Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

immense hometown pride to the residents of the city of vallejo for which the group's members are deserving of special recognition and the highest commendation be it resolved by assembly member lori d wilson and senator christopher cabaldon that they honor and celebrate confunction for its more than

The Vallejo Planning Commission is now in session at 7.04 p.m. Commissioner Douglas, could you please lead us off for the Pledge of Allegiance, please? Thank you. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right, thank you, Vice Chair Douglas. Okay, so we're going to move on to the roll call.

Commissioner Beasley-Stansbury? Present. Commissioner Medeiros?

I'm here.

Chair Taylor? Present. Vice Chair Douglas? Present. For the record, Commissioner Blind and Commissioner White are absent. Correction, Commissioner White's walking up to the podium.

All right, great, thank you.

We have a quorum. All right, perfect.

All right, well, we will move to the next agenda item, which is consent of the calendar and approval of the agenda minutes. All right, well, I will motion to approve the calendar and the agenda minutes, well, the agenda and the minutes.

I'll second that.

Great, thank you.

I need two more votes. We have five ayes and the motion carries.

Great, thank you. All right, so we're gonna move to the next agenda item, which is the report of the city council liaison. Do we have Vice Mayor Matulak available online?

Vice, through the chair, Vice Mayor is not online.

Okay, great, all right, thank you. So I guess we can move to the next agenda item, which is the community forum. And the community forum is for anyone who wish to address the commission on any matter for which another opportunity to speak is not provided on the agenda and which is within the jurisdiction of the commission to resolve. We will give each speaker three minutes if we have any speakers available.

Mr. Chair, I've set the timer for two minutes. Currently, we have no one that is signed up on Zoom to speak, and we do not have any physical speakers today.

Okay, great. Well, we'll hold the two minutes, see if we have anyone available to speak, and we can move to the next agenda item. And if we don't have any speakers at that point, then we can actually close out the committee forum. All right, so we can start with the public hearing. Agenda item of the public hearing, line item A, which is hold a public hearing to consider a resolution approving a major use permit and sign permit collectively plan 25-0148. to establish a pawn shop at 3716 Sonoma Boulevard after finding the project exempt from environmental review, pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15301, which is class one, existing facilities, and 15311, class 11-accessory structures.

