Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

To the August 13th Planning Commission meeting. This meeting is called to order. As a point of process, Commissioner Montero will be participating in the meeting remotely due to a disability and shall be participating through both audio and visual technology. We ask that Commissioner Montero disclose at the meeting whether any other individuals 18 years of age or older are present in the room at the remote location where she is attending and the general nature of the members' relationship with any of those individuals. At this point, I'm going to ask Commissioner Montero, can you hear me? Are you present? So she's not present? OK. Well, will you please let me know if she does rejoin? All right. Go ahead and read the recording.

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

Thank you. Commissioner Toonison, will you please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? Thank you. All right. With that, we'll go ahead and start public comment.

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

have no speaker cards in chambers anybody online has Commissioner Montero rejoined us by chance all right we'll go ahead and close public comment and move forward to our public hearing at this time Planning Commission will open the public hearing to receive public input regarding planning case PC 2026 dash zero zero seven nine six good morning Good morning honorable chair and I'm sorry I'm so sorry to interrupt you will you please pause for just one moment I've been told that commissioner Montero is now on the call commissioner Montero can you hear me. Good morning. Yes, I can hear you. Thank you. Okay, I need to read something and then I need you to respond to a question. Commissioner Montero is participating remotely due to a disability and will be participating both audio and vision through audio and visual technology. We ask that Commissioner Montero disclose at the meeting whether any other individuals 18 years of age or older are present in the room at the remote location with the member and the general nature of the member's relationship with any of those individuals. Commissioner Montero, is there anyone 18 years of age or older in the room wherever you are?

There's nobody in the room with me. Okay.

Thank you for confirming that. And if that happens to change at any point during the meeting, I ask that you please disclose that. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Moving back to our public hearing. Thank you so much for your patience. Please go ahead.

All right. Good morning, honorable chair and members of the commission. Clarissa Mangus, assistant planner, here to present an amendment to the public safety element of the 2025 general plan to maintain the city's compliance with assembly bill or AB 2140. AB 2140 allows local jurisdictions to become eligible for additional state funds to finance FEMA-led public assistance projects which repair public infrastructure after disasters if they comply with the bill's requirements. Typically, federal funding covers 75% of the cost of these projects, while funding by local jurisdictions covers 25%, as shown on this first pie chart. When the California legislature passes a bill allowing it, state funding can cover 18.75% of that local cost share through the California Disaster Assistance Act, or CDAA, while local funding would cover the remaining 6.25% of the cost as shown in this second pie chart. Jurisdictions that are compliant with AB 2140, however, could see their entire share of the cost of these projects covered by state funding, as shown by the third pie chart, which could be of great financial help during disaster recovery. So how do local jurisdictions become compliant with AB 2140? They must first adopt a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, or LHMP, the document that describes how they prepare for disasters about every five years. At the same time or later, they must also adopt the LHMP into the public safety element of their general plan. And in the final step, they must submit the revised public safety element and resolution adopting the LHMP to the California Office of Emergency Services or Cal OES for approval. The city of Riverside already adopted its most recent LHMP in 2025. And we are now here today to adopt it in the public safety element. The previous LHMP was adopted in the public safety element by embedding a hyperlink reference to its location on the City Office of Emergency Management's webpage into the element text. The proposed amendment then is to replace that reference with the one for the current LHMP as shown in blue in the right-hand text box. With that, staff recommends that the Planning Commission, one, recommend that the City Council determine that the project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, review pursuant to Section 15061.B.3, General Rule. of the sequa guidelines and two recommend that the city council approve planning case pc 2026 00796 general plan text amendment based on the findings outlined in the staff report that concludes my presentation and i am available for any questions thank you thank you for your presentation we'll go ahead and open up public comment

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

I have no speakers in the audience. Is there anybody online? All right. Nobody in chambers, nobody online. May I have a motion to close public comment, please? Thank you. Thank you. We have a motion in a second. Please vote. Oh, I forgot. We're supposed to do it by roll call. Please forgive me. Since we have a remote attendee, we have to do it by roll call.

Commissioner Melendrez. Commissioner Alderete. Commissioner Singh. Commissioner Tennyson. Commissioner Mooney. Commissioner Wilder. Vice Chair Baird. Yes. And Chair Wilson. Yes. Motion carries unanimously.

Did you get Montero? Your mic's not on.

Commissioner Montero? Can you hear me? Yes. Okay.

Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Do we have any questions or comments from the commission? Commissioner Wilder, please go ahead.

