Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, roll call. Will the secretary please conduct the roll call?

Yes. We'll let the record reflect that Chair Zuber is absent tonight. Vice Chair Tejada? Present. Commissioner Mendoza?

Present.

Commissioner Rich?

Present.

Commissioner Solis?

Present.

Commissioner Sobjulu is not here just yet.

And Commissioner Nay? Present. Thank you.

The next item on the agenda is announcements. Ms. Secretary, are there any announcements this evening?

Yes. I'd like to announce our new Commissioner, Jennifer Nay. Welcome her to the Planning Commission. Thank you. We're really happy to have you here. I also wanted to make an announcement that the Planning Commission decision that was rendered on 880 Doolittle was the new industrial building where the former Espresso parking building was located. It was appealed by two different entities and is scheduled to be heard by the city council this Monday evening, May 5. So just an update on the Planning Commission's action. And that's it.

Perfect. Thank you. Moving on to the consent calendar. The next item on the agenda is the consent calendar. There is one item on the consent calendar this evening, the draft minutes for the planning commission meeting of 02/06/2025. Would any commissioners like to pull the item from the consent calendar for corrections? If not, may I have a motion to approve the consent calendar? Commissioner Commissioner Solis?

I'll make the motion.

We have a motion.

Consent calendar.

It has been moved by Commissioner Solis. Second. And seconded by commissioner, Mendoza that the consent calendar be approved. Please vote on your screens. Motion passes with five yeses, and, one absentee at the moment, commissioner Tabjulu.

K. The next item on the agenda is staff reports and announcements. Ms. Secretary, do we have any staff reports or announcements this evening?

No.

Okay. Moving on. The next item on the agenda is public comments. The public is invited to make any comments related to the agenda items that are not listed under public hearings or other items of public interest at this time. If you wish to speak during public comments, please fill out a speaker card and hand it to the administrative assistant, and speakers will be invited to speak.

Public comments are limited to three minutes per person. If you wish to comment on an item listed under the public hearings portion of the agenda, you will have an opportunity to do so when the item is heard. Please fill out the speaker card and hand it to the administrative assistant. We are now taking public comments. This is is the time when any person may address the board on matters not listed on this agenda.

Do we have any speaker cards for tonight? No? Okay. In that case, we'll move on to business items on the agenda. Presentations is next on the list. The item on the agenda is presentations. Miss Secretary, are there any presentations this evening?

No. We do not have any presentations this evening.

K. Tonight's agenda has one public hearing item for consideration by the Planning Commission. If you wish if you wish to speak before the Planning Commission, please submit a speaker card and state your name and address for the record. Meetings of the Planning Commission are recorded and televised, so please speak clearly for the record.

There it is. Very good. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Vice Chairman and Planning Commissioners. There is just the one item tonight, it's my show again. Yay. This is an item that covers a few zoning code amendments that we have for you tonight. Once in a while staff initiates code amendments that address ongoing city needs and priorities, and sometimes for clarity as well. These particular proposed amendments tonight include tobacco retailing and moving a small section of municipal code to a better location in the zoning code.

That particular that particular section of the municipal code addresses oversized vehicles in residential areas. The tobacco retailing code amendments are going to be improving clarity, establishing some new limitations on retailing, and hopefully facilitate effective enforcement of the codes that we have. So in 2023 and through 2024 as well, the City Council members had been receiving complaints about new smoke shops in town and, set tobacco retailing as a priority to address, at their 2023, priority setting meeting. In June 2024, council established a moratorium on new tobacco retail licenses to allow staff time to further investigate the issue and to propose updated regulations. The moratorium prohibited the sale of tobacco related products and e cigarette related products in new locations, excepting supermarkets greater than 20,000 square feet.

The moratorium also prohibited the establishment of new tobacco and cigarette stores. Those would be primarily devoted to the sales of tobacco and cigarette related items. Those required a conditional use permit. So as part of this effort, staff analyzed the business license and tobacco retail license records to determine which businesses were in compliance with the existing codes and which were not. Some of the businesses that we looked at exceeded the floor area limits, or were selling drug paraphernalia or didn't have a tobacco retail license at all.