Thank you, Chair. Just would like to introduce Laura Solomon, Associate Planner, that will be taking the lead on this evening's presentation on the item. Great. Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Laura Solomon. I'm an Associate Planner with the City of Vallejo, and tonight I'll be presenting the establishment of a pawn shop and new sign at 3716 Sonoma Boulevard. The purpose of tonight's meeting is to hold a public hearing, review the proposed project, and then Planning Commission will take action on the major use permit and sign permit. This item is subject to the Levine Act. City elected and appointed officials including candidates for city elected office who have received a campaign contribution of more than $500 within 12 months prior from a party participant or their representatives involved in this proceeding may do either of the following. disclose the contribution on the record and recuse themselves from this proceeding or to return the portion of the contribution that exceeds $500 within 30 days from the time the elected official knew or should have known about the contribution and participate in the proceeding. The project site is located at 3716 Sonoma Boulevard, which is part of an existing shopping center, and the plaza includes a mix of general retail, personal services, and restaurants. State Route 29, or Sonoma Boulevard, is located adjacent to the existing parking lot to the west, and State Route 37 is approximately one mile to the north, providing both local and regional access to the site. Built in 1980, the existing building was constructed on the subject property as part of a shopping center for longs and CVS. The proposed project consists of the establishment of a pawn shop occupying a 1500 square foot tenant space within an established shopping center. The interior of the tenant space includes an approximate 416 square foot customer waiting area that has jewelry display and a service counter that includes bullet resistant glass Through a set of security doors, there is a second jewelry display area, secured safe, an office, and a restroom. The business is currently operating from Monday through Saturday from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. and is staffed by the owner plus one employee. The facility includes comprehensive security measures appropriate for pawn shop operations, including the bullet-resistant transaction window, a monitored alarm system, surveillance cameras, and a secured safe. The proposed awning sign complies with the allowable maximum of 24 square feet. And as conditioned per exhibit A of the resolution, the window and door signage will need to comply with the chapter 16.509 signs in that permanent window signs shall not occupy more than 20% of the total window area. and shall only consist of the individual letters, logos, or symbols applied to the glass surface. Additionally, any temporary signs can only be displayed for a maximum of 10 days. Per the Vallejo Municipal Code, a minor use permit is required for establishing a pawn shop within the Central Corridor Commercial Zoning District. Also, no sign shall be installed, constructed, or altered unless the sign permit is first obtained in compliance with Chapter 16.509. The director has forwarded the application to establish the pawn shop to the planning commission due to the sensitive nature of the use and the number of complaints the city received regarding unpermitted signs, which had been installed throughout the city, elevating the project to be processed as a major use permit. The project site has a general plan land use designation of business limited residential, which accommodates restaurants, retail stores, automotive services, personal and business services, hotels, and recreational facilities that cater to the needs of businesses, employees, and residents of the surrounding area. The project is consistent with this land use designation in that it promotes infill of the existing storefront, fosters mixed-use employment within one mile of the Serino Transit Village, and facilitates a retail use adjacent to other commercial uses. The project site is located within the central corridor commercial zoning district, which is intended to create and establish regulations for community serving mixed use areas along the Sonoma Boulevard central corridor and areas subject to the Sonoma Boulevard specific plan. The proposed use is compatible with the existing and permissible land uses within the zoning district and the general area within an existing retail shopping center. AS THE USE RELATES TO PUBLIC INTEREST, HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE, STAFF ANALYZED IF THERE IS AN OVERCONCENTRATION OF THIS USE TYPE. ACCORDING TO CITY OF VALLEJO BUSINESS LICENSE RECORDS, THERE ARE ONLY TWO ACTIVE POND BROKER BUSINESSES AND ONE ACTIVE COIN SHOP BUSINESSES AS WELL AS 23 ACTIVE JEWELRY STORE BUSINESSES. There are, however, one delinquent pawnbroker and 19 delinquent or pending jewelry store locations being tracked, which may or may not be closed. Additionally, the proposed hours of operation and security measures were reviewed and approved by the Vallejo Police Department. And per the included crime report data, several crimes have been reported within the vicinity of the subject property. Most offenses were for larceny, but others include aggregated and simple assault, robbery, and vandalism. However, no complaints or calls for service were generated directly related to this specific address. The proposed project was also reviewed against municipal code chapters for off-street parking and signs. The proposed project is exempt from environmental review under section 15301 class one existing facilities and 15311 class 11 accessory structures of CEQA guidelines as the proposed use will operate the pawn shop within an existing building and only minor modifications to the building and site, including the new sign are proposed as part of the project. On May 15th, 2026, a mailed notice for the June 1st, 2026 public hearing was sent to all active neighborhood groups and all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property, the applicant and property owner, the school district and other local agencies expected to provide water, wastewater treatment, streets, roads, schools or other essential facilities or services to the project. ON MAY 17, THE SAME NOTICE WAS PUBLISHED IN THE TIMES HERALD, AND ON MAY 18, THE NOTICE WAS MAILED ELECTRONICALLY TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER, AND ANY INTERESTED PARTIES. THEN ON JUNE 1, THE NOTICE WAS The Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted unanimously to continue the public hearing for the project to tonight's meeting so that staff could conduct more analysis. As of this evening, staff have not received any new comments or questions regarding the project. As discussed, the project forwards various goals and policies of the general plan and complies with the zoning code and CEQA. Therefore, staff finds the project consistent with the findings for both a major use permit and a sign permit. Based on the analysis contained in the staff report and attachments, staff recommends the following action. Planning Commission adopt a resolution finding the project exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15301 and 15311, approving use permit and sign permit collectively PLN25-0148, subject to the conditions of approval provided as exhibit A to the recommended resolution. Thank you, and this concludes my presentation, so if anyone has any questions.

