Act. And then now that we have social media platforms, any social media where you all discuss items within your subject matter jurisdiction on social media platforms could trigger the Brown Act. make that interaction a meeting under the Brown Act. When any of these are employed involving a majority members of the Planning Commission, and you're developing a collective concurrence, so you're trying to figure out what actions you're all going to take, or you're just discussing the issue, that's all a meeting under the Brown Act and trigger the Brown Act requirement for posting an agenda. Subject matter jurisdiction. So the discussion, the meeting of the quorum of the Planning Commission has to involve something within your subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Something that's outside of your jurisdiction which you just all discussed. Some things are within your purview, some things are not. Anything that's not does not trigger the Brown Act. It's only matters where a quorum is meeting to discuss issues that are within the Planning Commission's jurisdiction. Under the city ordinance and under state law, these are just a sample of what your subject matter jurisdiction is. So anything related to zoning, anything related to general plan, Anything about text amendments to the zoning code, any rezones, all of those, all these functions are part of your subject matter jurisdiction. So as you can see, any matter that might relate to any of these issues would be within your subject matter jurisdiction and could trigger the Brown Act if a quorum of you were discussing it. So, when we know that the Brown, when the Brown Act applies, there are ways, there's pitfalls where you might inadvertently be discussing a matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, and you may not know it. I hate to say it, most Brown Act violations occur when other commissioners are unaware. And this is one example, the daisy chain cereal meeting. So two commissioners could be talking about something that's within the purview of the planning commission, and maybe one of those planning commissioners decides to talk to two more planning commissioners, and one of the planning commissioners didn't know about it. So here you've got a daisy chain. Planning Commissioner A talks to B. Maybe A didn't know about it, so B then talks to C, and C then talks to D, and none of these folks really are aware of it. That's an unlawful meeting under the Brown Act, unless an agenda is posted and you hold a formal meeting. This would be a daisy chain serial meeting that would violate the Brown Act. Another way to inadvertently violate the Brown Act is something we call the hub-and-spoke serial meeting. This is when a third party contacts members individually to talk about matters within your subject matter jurisdiction and then carries that information to others that they meet on the planning commission. This sometimes happens when you may be talking to folks who are project applicants. We want to talk to you individually, and they talk to one, and then when they talk to the next one, they say, oh, I just met with so-and-so, and this is what he said about your project. That can all, once you reach a quorum, could violate the Brown Act as well. So, yes. Yeah.

Awesome. That's because in the past, when there's been large projects, Applicants have requested to sit down with a member of the Commission oftentimes with staff present But I understand that those meetings happen with multiple commissioners How does what format does that need to take to ensure that it's not a hub-and-spoke?

Serial meeting so later on well I'll give you a little bit of advice on how to deal with it, but the first the first question is if you if you decide you want to have that meeting because it's not required that you have those meetings and But if you decide you want to talk with the applicant, then the 1st rule upfront is to tell the developer or the project applicant. Look, I'm going to listen to everything you have to say. But I'm going not going I'm not able to share with you what my position is until the public hearing. Right? That sets the ground rules. And then you do more listening than speaking. Questions are fine, but I caution not to share what your opinion is about a particular project to the applicant, because that could easily be shared with others that they might meet with. So that's just kind of the basic rule that I give to planning commissioners. But the meeting itself is not necessarily problematic. The other issue is, and we'll talk a little bit about it, is when you get to the Planning Commission meeting, you want to disclose. Okay? Okay. Anything via electronic media, social media, text, emails, as I mentioned a little earlier, would be, if there's a quorum met talking about Planning Commission business, You're not complying with the Brown Act, so be very careful about reply to all when all of you are on an email. Just be very careful with that. That in and of itself is not a violation of the Brown Act, but if all of you are chiming in on that reply to all email, then you're going to get to that quorum requirement pretty quickly. Um, this is a relatively new, um, bill that was passed in 2023. This was to regulate discussions amongst legislative body members on matters within their subject matter jurisdiction via social media. Essentially, you cannot respond. And this is, by the way, the only rule that applies where communication on social media between two members of a legislative body, so less than a quorum, could violate the Brown Act. The only area of the Brown Act where that applies. where the quorum requirement is irrelevant. And the reason is because you're on social media. Lots of people can see it and post and share. And so the legislature decided, look, legislative bodies, you cannot respond directly to any communications on social media regarding any matter within your subject matter jurisdiction. with some exceptions, and we'll talk about that in the next slide. It essentially prohibits any interaction on social media platform between one member of a legislative body to another member, even if no quorum is reached, even if it's just the two of you, on issues within your subject matter jurisdiction. So a one-on-one discussion, somebody posts, hey, that's a cool project, and then the other commissioner says, I agree. that in and of itself could violate the Brown Act. So what I did was here on this slide is just tell you what's permitted, what you can do on social media, and what you can't do under AB992. So permitted, so you can answer questions on commission business. So like if somebody reached you on your social media platform and asked, hey, what time is the Planning Commission meeting gonna take place in October? What time do your meetings start? You can answer that question. If somebody asks you, hey, is that project for a new event center, is that going on the October meeting for the Planning Commission, or is it happening in November? You can answer that question. Any questions from members of the public, you can just respond to. Yes.