Community preservation was conducting, following the moratorium, some ongoing enforcement actions and continues take those actions on the businesses that are not and were not in compliance. Because there are several businesses that didn't have the required licenses, we do expect that enforcement is going to continue to be necessary. There are always some actors who decide they don't need a business license, or they will get a business license and they misrepresent the business. And we expect that that is going to be an ongoing issue, and we will have to follow-up with that. Code enforcement and police departments and planning staff are planning on doing that.

So the tobacco retailing code amendments are intended to provide some clarity, establish reasonable limits, and again facilitate effective enforcement. Instead of being allowed with a conditional use permit, we are now proposing that tobacco retailing would only be an accessory use to drugstores, beer and wine stores, liquor stores, and supermarkets greater than 20,000 square feet. Premium cigar retailers would be an exception. It is a new definition. Tobacco retail licensing is really about appealing to children.

And so we don't really see cigar stores or cigars as being a problem there, particularly the high end cigars. They quite costly and not the sort of thing that somebody who has not smoked before is likely to pick up. So we are actually proposing to simply permit those in the zoning districts that currently require a conditional use permit for tobacconists and cigarettes stores. And those are the CC, the SA 1, and the SA 3 zones. Generally speaking, that's a portion of McArthur, much of, but not all of East Fourteenth, and then at certain locations around town, mostly centering on shopping centers.

There is also a new definition for drug paraphernalia store, and those are prohibited. Drug paraphernalia can actually be sold to cannabis dispensaries, but those are defined as dispensaries, and then drug paraphernalia is something they might provide as an accessory used to that. And then finally, tobacco related products is a change as well in the code. Let me see. So the recommended amendments are going to allow, these are these are the new limits, there would be instead of 20% gross floor area allowed for sale, marketing, display, and storage, it's reducing it to 10%.

And no more than 10 linear feet of display area. And the figure here shows what 10 linear feet looks like. They can stack, but it has to be no more than 10 linear feet and that includes storage. So it's it's a much more limited it's a much more limited percentage of floor area than we had under the existing code, which didn't really speak much to storage. It was really about the display area.

So this ratchets that back pretty well. Furthermore, they can't have more than 25% of their gross receipts in tobacco sales. Currently, that number is 75%. It's fairly substantial. And then finally, there will be no tobacco signage or display that could be visible from public right of way, which includes the sidewalk.

So if you've got it, it's got to be in. It can't be big signage. It's going to be not drawing people in from the street. Businesses that currently have a valid compliant tobacco retail license are going to be considered legal nonconforming uses. There is a section of the code that, of the zoning code, that defines what a legal nonconforming use That's what I am looking for.

Legal nonconforming use is defined there. We will just leave it with that. Those are going to be allowed to continue doing business. The way our legal nonconforming code section is crafted is if that use is discontinued for a hundred and eighty days then it's terminated. So if you have a business and you are you have a tobacco retail license, you decide you want to stop selling tobacco for a period of time, if you decide to do that for a month you can recon you can recommence doing that after a month.

But if you wait for seven months, then you cannot continue it again. That's how that would play out. We do anticipate that we will have our retailers will continue for the foreseeable future. The second item on this particular proposal is the relocation of a certain parking requirement to the zoning code. This has to do with oversized vehicles, and there is a bit in the municipal code that talks about oversized vehicles and how they're parked or how they're to be parked in a residential area.

And it's it's a bit ambiguous, plus it's in a funny spot. You usually have parking requirements in the zoning code. So we're suggesting we we pick it up out of the municipal code, relocate it at the zoning code, and put a few more details on it to make it clear that it addresses private property and where you can park in private property, and then also that you can't park in the, like you can't overhang the sidewalk, for example, which is actually a state law. So this particular provision does restrict parking in front yards and street side yards. And that is in circumstances when there's a reasonable alternative to parking elsewhere on the property.

So in a on a corner lot situation, if you have access to the rear yard, you would you would be we would want you to park your RV in the rear yard or your boat in the rear yard rather than the in the driveway. So that amendment is included here, but it's not a substantial change to what we have in the code right now. So our recommend recommendation tonight is that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to the zoning code. And with that, I'd be happy to take any questions you may have.