All right, great. Thank you so much for the presentation. I appreciate it. As of right now, I guess we can open up for the public forum, but I would like to close out the community forum if there are no current speakers at this moment.

You'll declare the public hearing open?

I'd like to close out the community forum, then open the public hearing forum or public forum.

Yeah, okay. I'm sorry, I didn't see the community forum. Okay, I'm sorry. That's good. I'm reading the code and you're, okay, my apologies.

All right, and if we can give each speaker in the public hearing three minutes, if we have any available.

Through the chair, yes, we do not have anyone that has raised their hand.

All right, can we keep it open for a little while, for a few minutes, see if we have any additional speakers, and then we can move to... commissioners have any questions or any comments?

I'm sorry, I'm not sure if I heard correctly. Did you actually open the public hearing for this item?

Yes, for this item.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. All right, so I'm going to have any questions. I mean, does any of the fellow commissioners have any questions or any comments?

through the chair can i clarify so if anyone has any public comments on this project they should be calling in now because there's no one here to speak so community forum should not be held now okay um so do you want to have the community forum first and wait the three minutes or the two minutes and then i'm sorry we did this in the wrong order i i didn't know

So I believe through the chair, just to dispel some confusion here, there was a timer set up for community forum prior to the presentation. There were no speakers for community forum at that time or no hands were raised prior to the presentation. And if you're asking if whether or not there are any speakers for this particular item at this current time, we do not have any hands raised or public speakers that have signed up for this item at this current time.

Okay, and so my request was to close the community forum if we did not have any speakers and then open the public forum, I mean the public hearing for this particular item and give them three minutes if we have anyone. And while we wait for the community, I mean the public forum, the public hearing for this particular items, I'm going to reach out to fellow commissioners if they have any questions or any comments in the meantime before we move for closing the public hearing. Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate it.

I do have a question. Excuse me. In reference to the floor plan, I understand the bulletproof section there. And then the doors that lead into the, I guess, the internal jewelry section. Is there going to be an employee in that section dealing with customers or what?

Through the chair, at all times, the business owner as well as one employee will be in the tenant space.

Well, what's the point of having the bulletproof glass there? Because if they're going to be waiting on the public in that center section, you know, they're going to be dealing with the public. Is there any sort of, you know, what do you call those security things to get into the door? No, what we have out front there.

Can you put the plan up?

Metal detectors. Thank you.

through the chair the floor plan that was submitted did not mention a metal detector but it was all reviewed and approved by Vallejo police as well based on what was submitted

Well, I understand that, but if we're talking about securing the employees behind bulletproof glass, what's the point if they're going to be dealing face-to-face with customers inside the building itself? And if there are no metal detectors to detect any weapons coming into the building, that space, then it doesn't make sense to me. I know as a fact that the pawn shop on Springs Road, there was a murder there. The owner was killed. And the gold shop on Tennessee in the 100 block, they were broken into. And if somebody was there, they probably would have been hurt as well, too. So that is my concern here. And another issue that I have is the back door. Once that is accessed, whoever enters the building is going to have access to the safe, to all the jewelry. So what security have they built into that back door system? What kind of security door is it? And they're not here to answer that question. I know that the city has very, very stringent qualifications for dispensaries. And an ounce of gold is over $4,000 these days. An ounce of pot is maybe $300. So I don't understand the disparity there. And if the owner is not here to defend that, I have an issue with the security. Also, it states here in the write-up required entitlements and findings. There were a number of complaints. And I know that Councilman Matulak wrote an email into, you know, for this case. And through the chair, I'm going to ask if Councilman Matulak can come up and voice his concerns with this project, with this business. Yes or no?