So under not permitted, I'm not saying that you should engage in conversation with the public, but you can. It's just to other members you can't, correct?

Right.

So under not permitted, that's just to another member of the body?

That's correct.

Okay. But what you can do and what you should do are not necessarily the same thing.

So what's permitted on that side all involves members of the public, your interaction with members of the public. So the next bullet point would be posting information on commission business. So if you wanted to post, hey, last night we continued the item regarding alcohol regulations, you can post that information to the public. You could also solicit information from the public. Let's say you're gonna do a study session and you want to have members of the public give you their thoughts about something before your study session. You can do that. Just be very careful not to respond or not to share how you feel about the item or to engage in too much conversation, including other members on the planning commission.

Okay, so that's my question. I understand you shouldn't do that, but according to the rule, the only rule is you can't respond to another person in the body. Yes. So if you wanted to respond to someone's comment about an opinion, you could do that. Yes. Okay, but not to another commissioner. That's right. Okay, perfect.

And then following or seeing posts, so you saw a post from one of your colleagues about a planning commission item, just looking at it, receiving it is not gonna violate this particular rule as well. Yes, sir.

I think I'm not 100% clear on this, what we were just talking about. Okay. So, what I understood is that we can solicit information if somebody comes and reaches out to us, we can have a conversation with them, we can listen to them. What we cannot do, regardless whether it is with anyone, we cannot state what our position is.

You can't, yes, when it comes to other commissioners that are involved.

But let's say there are no commissioners involved at all. And someone comes and reaches out to us and says, you know, this is coming up. I think it's a bad idea. And we say, well, I agree. I think it might be a bad idea. Or should we say, I'm sorry, I cannot. tell you what I think about it, but once it's presented to the Commission, then I will express my opinion.

So remember, this is outside the Brown Act requirements, but you have the due process issues. So if this is a discretionary permit that's subject to a public hearing, You don't want to be putting out in social media how you feel about it because it's bias, and therefore you would have to recuse yourself. So when you have planning commission items that are public hearings, you don't want to share that anyway, how you would vote and what you felt. If you can't share it with the developer, then you certainly can't share it in public. There's actually a case that said, Somebody, it was a Planning Commissioner in the City of LA that wrote an article coming out against a project that hadn't yet reached the Planning Commission. So when it reached the Planning Commission, he had to recuse, well, he voted, and then it went to the courts. The courts didn't know, he had to recuse himself. So you don't want to share your thoughts or how you're gonna vote on items that are gonna be subject to discretionary permits or is a public hearing or subject to due process.

Yes, sir. Once something has been discussed by the planning commission and we voted yes or no to send it to council or not, then it's fair game. Yes.

So I think I have a correct me if I'm wrong. So under the social media rule, we would not be breaking the social media rule, but we could be breaking due process rule.

That's right. So this is just a Brown Act. This is Brown Act rules. But remember, which I'm not covering today, but there are these rules for due process bias, you know, pre-decisional comments and statements before an item comes before you or taking positions before the item becomes before you. Those are due process concepts that are also ones that are ones you have to follow, but they're not part of the Brown Act.

Thank you. So I wanted to go back just to what you were saying, not just on social media for our understanding, but even when we solicit feedback, there are ways to solicit feedback. So if you are soliciting feedback for evidence, I'm soliciting feedback for evidence against something that's already kind of stating what your intention is, right, where you stand on it.

When you solicit information, this is more in situations where you're doing study sessions or you're looking at an ordinance, which isn't subject to due process. Ordinances are legislative actions. So in that case, there is no issue of bias. You can solicit information. What do you think about alcohol and bars in our city? You could solicit that information because it's a legislative issue. This is not a due process issue. But when you have due process issues like public hearings, CUP variances, conditional use permits, those kinds of things, that's where the due process kicks in. And you have to be very careful about what you put out on social media, what you might say, what you might write about it before the hearing.

So would you say it's a good rule of thumb to just not really share your opinion unless you're in a public meeting and if you feel the need to post something or ask something to check with you first?