Does the Commission have any questions for staff? Commissioner Rich?

Thank you for the presentation. I would like to probe a little bit on the the bad actors part of the equation. Mhmm. So my understanding is that there are retailers that began selling tobacco products without getting a CUP for the tobacco in this or cigarette store. And subsequent to that, increased the the quantity of tobacco related products that they were selling, so that they they would have needed to be, tobacco in this I'm sorry about that word, under the old regulation.

And that, these these folks, triggered numerous complaints that, that were the basis of the moratorium that the city council, implemented. So I'm wondering I know that you said, hopefully, this these amendments would facilitate effective enforcement, but, how will it how does this help in that enforcement?

One of the things that really helps here is not allowing the sale of tobacco in stand alone stores. So the retailers that we were seeing that were more problematic were ones that didn't you know, it wasn't a convenience store. It wasn't a beer and wine store. It wasn't a grocery store. And so if you drove down East Fourteenth Street, you might see a sign that says smoke shop. We know they don't have a license. We don't even have to look it up. We we just know they don't because you can't get one. So that's very helpful. Also we do check on Google.

Surprising number of people advertise their things on Google. I guess imagining that we don't have computers, I don't know why. But they're pretty findable, surprisingly. So, you know, we do check periodically. In fact, I just looked this afternoon just to see what's out there. And it looks like basically, everything's outside the city right now, which is nice, except for I think we have one in town on Doolittle that was advertised there, and they're legal.

Appreciate that. My question is, how does that differ from the zoning code as it currently exists? So is there is there anything that it changes in terms of enforcement or in terms of identifying illegal smoke shops? Let's use that term.

Yes. It's because it's not allowed in those stand alone shops, if it's not a convenience store or something, it's much more easily identifiable. Now, I will tell you, if you have T. O. S across the street, sorry to pick on T. O. S, and T. O. S is selling cigarettes on the side, It might be difficult for us to find out, but if if they are selling cigarettes on the side, then we know they can't get a license to do that because it's a restaurant. And so, again, it doesn't even require any research on our part.

We just know that it's a no. So it is an easy it is a pretty easy catch. And they are not eligible for a tobacco retail license. So much of what we were doing this year was, for example, we had one who had said he was changing his location, said he was going to go down to 20%, and did not. We paid him a visit, and it was clear that that was most of what he was doing was tobacco.

There was no question about it. You know, we we enforced on him, enforced, enforced, enforced, got him down to the 20%. He had a TRL, but that was for 20% or less, not for 20% or more required a conditional use permit. And he couldn't he couldn't get one in the location he was in. And so we we worked on it.

And the the part of the way we enforce is the property owner is actually responsible for for the fines. Yeah. So that it it it tends to make them a little bit more interested in gaining compliance from their tenants. And in fact, that's that's how compliance was gained in most of these situations was by applying fines and having the property owner say, if you can't get a license for this, you need to get out or, you know, they apply pressure to get the volume down. It's been helpful.

Thank you. Commissioner Rich, if if I could add. Under our current zoning code right now or prior to the moratorium the council adopted, you needed no zoning approvals to sell tobacco as long as it was under the 20% threshold. So that's what's going away. That's the loophole that's going away.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions from commissioners? All right. Seeing none, moving on to public hearing. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this item? Do we have any speaker cards?

K. I will now call our first speaker. Name is Monesh Josan.

Good evening, commissioners. Monanesh Josan. I own a seven Eleven in the city, and I've been a tobacco retailer in the city of San Leandro for twenty seven years. First of all, I would like to thank the city administration and all of you for going after the bad players in the market because, you know, it's a blemish in the society. However, I seek clarification on a very important point that was just mentioned a while ago about the 20% requirement.

You know, in a everyday life situation when we are selling tobacco and cigarette and tobacco products, we cannot control our sales volume. Like, if a in a month, we exceed the 20%, you know, how do we measure that? Should we stop selling cigarettes for a full day or a week? It is just not possible. So we need some clarification on that. I mean, we are established retailers. Okay? We work under the proper guidance. We follow the law. So this particular threshold, most of the seven elevens may cross it at times.