That is a good question. So I'm not exactly sure. I think that this case here is specifically for the signage usage. Yes. If it's going to trend, if they're going to be approved from the existing signage they have available to the new signage available. And so I'm not sure exactly how that particular request is in scope if it has been cleared by City of Vallejo Police Department. And so I'm a little, I would like to defer to legal on this matter of how can we proceed forward in this request.

I'm sorry, what was the question about how did signage come into it?

This is for a use permit for the sign change, is that correct?

Not just the sign change. It's a use permit for the use as a pawn shop, but it's, and a sign permit, both.

Thank you. Thank you for clarification. I appreciate that.

It's not quite a pawn shop, but it is most like a pawn shop, so we've likened it to a pawn shop and required that they get a secondhand dealer's license, which they don't currently have.

Question to staff. What were they permitted for or what was the business use prior to this request or to this application?

Through the chair, the original business license came in as described as a jewelry store and so it was approved as general retail. But then once the signs were throughout town, it came to light that it is more closely related to a pawn shop, which does require the minor use permit. Okay.

Thank you for that clarification. So back to the chair. Yes. I am requesting that Councilman Matulak come before the Commission and let us know what his complaints or whatever he wrote into that is part of this package.

I would just caution that he would be prejudiced against speaking if it went on appeal to the council.

Okay, okay.

Then I retract. He may not want to do that. Yeah, then I retract that request.

So through the chair, the initial comments and complaints that came before us was notification to the city regarding all the yellow cash for gold signs that were plastered throughout the city. So initially those comments came in. We responded and worked with code enforcement in order and reached out to the operator of this location, making him aware that all the signs that were throughout the city need to be removed. and if they weren't removed then they were gonna receive a fine per sign as they'll post it up. With those comments and concerns that were brought forward, that's where the director made the decision to bump this item up from a minor use permit to the Planning Commission and it's now a use permit for the actual use. So the comments that were submitted to the city were regarding the unpermitted signs that were blasted throughout the whole city.

Okay so based on that I'm a little confused because you said minor permit and I believe in your presentation it said major permit. So which is it?

So initially when the application came in it was a minor use permit that would be acted on at a director level but since all these comments and concerns were brought in the director made the decision to bump it up to the planning commission and when it gets bumped up to the planning commission it becomes a major use permit.

Okay, thank you for that clarification. One more thing on page nine, excuse me, it says it's part of their security measures. They talk about bullet resistant transaction window and a monitored alarm system. Well, we all know that the VPD does not respond to those alarm systems these days. So that doesn't really...

I'm sorry, page nine of the staff report or the resolution?

Yes, staff report. And just for clarification, under notes and comments, it says that one comment was provided as attachment seven, and I'm just verifying that That is the district rep, the district councilman. That's correct. Okay. I'm getting there folks. Sorry. There's a lot of code here.

at a point of clarification you mentioned the video recording system I just wanted to note that condition number seven requires video monitoring and it doesn't wait you said alarm I was thinking yeah I said alarm I'm sorry you can disregard that okay I just want to point out through the chair page 41 of the packet and 42

are all and i don't know if all of my fellow commissioners read the report of all the crimes that have been recorded i believe these were all last year but there's like almost two pages that was kind of bothering the main thing is i I am a bit concerned about the security of this facility. I was a consultant for one of the dispensaries. That's why I'm very passionate about this. And I know the security that was built into that facility and how dangerous it was at all times. This is going to be even more so because of the price of gold currently. So that's a huge concern of mine. On page 48 of 76 in the packet, it states, we're talking about utility connections. It said that utility providers may require separate, oh no, this is the ADU, sorry. That's it, that's all I have then for this one.

Well, thank you for your question.

Thank you for your questions and comments to any other, my fellow commissioners have any questions or any comments regarding this, this item.

So is it my understanding that they have already been operating as a pawn shop and okay. And so have they been able to obtain, um, all of the licensure from the state as well? if there's any required, I can imagine that it would only be local.