Yes, it is, it is. That's fair to say. The non-permitted, these are things that you cannot do under AB992. So responding to comments or posts from other commissioners on matters within your subject matter jurisdiction. If it's not within your subject matter jurisdiction, it's fine. Reacting to posts, like thumbs up, with any emojis even, any comments, Again, not permitted. And then communicating on social media about Planning Commission business. Okay. So far, so good. Okay. These, the next couple slides, I'm going to be talking about what does not apply and what is not not applicable under the Brown Act. These are meetings that the Brown Act does not regulate. The first one are meetings of less than a quorum. Okay, but just be careful with the serial meeting because three can turn into four very quickly. But if it's just the three of you and it's kept as three of you, that is not subject to the Brown Act and that's not a meeting. Attendance at an open and notice meeting of other local agencies, as long as you don't talk about commission business. So IF YOU ALL WANTED TO GO TO THE RED LENS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT MEETING OR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING, ALL OF YOU CAN ATTEND AND PARTICIPATE AS PART OF THAT MEETING AS LONG AS YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT COMMISSION BUSINESS. AND ATTENDANCE AT CONFERENCES AND SEMINARS. AGAIN, ALL OF YOU CAN GO TO THE SEMINAR OR THE CONFERENCE AS LONG AS YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT COMMISSION BUSINESS DURING THAT SEMINAR CONFERENCE. Meetings hosted by persons or organizations, which, which are open to the public, like chamber meetings, rotary meetings, kawanas meetings. Those are other organizations not affiliated with the city. Those aren't city organizations. As long as you all do not talk about planning commission business, you may all attend those events and meetings. There is an exception for ad hoc committees, so this Planning Commission wanted to create an ad hoc committee, so that's limited in duration, less than a quorum. That would be an ad hoc meeting for a specific task or purpose. That committee is not subject to the Brown Act. There are there are some situations where an ad hoc turns into a brown act standing committee, but certainly, if the ad hoc is still working to complete its assignment that was given by the planning commission, maybe just study an issue and report back. Certainly ad hoc committees are not subject to the Brown Act, so no agenda needs to be posted, no public comment. The three can meet as ad hoc committee for that purpose. And then the last is any social, a purely social or ceremonial occasion. So it could be a retirement party, a chamber dinner, all of those kinds of things which are purely social and ceremonial can be can be attended by all of you without worrying about complying with the Brown Act. There was an Attorney General opinion fairly recently that said the State of the City Address is a Brown Act meeting, even though there's social elements or aspects of it that is ceremonial or social. The reason is because during the State of the City Address, they're talking about city business, so the council who all attend, we generally post an agenda for their attendance at that event. That's a little bit awkward. If you've noticed, if you've ever been to one, they'll have to open the meeting, you know, convene them, open the meeting, and then close the meeting. That's what that's about. Because the Attorney General said that would be a state of the city, would be a Brown Act meeting. So you have to post an agenda. Outside of that, Any purely social ceremonial occasion does not require any Brown Act compliance if all five of you or all seven of you went.

Okay.

Teleconferencing. Since the Planning Commission is via Zoom, you allow Zoom comments, use Zoom participation, there are some rules that apply to you if you want to use Teleconferencing to participate if you want to remotely participate in these meetings, this rules, the traditional Pre pandemic remote participation rule is an old brown act rule that. When telephone and tele conference calls were a big thing. We didn't have Zoom or Teams or anything like that. The Brown Act carved out this requirement that if a member of the legislative body would want to participate in a meeting, they could via telephone, and we've now interpreted as Zoom or Teams, could participate remotely, but they have to follow these requirements. And that's why this particular rule is not really used much anymore. At least a quorum of the commission has to be participating from locations within the city. Each teleconferencing location has to be identified on the agenda. So if you're remotely participating from your home, your address would have to go on the base of the agenda, the agenda that gets posted to the public. The agenda has to be posted at that location. So now that agenda has to be posted in your front yard. And then each teleconferencing location has to be accessible to the public, which means if you're remotely participating in your home, you have to let members of the public into your home to participate with you. And so nowadays that's not very appealing or safe sometimes. So that's why this one is not used very much. And then obviously public comment has to take place at that remote location and all your votes are taken by roll call. So we don't use this, but it's still available. And if you're comfortable and you wanna utilize this, it's still a valid way to participate remotely. But I will be in the next slides talking about the most updated teleconferencing rules that is something you probably all will be using if you need to remote participate. I'm sorry, before I get to those, this one just is a remote participation rule for if you have a disability. So a disability that qualifies as a disability under the ADA or state disability laws. You can participate either audio or video. Well, audio, because we've got to hear you. But if you have that element of video, that would be okay, too. But if you can only participate through audio, that would be okay. And you just need to let your city, the staff liaison know that you'll be participating due to a disability. And then you just need to, at the beginning of the meeting just announce that you'll be remotely participating and disclose whether anyone 18 over is in the room with you and the relationship of that person to you. Otherwise, this is also available to you. And then this one is gonna be the most, probably the most commonly used is to just cause remote participation. These are a list of all the reasons that you can participate remotely. So that could be in your home, It could be at maybe you're at a conference or you're on you're traveling for work and you want to zoom in to participate in the planning commission meeting. These would be reasons that you could do. So. So childcare, contagious illness, a physical or mental condition, travel on official business, that could be commission business or another state or local agency business. This could be illness or family members or children, physical, I'm sorry, emergency of your family, like a family emergency or your own personal emergency. The only requirements for this type of remote participation under just cause is all that is required is a disclosure at the beginning of the meeting. We have to make sure we can hear and see you. during the meeting. You're only limited to five meetings to do this per calendar year. But that's a pretty good number that allows you to remote participate. And then the reason for your remote participation has to be entered into the minutes of that meeting. Just the reason that you were remotely participating needs to be included in the minutes.