Yeah, quick question. In looking at AB 2140, that may not actually go through. So how will that affect what we're doing today? Okay.

Are you referring to a piece of pending legislation numbered 2140? Yes. Okay. So the legislature does recycle bill numbers between legislative cycles. So you may be looking at a new 2140. This is a piece of legislation that has previously been passed into law.

Oh, okay. My apologies.

All right. Any other questions or comments from the commission? all right seeing none do we have a motion to approve staff's recommendation thank you we have a motion and a second we'll go ahead and do roll call

Commissioner Melendrez. Commissioner Alderete. Commissioner Singh. Commissioner Tennyson. Commissioner Mooney. Commissioner Wilder. Vice Chair Baird. Chair Wilson. And Commissioner Montero.

yes motion carries unanimously thank you so much motion carries uh there's a 10-day appeal period please contact the planning division for appeal information we will now move on to our consent calendar um consent calendar is just the minutes from july 16th i may have a motion to approve the consent calendar thank you second all right roll call

Commissioner Melendrez? Yes. Commissioner Alderete? Abstaining. Okay. Commissioner Singh? Yes. Commissioner Tennyson? Yes. Commissioner Mooney? Yes. Commissioner Wilder? Yes. Vice Chair Baird? Yes. Chair Wilson? Yes. Commissioner Montero? Yes. Motion passes with Commissioner Alderete abstaining.

Perfect. Thank you so much. We will now move to our presentations. Anthony Bowman will be presenting to us. Good morning, sir. I hope you had a good vacation.

Good morning, Chair Wilson. Yes, I did, but as always, it was not enough. Never is. Never is. All right, so members of the Planning Commission and the public, this is a presentation on ex parte communications related to quasi-judicial proceedings. This is the kind of exciting stuff that drives my job. All right, next slide, please. So at times the commission acts in an adjudicatory capacity. That means that the commission sits in a role similar to judges to where a particular law is applied to the facts of a particular issue. This is not where you're setting policy drafting the law, but it's where you apply the law to the facts. Judging applications or appeals for specific land use permits, variances, and other project-specific approvals are some examples. This presentation will provide you with some general guidance as to the proper conduct for commissioners regarding ex parte communications when presiding over a quasi-judicial proceeding. Next slide, please. So what are quasi-judicial proceedings? A quasi-judicial proceeding, again, is where you apply the law to the facts. That's the adjudication. The law is not debatable in this case. You have the law and you have the facts. A case would be when you're asking for a variance, and they say that my piece of property is uniquely situated. Well, I mean, what is uniquely situated? That is a matter of fact for you to determine. They'll provide what they think it means, and you decide if that is a unique circumstance or not. So what are the procedural due process requirements? What is an ex parte communication, and how can commissioners protect the city against improper ex parte communications? We'll deal with these in subsequent slides. Next slide, please. So a quasi-judicial proceeding requires advance notice and a hearing. This is all part of due process. People have to know that their rights are going to be determined. The decision is predicated upon specific findings of fact. When you make your decision, you have to find this fact to be true or not true. The decision applies existing law to specific facts to make an individualized determination of a specific person's rights or interest in life, liberty, or property. We don't see so much life and liberty here, but property we do see. For an example, the Planning Commission is holding a hearing for the revocation of the CUP for the operation of a nightclub. That would be an example. Next slide, please. Due process principles apply to ensure fairness. The most fundamental requirements of procedural due process are adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard before a fair and impartial hearing body. We don't have In the bigger scheme, we don't have trials in absentia. Other countries do, but we say that the person has to be fairly notified and has to be able to defend their interests. Ex parte communications may taint a fair hearing when a quasi-judicial body considers evidence outside of the record to reach a conclusion. Part of democracy as we practice it here in the West and in the United States is transparency. And when a quasi-judicial person or body is making a decision, all the information they use in their decision is supposed to be available to everybody. Next slide, please. any materials and substantive oral or written communication or sensory observation with or by a decision maker that is relevant to the merits of an adjudicatory proceeding and which takes place outside of a notice proceeding open to all parties to the matter. That's ex parte. Ex parte means with somebody missing. For example, as an attorney, if there's a case and there's my side and the other side, I am not allowed to speak to that judge without the other side being present unless I warn them and give them a good reason for it.

And that's called the next part of communication.