Through the chair, one of our conditions, number 8B, is that the applicant shall maintain a valid secondhand dealer's license issued by the state. They did originally have City of Vallejo business licenses in place, but they've been put on hold once we realized that it was not just a jewelry store.

So they're not able to... they're not able to function as a business. They're not operating.

I just wanted to jump in. They do not currently have licenses to legally operate as of today. We believe they have been illegally operating.

They have. Yeah, they have. So I would say How do we, because the disrespect is getting, you know, chopping my high because we have business owners who are, you know, really struggling and following the rules. And, you know, they're really trying to adhere to the policies. And so what are the repercussions of things of this nature? Because, you know, at some point, you know, it's almost like a child, you know, You know, kids are going to continue to misbehave until someone puts in a disciplinary action. And so do we have anything set up for them? Because, I mean, right now, at this point, we probably should be shutting them down because they don't have a license. I know if I was operating my business, you'd shut me down. And I'm sitting up here on a dais. So, you know, at some point, I'm trying to figure out how do we – How do we show our residents who we represent, how do we show them that we are enforcing the policies? Because if they complain about the signs, I can guarantee you after they hear, the folks who are watching after they hear this, they'll be a little bit perturbed and I get it. I'm just wondering, will we have any disciplinary action for them?

through the chair originally the code enforcement letter went out and mainly focused on the signs that had been complained about but as part of that we let the operator know that the minor use permit was required for their business and so they immediately applied for that and and then we've and now here we are to hopefully approve that for them and then they would be able to be operating legally but at this point we don't we would have code enforcement take over if if if it's not approved and then have them okay okay thank you

Real quick, I'm sorry. Did I hear, I didn't see in the packet that there was someone who had responded. You said, Commissioner Medeiros, that the councilman, the district rep, had made a comment. Can I see that or hear that or pull it up? I just wanted to read it before we go into decision mode.

I have it handy, so I'll just jump in. Oh, perfect. It was a comment. It was basically an email with a question asking whether or not the code violations for the signs that were illegally posted throughout the city had been dealt with and addressed. I think, and then there was also a question of whether or not the business was in good standing. Yeah, and just to be clear, it's the last attachment in the packet.

All right. So to those questions, have the signs been addressed and are they in business in good standing now?

The signs have been addressed. The business is not technically in good standing because they have been operating illegally while they are trying to get this use permit approved.

Thank you.

Through the chair. How long have they been operating illegally? That's a trick question.

They were initially notified in early July of 2025. I want to say July 5th was the date the co-enforcement letter went out. They applied for the use permit application on July 28th of 2025. So we have been working on processing it this whole time.

All right, any other fellow commissioners or have any questions or comments? All right, so the question I have as of right now, because it appears that there are some questions and some serious concerns about operating within the city ordinance guidelines, and it appeared that that has not been the case. Considering that they have not been operating within the license, I mean, the required licensing to function as a pawn shop, What will be required now moving forward in order for them, I mean, from our understanding for them to be in compliance and what will be necessary needed because I do see the recommendation here to approve major use permit but I'm wondering what would be the next step forward and what would that actually look like where they can be in compliance and do we have an estimated timeline line what that might look like.

Just to jump in through the chair, the only thing that's needed is the use permit. Once they receive a use permit, then we could sign off on the business license that has been sitting in a pending status and they would be considered in compliance.

Okay. So for clarification, if we approve this or if it does get approved, they get a major use permit, they would be in compliance with the city of Vallejo. Is that correct? And that means that they would have address operating and will be operating good standing moving forward and considering that they have address the signage throughout the city, those code violations as well. Okay. All right, great. Thank you.

That's correct. In addition to receiving the approval, if the commission decides to approve the request this evening, they still have to meet the conditions of approval that have been set forth, which would include to get that additional state license for the handler's license that we are requesting as a condition of approval for this item.