Or you don't have to have an agenda?

No, not at all. So that's remote participation, or what we call teleconferencing. I'm going to now switch down to public comment. So as you know, the public has a right to participate in your meetings. There are items that they are allowed to participate in. They are allowed to comment about non-agenda items. And then they have a right to participate and comment on items on your agenda. And that is pretty established in your agenda for Planning Commission at this point. The council just recently amended its disruptive speaker policy. And we'll make sure that the chair gets a copy. It was amended in order to accommodate those folks who Zoom in. Public who want to participate via zoom, because disruption can occur with people in person. But then disruption can also occur unfortunately via zoom. And so the, the new brown act rules that went into effect in January said, you have to have a policy that that addresses both. So we had one, we had the in-person, but we did not have the teleconferencing piece where people are on Zoom. So we updated that. And so when you have a disruptive speaker in person or in Zoom, they are entitled to fair warning. So you got to warn them. That's the first step, warn them that their speech is interfering with the orderly conduct of the meeting. If that speaker continues after the warning, then the best next step is call a recess. Recess sometimes brings the volume down, makes the speaker maybe think a little bit about their conduct, and then maybe a five or ten minute recess and you bring it back, you might get a change of conduct or behavior, and that might resolve the problem. But if that speaker continues, then for people in person creating a disruption, you can ask the sergeant at arms, which is usually a police officer. There's not one here posted generally. Then it would be a recess and staff would call police to come and escort that person out of chambers. What we call the nuclear option is if you've got so much disruption, you've got a large group, and you've got so much disruption that you have to clear the room. And that's what we call the nuclear option when things are just so out of hand, you've got many people, lots of disruption, lots of people disrupting. Escorting one person is not gonna fix the problem because you've got so much disruption by many. Clearing the room is your last option to be able to then continue with your meeting. What we generally do is if people still want to comment, we call them one by one to come in. And they can make public comment for any items on your agenda. If they want to submit a, you know, if they want to speak, that's how we would do it. Just ask them to come in one by one. I've actually had this happen at a meeting, a large mob. basically, was present for a city council meeting and the chambers just got so out of control that the mayor cleared the room and then we had everybody standing outside the lobby of the chambers and then asked one by one to come in. The only people that can stay in the chambers are members of the media, if they're present. And they usually will have some credentials or a badge of some kind. We let them stay in the chambers, but Brown Act requires it. Otherwise, everybody else has to wait outside. And then the last one is if you have a speaker on Zoom and they continue to be disruptive, we just mute them. So, yeah, we'll mute them. And if they continue to do other things to disrupt, we just disconnect. So now I'm going to stop talking and I'm going to let you all talk. These are now hypotheticals. As I told you, I think the best way to understand the Brown Act is to see it in hypotheticals, understand how it presents itself in real life. So the first one is the commission finishes its meetings and forum members stay after to talk about a retirement party for another commissioner. Is this okay? Yes. Yes. Anybody think that it wasn't? Okay. Number two, four members stay after the meeting to discuss the impacts of a new event center being constructed in the downtown area. Is this proper?

No.