I have to say, look, this is time urgent and I'm going to be there and you should be there. And typically a judge will make sure that the other side has been notified and that it is something urgent. You can't just do it for any reason. So casual or non-substantive communications do not violate the due process rights of non-present parties. If I walk down the street and I see a judge and I say, good morning, your honor, that is an ex-party communication, but nobody cares. For an example, the Planning Commission is holding a hearing for the revocation of a CUP for the operation of a nightclub. Prior to the hearing, one of the commissioners, and this is all hypothetical, one of the commissioners contacts the nightclub owners to see if the problems can be remedied.

That's outside the process.

That's outside the record. And that can compromise the fairness of a hearing. And it would go the other way around. You can't also contact the other party if there's another side. Say you have two complaining parties, you can't contact one or the other. It has to be both, and it has to be open and on the record. Everybody gets to see it. Next slide, please. Administrative tribunals, which are required to make a determination after a hearing, cannot act upon their own information, and nothing can be considered as evidence that was not introduced at a hearing of which the parties had notice or at which they were present. Everything has to happen in the open, in sunshine. There's a saying that democracy dies in darkness. If you make your decision, which is entrusted to you, it has to be based on information that was presented to everybody. So everybody knows how that information came to be and what it is, so you can all judge it. For example, the Planning Commission is holding a hearing for the revocation of the CUP for the operation of a nightclub. Prior to the hearing, one of the commissioners contacts the nightclub's owners to see if the problems can be remedied. The meeting happens and the nightclub's owner states that their operation is perfectly fine and no changes are needed. The commissioner now wants to use that refusal to make changes as part of the findings for the revocation. They can't do that because that information was not presented in the open process. Next slide, please. So the example is Petrovich Development versus City of Sacramento. This is an excellent example of an ex-party communication, and how even well-meaning democracy and community participation can come back to bite you. Mr. Petrovich applied for a CUP for a gas station. The Planning Commission approved it, and it was appealed to the City Council, which voted to deny the CUP. And of course, CUP is Conditional Use Permit. Petrovich sued, alleging council members were improperly influenced by inadmissible factors, including bias and hostility, ex-party communications, and other defects. In finding the city's decision flawed, the trial and appellate court cited texts and other communications between a council member and an opposition group, which were among the concrete facts demonstrating bias, tainting the city council's decision. An administrative decision-maker's receipt of an ex parte communication does not, by itself, create an actual bias or unacceptably high probability of actual bias that destroys the neutrality of the decision-maker. But instead, an administrative decision-maker who receives communications may neutralize any bias by promptly disclosing the substance of the ex parte communications and giving the opposing party an opportunity to respond. So it's not as though ex parte communications are necessarily illegal, but they can taint the process and it can be cured. Next slide, please. This is how we protect against improper ex-party communications, the pre-hearing disclosure of ex-party communications. In the land use context, site visits are generally permitted prior to hearing provided that the personal investigation by commissioners is disclosed at the outset of the hearing so that other parties can contest the observations of the commissioner. Commissioners may receive information relevant to the decision by contacts with parties, public or staff, and are not confined to reading the record or hearing presentations at public hearings. However, if ex-party information is not already in the record, it must be contemporaneously noted and disclosed at the start of the hearing. Disclosure, making sure that there's sunshine on everything, that everybody has the same set of facts is the key here. Next slide, please. So these are the general rules which will keep you out of trouble. Avoid discussing city decisions before a public hearing is held. If a communication occurs, disclose what was talked about during the meeting before the public hearing is opened. After the hearing, if a decision is not final, don't have any discussions about the matter until after the final decision is rendered. This is all supposed to be confined to the facts in front of you. That's due process for everybody, both sides. Next slide, please. And that's it. Are there any questions?

Questions?

So if I'm meeting with an applicant beforehand to see the process that they're doing and their plans, I need to disclose it?

Absolutely. Yep.

We did not know that.

Sure.

And just to piggyback on that, as long as they're showing us exactly what is in the presentation, we disclose that. But if they show us something that's not in the presentation, is it what they showed us?

You have to disclose that. Yeah, you have to disclose that.

When were you all going to tell us this?

You're saying if you visit the property.

No, no. If you go by yourself and don't speak to anybody, you can say, I just went to the property. That's not an ex-party communications. The property is not going to give you secret facts, right?

Right.

So it's ex-party communications, not ex-party behavior. Yeah, you can drive by there. I know some of you do that, which is fine.

And I often meet with an applicant who has contacted me with the blueprints of what they're doing.

Yeah, so you should disclose that. I met with the applicant. He gave me the blueprints. Yeah, the rule still applies. They're contacting you. They're not contacting you to wish you a happy birthday.

They're advocating.

You should disclose that.