I mean, I'm close to 20% right now. So how do we control it? Should we start telling our customers, hey. Go to another city. We cannot do it for a few days towards the end of the month.

It's just not possible for us. So this this point needs to be reconsidered because it is beyond our control. I mean, major part of our sales do come from tobacco products, which are legal. We follow the law. I, as a retailer, I've never had a single tobacco violation in twenty seven years, and I've operated for twenty five years, I operated a store on East Fourteenth Street at seven Eleven, which unfortunately got burned down in November 23, and I was right next to the San Leandro High.

And despite that, we never had a single incident, a single violation. And we have always been very, very responsible retailers, and most of us are. I mean, I was just telling the lady before the meeting, we the honest retailers, the way the law is right now, we are not scared of getting a violation. We are petrified. You're truly petrified of having a violation, so we are always on top of it.

So please keep into consideration. I mean, setting a limit in stone is actually not workable, ladies and gentlemen. I mean, stores may exceed that. I mean, how do we work around it in a everyday life situation? Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. I'll move on to the next speaker. Next speaker is I may mispronounce. Apologies in advance. Al Almecadad Al Alharbi.

Hello, everyone. My name is Almecad Alharbi. I'm a business owner. Me and my family have been in San Leandro doing business since 1998. And I a lot of stuff, like, wasn't clear for me because I received a letter that there's a meeting regarding the tobacco licenses, but not exactly what's going on.

But, anyway, I would say and admit it, it was us who moved from one location to another. And then for some reason, I exceeded the percentage, but that was due to moving from my previous location, which was only tobacco. And I could not get rid of it or sell it in free market because it's tobacco, and they don't allow that. But I did work with you know, the city, with Cindy, and, you know, I did my best and reduced my floor display to to at least than 20%, actually. And, you know, even though at last, the revenue in that, but, you know what, as long as, you know, I'm in compliance and make the city happen, it's fine.

The thing is that, you know, like, what what I'm worried about right now is the sales. Like, the current, law they have for, like, tobacco store, they call whatever, I think sales should not exceed 75 percent of tobacco. This this is fair. You know, like, I'm a way personally, I'm a way below than that, and most retailers are. But having it, you know, to set, like, a 20% or whatever, you know, total sales I mean, cigarette is expensive.

One pack is $15, and would you compare it to, let's say, a snack or whatever for $2? This is really unfair. So this is my point. To the unlicensed stores I I mean, I'm a part of the community as well. I have my kids. They all grew up born in San Leandro and raised in San Leandro. I worry about my kids as well. I'll I'll just say it. People who don't have the licenses actually are the ones who are selling the illegal products, period. And even though I, like, I noticed having the board of equalization come to my store, and they check and everything, but they don't go there.

And the reason behind that is, well, I'm in compliance. I have my licenses. They know me. They know where is my location. But those other ones, they did not in their systems. So how can they check on them and, you know, enforce whatever, you know, they're looking for? So this was, you know, my point, and just my only word is is is the sales, you know, percentage pretty much it. Otherwise, you know, we'd like to let you guys know we're a part of community as well. Thank you.

Is there anyone else who wish wishes to speak on this item? Okay, I will now close the public hearing and bring the item back for discussion by the commission. Do any other commissioners wish to discuss this item? Commissioner Mendoza.

Yes. I actually had the same the same as as you were doing your your presentation, I had the same question came to mind about the 20%, for the same reason that they that they, they say. So I was wondering if there is a way to address their concern and also make it, address the concerns of the city, but make it more you know, maybe I don't know. Instead of a set percentage, maybe saying that, it should the total sales shouldn't be more than 50% or or or something like that. Especially if if they are compliant businesses that have licenses, they, you know, they could have some, more leeway.

So that that's the that's the question that came to mind.

And before Cindy jumps in, I I just wanna clarify that that 25% is for new businesses. Right? All the existing businesses are not subject to this new definition. They're still subject to the old definition of 75%. So it would only be it doesn't mean we, you know, the planning commission can't make still make a recommendation to change it, but I just wanted to clarify that that's only for the new businesses, which are gonna have to be drugstore, beer and wine store, liquor store, or a supermarket anyway in order to sell tobacco.