No. Four members, right? Four members, meeting, subject matter jurisdiction. That would have triggered. Yes. Yeah. At that meeting. Like we had made our. Well, here's where you have to be careful. Technically, yes, but if the downtown, if the event center is going to come back for a CUP, you've got to be careful, right? Because you might see it again, but in a different form. So if we're just talking impacts here, then we have to be careful to see, hey, is this thing going to come back as a CUP later on? Is this, maybe this discussion is premature? You know, maybe we should talk about that when the item comes. Those are the discussions we wanna have beforehand. But if they're talking about impacts, and this thing is gonna come back in some form, then yes, this is a violation of the Brown Act. So you got four members talking about item on the Planning Commission subject matter jurisdiction, and there's no agenda posted. Okay, let's just say these are five members of the Planning Commission. Brown Act violation? Right. Social, right? Arguably social event party, right? But if after the picture's taken, they start talking about the event center, then yes, then it would be. That's right. Yes. That's right. So, you know, that shows you how a social, an exemption to the Brown Act can then turn into Something that would trigger the Brown Act Possibly so number four during public comment at a commission meeting a citizen Criticizes the Commission for approving at their last meeting a 100 unit apartment building so close to a grade school Commissioner Smith Interrupts the speaker and makes a motion to reconsider the approval of the hundred unit apartment building project even though the items on the agenda and That's right. Mr. Stanson. No, it's not on the agenda. You've already approved it. So there's even questions whether I mean, there's there's no question that you could bring that back anyway, because it's already moved on. Right? So, yes, the answer is no. Commissioner Jones, Wilson and Smith meet at a local cafe to discuss placing on the next meeting agenda, a zoning ban on pawn shops in the city. The next day, Commissioner Smith calls Commissioner Johnson to discuss the proposed bond shop ban. So you got Commissioner Jones, Wilson, and Smith. So you got three initially talking, right? Then one of those, right, one of those goes to Johnson. So four, right? So exactly, daisy chain, because now, And it could be that Jones, Wilson, and Smith, I'm sorry, that Jones and Wilson didn't know. That's a possibility. They didn't know. They didn't know Smith was going to go and talk to Johnson. So, yes, four members are involved. Not at the same time and place, but a different time, but still. They're talking about the same thing that's within their subject matter jurisdiction.

So the first is yes and the second is no. Yeah.

The 1st is the 1st, the 1st part of this is yes. The 1st part of it is okay is okay.

Right?

That the, the inclusion of the additional that 4th member would be no, no, that would be proper.

So, hypothetically, 3 of us are having this conversation. And then I say something. to somebody else, but you two don't know about it, are you two still violation? Yes. Okay.

Yes, that's why, or what I generally say is if it's three of you, just agree amongst yourselves. No one's going to talk about this with anybody else. Remind each other and agree. No one else can talk about it with anybody else because we've already reached our max. So that's one way, or the other way is just avoid it, or leave it at two. And in that way, you're, you're, you're clear, you're far away from that number four. So, and the brown act, if you saw that 1st slide quorum. Is going to be for no matter even if you have a vacancy.

That's correct. Yes, someone not being in attendance. I mean, an actual vacancy. There is no commissioner because you're still serving.

That's correct. It's based on the total membership, whether those seats are filled or not. So it's going to be for all the time. Yeah, it's going to be for all the time. Yes. Yes. Yes. So when you have a vacancy, what happens is what makes it more difficult is to reach a quorum. It makes it harder to have a lawful meeting, right? Okay. Okay. At a commission meeting, the commissioners are discussing a possible recommendation of the council to amend the zoning code to allow community gardens in the R1 zone. A resident requests to speak on the issue. However, the commission inadvertently takes action to make the recommendation to the city council without calling on the resident to speak. Is this proper? No, not proper. So how should the Commission, if the Commission takes action, they say, oops, sorry, we didn't call on you, sir, to speak on it. What would be the best way to fix that? That's right. Go back. Open up the public hearing. That's right. Open the public hearing and redo your vote. Yes.

I think the council's already taken action.

This is the same meeting. Like you've taken action, and then maybe you've already started the next item, and then someone says, hey, Johnny over there said he wanted to speak, and for whatever reason, the chair didn't recognize him, so you've got to go back.

And what if they don't speak up in the following meeting? Two weeks later, they come and say, hey, I was here last time, and you skipped it.

On that one, once the decision has been made, then we have, depending on what the situation is, like if we didn't know, like he didn't speak up until like after the fact and no one knew, staff didn't know, we let the decision move on. If there was some indication that he did try to get somebody's attention and no one saw him, then we'd have to discuss how to Bring it back and redo it. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, let's see. Okay. So this is a commission planning. Let's say this is a planning commission agenda. and under new business, you've got these three agenda items. So let's look at agenda item number one, zoning code amendment to allow community gardens. Is this a good agenda description that would meet the Brown Act requirements of notice to the public of what you're gonna discuss and what action you're gonna take? Yes, yes, also, maybe a few words, maybe a few more words might make this a better description is. Correct correct that would be something you'd want to add in there. So, 2 would definitely go to. It's just some project on Cypress Street, 555 Cypress Street. We don't know what kind of project. We don't know what kind of permit. We don't know what the request really is. Is this a CUP? Is this a variance? Is this approval of a project, you know, site plan? We don't know. So this one definitely would not meet Brown Act requirements where you need to have enough words on the agenda to give the public enough information to decide, you know, understand what action you could possibly be making or what discussion you're possibly going to have.