So anytime a meeting or other communication happens outside of an actual hearing, we should disclose that. And it has to do with that actually. And it has to do with that.

That's correct.

I want to ask a clarifying question about the information that might be provided by an applicant during ex parte communication. If they happen to pull something out and put it in front of you that is not included in the package, then I would need to disclose that at the start, like bring it with me and submit it, or what does that actually look like?

If they gave it to you, yes, because your vote is based upon that, and you can only base your vote upon the information in the record.

And is waiting until the actual public hearing a problem when things are supposed to be submitted into the public record in advance?

Um... Earlier is always better, but that's okay.

All right.

Thank you for that.

I just had this meeting. They gave me this. I don't see it in with the packet. You want to add that?

So if they were to give you a set of blueprints that are not in the record and they want you to make a decision based on that, you would have to contact either planning or the clerk and say, look, I've been given this and I don't think this is in the record. What do we do with this? And we'll help you out with that. That's good to know. Because you cannot consider anything not in the record. Right. That's not common knowledge. Right.

Right.

Makes sense when you say it.

Sure. Well, in retrospect, it's easy.

Yeah, go ahead.

That you had that conversation. Sure.

I'm so sorry, Chair. The control room is asking to remind everyone to please use your microphones. Commissioner Monteiro, can I hear you?

Oh, I was actually getting ready to call on Commissioner Monteiro to see if she had any questions. Thank you for that.

So, yeah, if it adds something to your analysis, it needs to be out there.

Commissioner Singh? Yeah, so I have another question. That is, let's say they contact us, the applicant contact. Do we have to meet with them? Do we have to talk to them? No, no, no. We can't say, well, there's nothing for me to talk to you. Can I say that?

Can you say that I, if you, a planning commissioner, whoever that person may be, can determine to have a policy of not meeting with applicants on a matter prior to the matter? Sure.

Okay. Thank you. It's your choice. Commissioner Montero, are you there? Yes, I am. Sorry about not being able to hear a few of us. Did you have any questions or comments about the presentation from Anthony Bowman?

Yes. So just to clarify, because at many times, you know, as commissioners, we do have applicants who reach out one-on-one prior to meetings with the entire board or attempt to. All of those meetings are ex parte communications, which need to be disclosed. prior to our hearing correct yes you should disclose that you had these ex-party communications thank you awesome thank you any other questions or comments from the commissioners

I do that would be announced at the meeting that we had this or do we notify staff by the way I spoke with the applicant they reached out they went through the slide deck they're going to present offered an opportunity for me to ask clarifying questions would I contact planning commission or or do we just disclose it as we come to the open meeting as I recall typically there is a time when we ask if there's any ex-party communications that need to be disclosed

That's what I was going to ask, if we could put that in at the beginning of the meeting, if we could have that question asked.

I think it's already there, but we'll make sure it is.

Okay. Thank you. That's a good suggestion. All right. Anybody else? Okay, so we have a second presentation. No, no, no. Oh, okay.

We had some members of the audience who wanted to make public comment on something which ended up not being here, but I suspect that they may want to be heard on this so they have an opportunity to come up and make public comment on this if they like.

Okay, so we're opening up public comment?

For this item, that's correct. Okay.

Ezra Caldera? Correct. Hi, good morning. Good morning.

With this new ex parte in place, how does it affect anything prior? Is it retroactive or is it going to be moving forward? When is it going to take effect?

It's always in effect.

Well, yeah, it's always in effect. It's always in effect? Okay.

Got it.

Okay.

And after this meeting, where can I get the printout at?

You should be able to download this online.

Got it. Okay. Thank you.

You would go to the agenda, and it will be a link in the agenda.

Okay.

All right. Thank you. Is that it?

Yeah, as of right now, yeah.

Okay.

Thank you so much. Do we have to close public comment? Yes. Do we have a motion to close public comment on this item?

I'll move to close public comment. Second.

All right. Do we have to do the roll call?

All right. Commissioner Melendrez? Yes. Commissioner Alderete?

Yes.

Commissioner Singh? Yes. Commissioner Tennyson? Yes. Commissioner Mooney? Yes. Commissioner Wilder? Yes. Vice Chair Baird?

Yes.