Just a quick follow-up on that. But wouldn't wouldn't that wouldn't they also have the same concern?

They they very Mel very well might. You know, I don't know. There's only four types of businesses that will be allowed in the future. New ones, you know, supermarket, liquor store, beer and wine store, a drugstore. I don't know if that will be a concern for them. I assume supermarket's it's hope probably isn't 25%, but but I don't know. So if that's a recommendation the planning commission wants to make, that's certainly something you can incorporate into your your motion. Moving

on to, commissioner Solis.

Yeah. Regarding the concern, by the public speaker about the the volume and how do they control it, what else were there any other ways of complying that were taken under consideration, and this and this proposal is just what ended up being the thing. I had not even pondered that being a concern. But, I mean, I guess if you're a legitimate company doing the right thing and, you know, you're doing your best, it's like, really, what are you supposed to do if you're a new business? And thank you, Alex, for for clarifying that it is for only new businesses.

But, you know, this like, the speaker is the owner of a seven eleven. There will be another seven eleven at some point. So how do we address that? Like, really so what was really taken into consideration? Were there other reasons? And then we just ended up with this. I don't know who can answer that.

I'll take a stab at that. So I will just say the percentage of sales is a backstop. It's a last resort because the square footage and the linear display area is the first step. So if you have a situation where it's this constant enforcement challenge where somebody reduces, and then the minute you leave, they increase. And then you come back, and they reduce.

And it's just this ongoing the sales metrics would be a final way to demonstrate, no, you really are doing significant business in tobacco, and it's compliant with the new code, right? And so honestly speaking, that's not the easiest or most readily available way for the city to monitor and enforce these retailers. So it's a backstop, to be honest. And as was stated, this would only apply to new businesses that come into town, and they would have the awareness of the rule before investing in a space so they could decide if they want to be in San Leandro knowing that these are our rules. And so we'll take direction from the commission if you think any of those thresholds should be modified, and we'll advance that recommendation to the council.

But these are the metrics that staff felt would get to the bottom of the issue, which is that we don't want to recommend standalone cigarette stores for new businesses coming into the city based on what we've seen.

Okay. Okay.

Yes. And I understand any any iteration is not gonna be a 100% approval from everybody. So I do appreciate making the attempt to to a little more enforcement. Now back to another concern of the speaker was kind of the unfair compliance. And I hate to always bring up my background as a in the construction industry, but there are construction companies that that get targeted for undocumented workers.

And it seems like you have this giant prestigious company that does the right thing. They're in the union. They pay their taxes. They have the appropriate licenses, you know, everything on the list. But when it comes to compliance, people go or organizations go after them first while people are kinda, like they mentioned, go kinda under the radar, and they kinda go scot free. So what are we doing to ensure that we're not just going after the big prominent business and that we're actually chasing around those unscrupulous business owners?

No. I'll I'll speak to this. I I manage the enforcement team. And so the enforcement team partnered with the planning team and the police department, as Cindy noted. And the enforcement really focused on the businesses that did not have their paperwork in order.

So you need a business license, and you need a tobacco retailer's license to sell tobacco. And we had a combination. We looked at all of the data, and we enforced first on the ones without the proper licenses in place. And because the council had adopted a moratorium, there was no opportunity for them to seek a license at that point. We froze in time, and so it allowed us to evaluate who was valid, who was not valid, and enforce the ones that did not have their papers in order.

So we did not spend time going into every seven Eleven and looking at their stock. It was who is a smoke shop who has no business selling tobacco and or who came in telling us that they were a miscellaneous gift shop, and then they are now selling 50% of their floor areas towards tobacco. And they are close to a school and a library, and they never disclosed that they were going to sell tobacco in their business license application. So we targeted our enforcement. There were about, I think, seven primarily stores that essentially needed I would say out of that seven initial enforcement tranche, I would say like five needed to close approximately, and they had no recourse, and or completely eliminate tobacco sales.