So it's recess at all then?

3 is probably the better of the of the of them all is this one's conditionally conditional use permit. So we know it's a permit a request to serve beer wine at 3rd street wine shop at 321 citrus street in Redlands. Yes, this would be the best description.

Yes, sir. I have a question on number six, I guess related to number six. So if a vote was made, but then members that are impacted in the community by that vote later said, I had no idea if I knew I would have come, right? What are the requirements of... from the city perspective in notifying the public or notifying people, right, rather than saying, oh, well, you should have checked the agenda or you should have been there, right? What are the requirements to make sure that people are aware that this matter is going to be?

Yeah. If on this hypothetical, are you talking about if we were to have to bring it back because we missed somebody to speak or just. No, in general. Okay.

I'm not talking about like general items, but a specific item to a plot. And that person is either the owner of the plot or a neighbor of that plot. Right. In that situation is the city required other than posting the agenda as the city required to provide written notices to the, to the surrounding properties. Okay.

Yes. Director Riley, you want to talk about how we notice people outside of posting the agenda for projects? We do 300 foot or maybe broader than that. It depends on the people impact. Right?

Yeah, it depends on what the project is, but but generally it's people within 300 feet of the property that's in 321 citrus Street everyone 300 feet around there would get a notice and it usually is published in the paper as well Minor exceptions slightly different its adjacent parcels only so it's our immediate neighbors across directly across the street somebody abutting the property and then in that manner That's how they're noticed

It's mailed to the address of the owner, which we get from the assessor's roles.

That's correct. And similar with HOAs that have condominiums, the owners of the condos and the owner of the common space would also get one.

Sorry, in that case, is the owner obligated to notify the tenants at all? Or if I am a tenant and something really affects me, then I just have no awareness of it. I don't have an opportunity to present public comments.

I don't know that there's any obligation for the property owner to notify their tenant. I wouldn't call it ad hoc. You're appointed by, is that ad hoc? I don't think so.

Okay.

Commissioner Smith and Wilson see Commissioner Jones Facebook posting. We need a status report regarding environmental impacts of warehouse uses in the city. It's long overdue. And then Smith gives a thumbs up emoji. Is that okay?

Is that okay? No. Yeah.

And by the way, Commissioner Smith, I used these last names with no thought about you. So I apologize. I apologize. Okay. Commissioner Smith receives an email from a developer who asked for a meeting to discuss a commercial development on State Street coming before the Planning Commission at the next meeting. She asks you as a fellow commissioner on how she should respond to the developer. So who wants to take this on? How would you advise Commissioner Smith? So yes, so I guess the first question is you would tell Commissioner Smith, hey listen, you're not required to meet with them. Do you want to meet with them? If the question, if the answer is no, then You decline the request, right? But if the answer is yes, then we start, you want to advise your fellow commissioner what are the steps to take, what are some of the rules to be mindful of when you do meet with this developer? Yes, yes, yes, but sometimes, you know, your fellow commissioners might be more comfortable. Maybe they might be comfortable asking the more senior members of the planning commission. You and some others who've been here for a while might be easier to do that than to ask the staff or to reach out to me. So. It's important you all know so you can help each other out. If this ever were to come by your, you know, someone asked you about, hey, what should I do? So here, as I mentioned earlier, you want to say, hey, Commissioner Smith, one thing you want to do is when you get into that meeting is be very, very transparent and upfront with the developer and tell them you're not going to comment about how you might vote. You will listen and take information. But you tell the developer, I cannot tell you how I will vote. I will vote during the public hearing and invite that person to show up to make their presentation to the full commission. But you want to be up front, that you're not going to relay any information about how you would vote. And then you do more listening than speaking. You can ask questions, but more listening than speaking. And then... You want to tell the commissioner, be careful, be aware that you're required to disclose the discussion during the public hearing. Um, I believe that's in your script as well. And that's part of what you do. You ask for any, um, Pre hearing. Or X party discussions, right? And then, um. If the commissioner during that meeting gets any documents from the developer, hey, here are some things I want you to review, make sure you give those documents to planning staff so that they can share it with the rest of you and make it part of the administrative record. If it's something important, relevant to the project, whatever documents you get, give it to the city staff. so that they can make it part of the record. At your hearing, you all have it. It's very daunting to have one or two of you have some information, not the rest of you, especially if it's important and you want to consider it. And we make sure that the applicant, if it's, or I'm sorry, members of the public, We put some copies out for them if they want to see what it is that you're also looking at. They have a right to see what you're relying on as well. So that's why it's important. If you get documents from the developer or you get documents from anybody who has an interest in the project, make copy, give copy to planning staff. This one, Commissioner Jones has fallen ill on the day of the Planning Commission meeting, but he still wants to participate in the meeting. Under what exception can Commissioner Jones participate remotely? Correct. Just cause. We want to make sure what the requirements for Commissioner Jones is that he lets city staff know right away that he makes sure he has both audio and video capabilities to participate so we see him and hear him. And then at the meeting, right at the very beginning, he's going to disclose the reason. He doesn't have to say what he's suffering from in terms of the illness, just that he's participating under just cause because he's not feeling well.