Chair Wilson? Yes. Commissioner Montero?

yes motion carries unanimously thank you the next item is a roberts rule of order and procedure presentation is that you again sir it is lucky you and but thank you for because this is at my request it is so i'm very i'm sorry friends but i feel like we needed this reminder so thank you very much for taking the time to do this for us so

Deputy City Attorney Anthony Beaumont here at the request of the chair with a presentation for Robert's Rules of Order. So I'm not exactly sure what you wanted, because last time when we spoke, it was more of a combination of Robert's Rule of Order, Rosenberg's, and what the city normally does. So I was able to find this material that Lozano-Smith had prepared, their attorneys, which we retained before, which gives a... somewhat detailed breakdown of the difference between Roberts and Rosenberg and somewhere in between those is the city rules. So I don't know if you want me to go through all of these years. So if if you look at this you can see that Roberts rules of order is more in many ways Rosenberg's is less and the city council rules can be somewhere in between one example would be 11 the motion to table. Robert's Rules of Order specifically calls out that a motion to table until a specific time, which is similar to postpone to a certain time, and they're debatable. For Rosenberg's Rule of Order, this motion must be justified as urgent and out of business and cannot be debated. The city's procedure is actually somewhere in between there, and I noticed that for some other ones too. Common ones would be the fundamental structure. They're both a set of parliamentary rules. A quorum, they're similar between Rosenberg and Roberts. Role of the chair is the same. The format for the agenda item discussion, you can set your own rules for that. These are the two more common ways to do it. We have the power to limit public speakers and is subject to the decision of the body that is similar to what city council already has what planning commission does. However, Robert states that a second is not required on small boards that really doesn't apply to us. We're not a small board. motions in general there's not a lot of difference between the two motion to amend we're closer to rosenberg's rules of order the substitute motions i believe we're closer to rosenberg's than we are to roberts but this is fairly detailed um so are you giving that to us This you should have.

Oh, okay. I didn't print it out. So may I please just offer a minor clarification? Sure. Before you go on. It's my understanding from staff, I can't remember who specifically, but that we as a body elected to continue operating under Robert's rules.

Okay.

The Planning Commission. So my primary concern in requesting this presentation is... really around motions and how and when those occur in the various types of motions that we can employ in our work i've been i've i've i've had a few time instances of being concerned that somebody made a motion might have happened prematurely before everybody's questions got asked so you want like a motion decision tree a primer i don't know what you would call it sir i can do that sure

Yeah, like a if, yes, no, yes, no. Yeah, I can do that for you. If you want like a primer on motion practice.

That's what I put in my email, yes.

I didn't see that.

Sorry.

That's okay.

You were on vacation.

I can do that for you. Yeah, I can come back at a future date, set it on the agenda, and I can come up with a basic structure on precedence of motions and what you need to do.

Because I think you, Commissioner, Vice Chair Baird, had asked one time, just in private conversation, is substitute motion a thing that we can use?

Yeah, we often have a pretty normal process in trying to let folks speak, and then somebody makes a motion, it's quickly seconded, there's not often it's not always time to comment or substitute motion or to further debate and it was i think some clarification around that process it feels often like when emotions made it's just like a quick second and we're done right and not further discussion of that motion particularly when there's maybe a condition on that motion or some other element to it um and i think some clarification around what that process looks like if somebody makes a motion pre Preemptively, right? Before full discussion's been had?

So there have been times, and I've been guilty of this myself, where I'll press the speak button, I'll speak. I'll have a comment, and then at the end of my comment, I make a motion. Sure. Right? When I have no idea if there is other people that are still wanting to ask questions. Another thing that I can certainly say has been an issue that I didn't realize that I probably shouldn't be doing is somebody make a motion, there's a second, and instead of opening, saying is there any further discussion before I call for the vote, I've just called for the vote. And I think that that's something that I should not be doing. And so that's the sort of thing, logistically, that I want to make sure that I'm doing correctly and that we're all on the same page and how it's supposed to go.

But I think it's just embedded, if I may. Wouldn't it be? Wouldn't it be embedded? You're saying, and I think our city attorney could clarify or support that, that the process would allow for that. You're the chair and would just simply be a pause, because I agree with you. Sometimes it's like fast track and you feel like, wait, I've got to process this. before we're asked to call for a vote. But if I'm the person that's still processing it, I'm going to say, wait a minute, hold on, it's going fast. However, I think you're asking, do I need that permission to just pause and say, any other comments, any other questions, clarifying questions? I think the process lends itself to that. I mean, it would be nice if we had maybe a little bit of a diagram to say, but you, I think, as the chair, could just by the process just clarify. Pause for a moment, especially when it's going fast.

Then I can say, hold on a second. Before we go to the vote, that's part of the process, right?

Yeah, I can do that, like a flow chart or something.