And in terms of just thinking about in just order of operations and how that might work, Do they need a business license and the approval of the city first before they can actually apply for a handler license from the state? Or could they apply and receive that first prior to making a request for the use permit and a business license?

Good question.

BUSINESS LICENSE IS NOT ZONING APPROVAL OF ANY KIND. IT'S THE MINOR USE PERMIT. I DON'T KNOW WHICH IS REQUIRED FIRST, BUT THE BUSINESS LICENSE IS JUST A REVENUE GENERATING TAX. THEY DO CHECK ZONING A LITTLE BIT WHEN THEY COME IN, BUT IT'S NOT A ZONING APPROVAL IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. IT'S JUST A CURSORY REVIEW. They don't really check the business when they do a business license check. It's just cursory. It's just a revenue-raising tax. When you sign up to pay a business, you sign up for a business license, you're just paying a tax as the business. That's all you're doing. It's revenue-raising. It's not a regulatory license. It's just a revenue license.

Would they need this to demonstrate to the state that they are making initial steps forward to get a handler license.

Chair, it really depends on the state agency, but typically you would go through the city process first before applying for the state license. Because sometimes, like for example, like with ABC with alcohol beverage control licenses, you need to receive local jurisdiction approval before the jurisdiction can continue processing the request. So for this instance, I would assume it would be the same process where they receive local approval and then they would continue with the state license. Okay.

And so let me see if I just got this clear, just for clarification. So they will need city approval with the assumption that once they have city approval, then they will go to the next step to the state to request to handle license to show that they have met all the basic local requirements. Is that safe to assume?

That's correct.

Great. Thank you. All right, so I'll open this up to any of my other fellow commissioners if they have any questions or comments.

I do have one more question and I don't know if staff can even answer this. If the applicant was here, I could ask them. Like other stores similar, I'm thinking about the one on Tennessee, the 100 block. Do they also deal with gold coinage? Gold ink kits? Does anybody know that as far as the staff level? Or is it just jewelry? Well, and that's why I asked because the one on Tennessee does both. And most gold, you know, I know what, you know what I mean is the gold shops, they accept any gold. So a gold coin is worth a lot of money. My issue here is the security of this facility. And I don't want to put my stamp of approval on it if somebody's going to end up getting killed, okay? So that's where I stand.

All right, thank you for your comments. So I'm going to give it a moment and check in with the public forum, I mean the public hearing. Let's see if we have any speakers that actually joined while we were discussing this.

Through the chair, and no speakers have signed up to speak on this item at this current time.

Okay, great. Can we close the public hearing at this time now?

All right, thank you.

All right, so hearing everything, thinking about what would be the next steps moving forward, and the questions that came up from the council member district. I mean, in that district about ensuring that this particular business have been, you know, code violations have been addressed. It appears that they have been addressed. And if they are, you know, continuing to operate with these violations, if they're gonna be in good standing, it sounds that if they do have the use permit moving forward, that they will be in good standing with the city of Vallejo and process of moving to the next steps of applying for a handler license. I'm thinking about, and to your point, concern issues and making sure that the security requirements are there, but it appears that the city of Vallejo Police Department had reviewed and signed off on it, ensuring, well, given their seal of approval that it's in compliance of safety measures. Is that safe to assume? Okay, and my assumption is that they are the experts here, that they do go out to these type of scenes and they do inspect uh... these type of security cameras and i mean security uh... protocols to ensure that things are things are right things are in the right stuff uh... however there are some risk to some businesses in some capacity uh... but i don't think that is a reason to minimize uh... the capacity for someone try to provide a service if they see fit and uh... continue to operate as a legitimate business if that's the steps moving forward. So my thoughts on that, yes.