Does that disclose his location?

No, not at all. Yeah. These just cause reasons for remote participation is kind of evolved. It used to be much more strict. And so they cleaned it up this last legislative session that went into that January. They cleaned up and made this just cause remote participation rules a lot easier to follow. Right? That's right. So, if but if if commissioner Jones, who's ill has already reached his 5 in 1 calendar year, he's already used his 5 meetings. Then he has to take an absence. or he has to go to the old traditional rules or take an absent. Those are the options left for the commissioner. So we track the number of meetings per calendar year that each of you have if you want to remote participate, but you've got to stay within those five. And it resets every calendar year. The five resets, so you get five in January of each year. And then this is the, this might be the last one. During a planning commission meeting, a member of the public speaking on the impacts of a proposed 100-unit residential project begins to yell at the commission and use profanity. When the speaker's time is up, the speaker continues to speak. How should the chair handle the situation? Karen. Correct. That's correct. Or if it's just him or the speaker, you can have staff call a police officer if one's not posted to escort them out. You can take a recess at that point, go to the back, and have staff call the police if they're really out of hand and they continue to speak and disrupt and you can't continue with your meeting. All right. That takes care of the Brown Act training for you all. Yes, sir?

What does a violation look like? Is it against the individual or the agency?

It can be against certain in the quorum, right? The 4 of the 7 of, you know, if it were this body, 4 of you who are alleged to have violated the brown act essentially, though, even if it's the 4 of you in order to cure, if we find that there was some inadvertent violation. It affects the entire body. We have to bring the item back. You have to have the discussion again. That's what we call curing, cure the Brown Act violation. We bring the item back, and you redo the whole thing all over again and make sure that there's no more forums discussing the item. We bring it back. You do the discussion. You hold the hearing. You make your decision again, and that's how we fix it.

Is there a third party that gets involved in a violation?

No. Sometimes these, these complaints of brown at violation, go to the district attorney's office. But under the Brown Act, the agency has a right to fix it first. So we get a notice. Someone says it verbally. Someone says a letter. And we get a chance to fix it first. If we don't, then that person can go to the district attorney's office. And then the district attorney's office, typically when we get this, I'll jump in. I'll find out what happened. Sure. Sometimes if we do find there was some inadvertent noncompliance, we'll just put it back on and fix it and be done. If I find that there's been no violation, we will explain in writing to the complaining party why there was no violation. Sometimes that ends it. Sometimes it doesn't. It goes to district attorney's office. Then district attorney's office and I start to discuss what the facts are, what I found, my findings. And then we work it out. If the district attorney's office says you need to fix it.

We will fix it, so we'll bring it back out of an abundance of caution redo it again as an agency finds out that 5 of us maliciously violated knowing. Yes, agency would have a right to remove those 5 and replace them.

Yes. And if there was intentional violation of the brown act. Then the district attorney's office can bring charges against those individuals. That's correct. So, misdemeanor. Yes. Yes. Um, doesn't happen. I'll tell you doesn't happen very often. Um, and the reason is, is that most, like I said, most of these issues. That come to our attention are inadvertent. We didn't know we made a mistake. We didn't know very rarely. Is it intentional? So, in my career, I've never seen that happen. But out of an abundance of caution, when the district attorney's office says, you still got to fix it. We do it, we do it and we take care of it and we move, you know, we move forward. Yes.

I have a quick question. So when one of us discloses something as a potential conflict of interest or just like recently when taking a role on a board, is that required to be disclosed to the rest of the commissioners as well?

So let's say we'll use an example which is common for this body. You own property 500 feet from an address a property that has an address that's 500 feet from your property. And so that would automatically disqualify you from voting, right, under the conflict rules. So the conflict rules, the Political Reform Act requires that when the item is, when the chair gets to that item, that before we get a staff report, a report from staff on the item, that that commissioner stayed on the record why they're, that they're recusing themselves and why. So you do have to state on the record, I'm recusing, I'm abstaining, I'm recusing myself from this item because my residence is 500 feet from the project, from the property that's being considered on the agenda tonight. And then you would get up and you would go through that door and wait outside. You can't sit at the dais. You have to leave the room while that item is being considered. After the Commission has deliberated and taken their action, then you can come back and resume your seat and continue with the agenda.

That's. Only if there's an item on the docket that is relevant to.

Yes.