Thank you so much. I'm glad to do it. Are there any other questions or issues related to how these meetings are managed under Robert's rules that others need clarification on? well thank you i do the best i can but there have been a few times where i've left this meeting and said man i i don't know if everybody got their questions out and that's something that i want to make sure that we're doing better yeah i'll do that we can come back i'll work with the staff and the clerk to come back with a time for that okay thank you do i have to open this up for public comment too no no okay all right thanks everybody uh do we have any items for future consideration

I wanted to first provide an update on some past items that we have discussed. So if you remember at our last meeting, we had provided an update on the entertainment permit amendment process. And this was an amendment that was required so that we could have a process whereby businesses that have an existing Minor conditional use permit or conditional use permit surrounding entertainment uses could transition from a CUP to an entertainment permit. And there were some findings that we needed to add basically an exception to the findings. We brought that before the city council at their meeting on July 28th. City Council pulled the item from the consent calendar and asked staff to take the item to the Land Use Committee because they have some additional questions on entertainment permits as a whole, and they want us to also look at the appeals process for entertainment permits. There was no clear direction in what they want to achieve, I guess, with those amendments, but we are preparing a presentation today for the Land Use Committee for the September 14th meeting with the Land Use Committee, where we will provide an overview of the entertainment permit process, some best practices from other cities, and the appeals process. So what that means, however, for the amendment that was before the City Council is that that is now on hold until we can take the item before the Land Use Committee. knowing that we are now delayed a few more months and we had very clear direction from the planning commission to come back within 90 days to find a solution for downtown experiment we are going to be withdrawing our revocation request for the downtown experiment minor conditional use permit we do not need to bring that item formally before the planning commission to withdraw it we could do that if the planning commission would like us to otherwise we can write a note to the file and that that sufficiently closes out our withdrawal request and so now knowing that for the next two meetings um we do not have items for either the october i'm sorry august 27th meeting or the september 10th meeting however if you would like us to formally withdraw the revocation request then we can meet

Are we good?

We're good, and I just really want to say I applaud you and your staff for making that happen. Thank you.

About time. So is everybody in agreement that we don't need, okay. Y'all can just handle that administratively, and we really appreciate your taking this step and not continuing to drag this out and hold it over the business owners' heads. while whatever happens at council is still being worked out. Very much appreciate that.

And once that is all figured out, we will come back to the Planning Commission with an update on what we learned from the Land Use Committee, and we will then be able to amend the minor CUP for downtown experiment, and we will continue on.

Chair Wilson, I had a quick question. Yes, go ahead, Commissioner.

Given that the amendment drastically changes the project scope, is there a way that we can also provide this new amendment to the public and open it up for just a brief discussion prior to our final vote when we do address the CEP?

Referring to the the amendment for the entertainment permit process that so all of those Future amendments will be conducted at public hearings. So first will be the land use committee and we're it's not a Hearing item at the land use committee. It's more of a presentation and but it will be agendized and members of the public can speak on the matter if they so wish. And then once we get direction from the Land Use Committee and we do put it back on the agenda for the City Council, then it will be a hearing item. Well, it will be on the consent calendar, which can be pulled and can then be discussed.

Okay, great, thank you. Thank you.

Was there somebody else? Oh, yes, go ahead.

Real quick, regarding the removal of, regarding the downtown experiment, that doesn't preclude you from being able to bring that back if they choose not to follow the city guidelines.

Right. So what staff will be doing is withdrawing our revocation request. So downtown experiment will continue to operate under the minor conditional use permit that they already have. But the process is still the process. So if they continue, if there are future violations, then we could bring it back for revocation again in the future. It's not like removing this from the table means that forever they can operate without having to abide by the existing condition of approval within the minor CUP.

Thank you for that question. Anybody else? All right, friends, thank you so much. Are there any other updates?

If I may, Laurel, I did provide the planning commissioners with a link to draft land use maps for the general plan update. I just wanted to give a quick reminder, the survey for this iteration of those maps does close this coming Monday. So if you'd like to take an opportunity to provide some feedback or share it with friends, family, your networks, whomever you like, please do so. We'll be closing that survey on this coming Monday. These maps will be revised and there will be another iteration that will come out of this process, but I wanted to just give a quick reminder that we are asking for final input on this iteration of those draft land use maps. Thank you.

Thank you for that reminder and for all your good work on this. Does anybody else have anything else for the good of the order? So no meetings for two, the next two meetings are canceled.

That is correct.

All right. It is 944. We are adjourned. Thanks, everyone.