And then two were legal. They had a legal path. They had their paperwork, and they were able to kind of modify slightly to get into order. And so that's how our enforcement has focused. And through that effort, we've learned what we think the code should say in order to close the loophole. And that's why we're not waiting the clock out on the moratorium and coming back next year. We just thought, you know, we have enough information now. Let's get the zoning code cleaned up, close the loophole. And our enforcement work always continues. I would say the planning side does their own enforcement, and it has to do with the zoning code.

The police enforces tobacco retail licenses. So they have normal course of business for anybody with a TRL. They're making sure they're not selling to minors and that they're not selling the wrong products. That's handled by a different arm in the city, the police department. That's ongoing.

Yeah. Thanks for that.

It's good

to hear that the city is doing its due diligence to to follow-up on that and do compliance. Thank you.

K. Moving on to commissioner Rich.

Thank you. I think this these proposed amendments strike a balance. They respond to the complaints that came from the public. It's consistent with city council's moratorium. Because the rules aren't changing for existing tobacco retailers who are following all the rules, I support these restrictions for new retailers.

The rules aren't getting more lenient for existing retailers. I don't think that was the intent of the moratorium. But the good actors, I understand correctly, are illegal nonconforming use. And the bad actors that, use the loophole and or cause the complaints are subject to enforcement. Seems fair to me.

Okay. Just a couple of thoughts on my end that I had as well too. I was just curious on the thresholds. So primarily, the two bullet point thresholds that started off the sequence here for new establishments, one being the 10% of gross floor area and the other being 10 linear feet of display. How did, how did we as a city kind of land on those two thresholds?

Excuse me. The the city did look at number of different ways to, to approach the issue. The 10%, the 10% floor area limit, seem to be, kinda appropriate based on some of the spaces that we've seen. It seem to be appropriate limit for something that's truly an accessory use to a primary, some other primary business. The intent of the 10 linear feet rule was to put if it was a very large, retail space to to put some, to put a hard cap on, like, the total amount of, of tobacco retailing that could occur within that larger retail space.

We also looked at some other cities. So so the 10%, floor area limit and the 10 linear, 10 linear foot limit are consistent with a regulation we pulled from city of San Francisco.

Thank you for that. Appreciate it. And I guess the other question too is somewhat of a piggyback to, commissioner Solis and the valid point he made there where there's certainly the case of existing existing establishments, that are operating under the current standards. Those establishments falling under the realm of a chain, I. E.

Seven Eleven or another large retail store that's selling tobacco as an accessory. For those chain establishments that are opening a new store, has there been consideration of potentially a variance of sort being entertained so that if it is an establishment that falls under the chain, you know, umbrella of services, they would be able to petition to the city to see if they can revert back to existing standards that are in place right now under their agreements at other locations within the city limits versus may maybe being held to lesser than normal standards that aren't equivalent to some of their establishments that are operating present day.

The commission wishes to move forward and provide an avenue for in that situation, the the commission can, propose an amendment. What SAT was trying to do is try to make the process make the rules as clear cut as possible and establish reasonable limits without, creating too much complexity in the way that, regulations are administered. But, the commission can make a recommendation, provide a little bit more leeway for that type of business to establish if it desires.

Okay. Understood. I appreciate that. And, really, that's where I was going is just trying to seek a little bit of clarity, not knowing the conversations that happened in advance of this, if that was even something that was thought of in terms of a variance for those chain establishments and maybe just getting a temperature check from, you know, the commissioners as to that being something of interest and or maybe what the the thought process is there.

Sure. As you consider this, I'll just add that there's an element of fairness in having a bright line between legally existing retailers that are under one set of rules and new businesses that are established applying a new set of rules. I think when you start creating carve outs for new businesses based on certain criteria that get to be under the old rules but not the new rules, it begs the question, why hold any new businesses to the new rules? So that's something we think about as staff is when we're deploying the zoning code at the front counter or talking to prospective businesses, Waylon said, it helps to have that clarity and that element of fairness. Like, we understand this is difficult, but it applies to all new businesses.

That tends to go over better than this applies to you, but this other new business owner has a different brand and they get a different set of rules. So I think that would be just a caveat for your consideration. It could be a bit challenging to explain

that. Sure. Understood. I see Commissioner Nay in the line.