That's right. That's right. That's right. So I think all of you have gotten maps, at least for the real estate conflict. There's other conflicts, but for the real estate conflicts, you've all gotten maps. And so you just check based on that map. You check the addresses on the agenda just to make sure. That you're not within that 500 foot if it's outside the 500 foot then talk to me because that's a maybe maybe not There's some factors if it's outside of the if it's more than 500 feet you may Participate or you may not depends on certain factors, and I have to do that analysis and give you that advice Yes

Um, do I need did I need to say I was involved before or I mean, I just said, I'm going to refuse myself from item C because.

Yes, you would state the reason why you're accusing yourself and leave the room.

But this was for a consent item.

Oh, it was a consent item. Yes, okay. If it was on the consent item, no. You just disclose, but you stay put. If it's an item on the consent calendar, yes.

Well, I just wanted to make sure that I did it correctly.

That's correct, you did, you did. If it's a discussion item, not on the consent calendar, then yes, you disclose and leave.

So I own across the street from ESRI's main campus. If ESRI does a project not on their main campus, but across the way, am I still required to

So, we're only concerned with where the. Project is where that project is happening. So, and then we would map it. We'd map your, your property. We'd check the map if we could. If not, we would do more mapping. To see if you are still within 500 feet of that location where that project is taking place and it's it's measured property line to property line. Okay.

So, no matter where on their property.

So, yes, that's correct. Yes. So. Yeah, so those are things you want to bring up, and we'll check those for you before the meeting so that you know in advance whether you can participate or not. It's really uncomfortable when you realize it right on the spot, so we don't want to put anybody on the spot, and then give you the language that you are going to use to disclose that at the meeting, so.

If a commissioner has multiple properties, not me, I don't have multiple properties, but that cover a wide range in the city, it becomes hard. Where does the responsibility fall? Is it the responsibility of the commissioner to check every agenda item and make sure they're within that or before every meeting? Or is it the responsibility of the staff to alert the commissioner prior to the meeting that this property falls within that range?

So I'll say two things. If you own multiple properties, make sure you have maps for 500 feet, 1000 feet for each of those properties. We want if it's 10 properties, we want to map those and give you 10 maps. So you can. Check because the conflict rules make the, the appointed or elected official responsible ultimately responsible for checking. Your conflict now, like, for planning commission for city council, I have their maps and. They know they got to check, but I also check and so I don't want to put that on staff because I know that Sean has a lot of a lot of staff members who are doing other things. But ultimately, the responsibility is on you all to check. So, if you don't have maps for all of your property interests. Let us know. We'll map it for you, the 500 feet and the 1,000 feet, so you can easily check it. I made those maps purposely so that you can see the addresses, what falls in 500 feet, the addresses, and the addresses that fall outside. If it falls outside but within 1,000 feet, please see me, and I will give you a conflict check. I'll give you conflict advice in advance because it's not cut and dry if it's beyond the 500 feet, okay?

And then to your point about boards, there are situations like, let's say you sat on the board of Ronald McDonald House and they came with the projects, you would check with Ms. Garcia. But I've had to do that with real estate boards and with clients, like where your income, whether it's been 12 months or 24 months, I've had to call and be like, hey, can I vote on this? Should I disclose it? Et cetera.

Yeah. The other complex rules outside of real estate is if you lease property in the city, you The maps aren't gonna help you because those rules only play with ownership. So if you lease or rent real property in the city, I give you the rules, what that rule is for any leases impacted by anything on your agenda. And I'll help you, give you advice about whether you can participate if you are leasing. The only exception where these rules do not apply is if you're on a month-to-month rental agreement. Month to month rental agreements don't have anything to do with does not create any conflict. So if it's a month to month, not a lease, then you're good to go. But if it is a lease. Then please let me know and we'll we will I will give you the rule that you should be mindful of and looking when you're looking at the agenda. And then there's other issues we'll talk, I can certainly come back and do a conflict training later on, but those are the big issues that I think affect this body.

Any other questions for Ms. Garcia? Okay, so that concludes item 5B. Thank you very much for that. Moving on to item number six, announcements and commissioner comments. Do we have any? Seeing none, moving on to item number seven, director's update. Director?

Just a quick few updates. September 22nd, we may not have a meeting. Right now it doesn't look like we have anything lined up for September 22nd. October 6th, the warehouse ordinance is going to go back to the city council. It was continued at the last council meeting. October 13th, we'll have two good-sized items on the agenda. So we will have a meeting on October 13th. The short-term rental item will be coming back as was requested to come back. We'll do that when staff's collected the appropriate information to share and when there's appropriate time and space on the agenda to do so.

Thank you. Moving on to item number eight, adjournment. We will adjourn to the next regular meeting date of September 22nd, 2026. Thank you.

Thank you.