The thing that I would add to that, I guess, for understanding is, and I think I'm kind of on the same path with your thought with that, is if new business is petitioning to be a new business in that space, they already have the understanding of what the new rule is. So they can accept it or not accept it. Right? Okay. That's correct. Okay.

Another concern that comes up that I should add is Cindy mentioned the six month continuation of a legal nonconforming use. So one concern might be, is my value as an existing business owner diminished? If I want to sell my business, does the new business have a low threshold now? And the zoning code allows for the continuation of one function to another with a new owner as long as there's not a significant lapse, as noted. So that helps also for the current owners. They can they can pass on their business to another entity, and they can inherit the old rules.

Thank you, secretary, for the clarification. Yes. Commissioner Solis.

I just want to air the sentiment made by commissioner Rich that I think well, I had mentioned earlier that I don't think any proposition is gonna be a 100% approval from all sides, but I think that the staff did its due diligence and studied the matter and feel that this is the way to move forward. So it's easy for me to sit here and say, I don't agree with that and try to make a change, but I think the city's done its due diligence and think that what they've proposed is is fair.

K. Any other commissioners? No. My final question on this is, similar to the situation that was described, by, going back to the name here, Monash, where to no fault of his own seven Eleven, his store had burned down. In a case like that, where, you know, it's no fault of their own, an establishment burns down, new establishment has to come into play, are they being held to the current standard, or would they be held to the new standard, the new establishment policy?

There are special provisions in the zoning code for catastrophic events or acts of God, like fires and the like. And so there are provisions for restoration under the old provisions, but it often depends on the significance or extent of the damage and whether it's essentially a new building. So the we don't have any special rules proposed for that scenario. We would default to what is in the zoning code for any business that's in that situation.

Okay. Okay. I think I understand. Yeah. I mean, I I agree with the commissioners here.

I don't I don't think any of us are on the dais here trying to wordsmith the language and what's been put in effect here by staff. I think staff has, since the moratorium back in June 2024, has gone through its due diligence to get this language the way that it is. But just hearing the sentiment from the public and some of the concerns in terms of metrics, in terms of tracking, My whole questioning there was really to maybe suss out any of the potential concerns and any other potential topics that were presented today and may or may not have been considered. But totally agree that I think staff has gone through this at length. And if council opts to change language in the future when it's presented to them, then council can, know, take that take that course as they see fit.

So I guess with that, do I hear a motion to adopt a resolution?

I move, that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the city council adopt the proposed amendments to the zoning code.

I'll second that motion.

Okay, it has been moved by Commissioner Rich and seconded by Commissioner Solis to adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending various sections of the San Leandro zoning code to modify regulations pertaining to tobacco retailing and parking of oversized vehicles in residential zones. Please cast your vote. Oh. Just to clarify, Commissioner Solis, I have you still in the queue, but we're good? There might be an error on my end.

That's probably an error on my end. There you go. Gotcha. Just wanted to make sure before we voted. Okay.

K. The motion passes. Five yeses and one not present. Decisions of the Planning Commission are final unless appealed to the city council by filing a form to the city clerk within fifteen days. Oh, and this will go directly to the council, so so there will be no appeal.

Alright. K. With that, moving on to the next item on the agenda. The next item on the agenda, is the commission reports and announcements. As part of today's meeting, we had planned to hold the election of a new chair and vice chair of the Planning Commission. However, Chair Zuber is not present today. At this point, I turn to the members of the commission to determine whether you would like to proceed with the election in the chair's absence or postpone the election to the next scheduled meeting when the chair is present.

I'd like to make a motion to postpone the election till we have a full board.

K. We have a motion on the floor.

Second.

Motion by Commissioner Solis and second by Commissioner Mendoza. Casting votes. Cast your vote. Motion passes. Five yeses.

One not present. K. Well, I think that takes us through the agenda for today's meeting. Prior to closing, if there are any, commissioner comments or updates. Nope. Okay.

I'd like to just, welcome officially Jennifer. It's I trust Dylan, chose somebody very good for us, and great to see another woman on the commission. Welcome.

Yes. Indeed. Welcome. Welcome. Okay. Well, if there are no other items on the agenda, the time is now 07:54, and this meeting is adjourned.