Through the chair, I just want to add a little bit more information. So the city below municipal code doesn't have additional standards specifically for pawn shops. There are certain uses within our municipal code that have additional requirements and regulations. So for example, for cannabis, kind of like Commissioner Medeiros mentioned, there's more stringent safety requirements for that type of use. Specifically for pawn shops, we don't have any additional requirements saying that you need to have X number of security doors, X number of cameras. When this type of application does come in, that's where we have a meeting or conversation with the Volo Police Department where they can review and provide any comments or raise any concerns that they may see regarding the floor plan. But I just want to provide a clarification that we don't have any specific safety standard requirements for this type of use within our municipal code.

OK. And so there are no concerns that was raised by the Vallejo Police Department. OK, great. Thank you. I believe that information is helpful. And it appears that the applicant is moving in, well, operating in the next steps forward or implementing the next steps for approval and to be in compliance with state and local laws, is that correct to assume? Okay, I am gonna open up for one last comment for fellow commissioners or any questions.

through the chair. My only comment is there seem to be many concerns regarding this business. It's kind of telling that the owner is not here to represent or speak on many of these questions. So my only comment is i personally don't feel comfortable moving forward with this based on the evidence and the information we received tonight without further clarification from the owner but that's just my comment for it thank you that sounds sounds fair uh just hearing everyone's sentiments and kind of reading the report uh

Through you, Chair, I would agree with my fellow commissioner here. It would be nice if the operator would come before us and answer our concerns at this point. After all, he's sort of taken the back door way around, and I'd like to know that going forward that we're doing something that's going to be safe for the citizens. Can we make that happen?

Through the chair, yes, we could reach out to the operator if this item is continued. Or, I mean, I guess we could also condition the project with additional security measures or something like that. Great.

Thank you. Through the chair. Yes.

Well, maybe the city of Vallejo needs to put in specific rules, regs, whatever for pawn shops because the Vallejo Police Department obviously approved the pawn shop on Springs Road and there was a murder there. And the guy's dog got killed too. So it was a very violent crime that happened there. And I'm not gonna forget that.

All right, so thank you for feedbacks and questions. And I am definitely getting a sense of everyone's sentiment here. Currently, as of right now, Are they operating in compliance with City of Vallejo or are they no longer in operation at this moment?

They're operating illegally right now because they do not have a use permit. They did clean up their signs from, they were posted throughout the city and those were taken down.

Okay. And so if the City of Vallejo did offer a major use permit, they be in compliance considering that they do not have a handler's license from the state

Not until they've satisfied the conditions of approval. I'm sorry. Not until they've satisfied the conditions of approval, which include that license from the state. So technically they would not be in compliance until they get everything satisfied. Okay. Including some of the signage on the front of the store.

Okay. All right. So I have another question here just to try to pull all the information available. they did have a use permit they still need the handler license to be in compliance with the state and to operate as a pawn shop is that correct and as of right now they are still continue to operate as a pawn shop if my that's my understanding our understanding and so if we did approve this today there's a a reasonable assumption that they will continue to operate tomorrow or the day after, reasonable assumption, I'm not saying that's the case, that it will be operating out of compliance because they will not have a handler's license, which still raised the point of security issues, and I'm assuming that there's a reason why licensing is required to operate a pawn shop moving forward.

I think it's a dealer's license. I think because people tend to sell stolen property to a pawn shop, and they have to report things to the police, and police check in to see if You know, your mother's stolen ring is there and, you know, happened to me before. Yeah.

Well, I'm sorry that you experienced that. No, I mean, it's common. Yes. I'm sorry that was your experience that happened.

Yeah, it's a common occurrence. People either use it to get a quick loan or they fence their stolen property there.

Not a lot of...

Okay, so I'm thinking of probably what would be in the best interest of the city, just being sure that they are, that we are following this process and considering all the facts. My thought is the proposal moving forward under certain conditions for a use permit. What I believe where I'm thinking at moving forward is that the applicant should not be able to operate the business in the meantime. If we approve a major use permit under those conditions, that the business is not in operation until they actually meet state and local requirements. And if they are operating within that timeframe, it will be in the violation of the city's ordinance. And this is my thought about that, considering the work and the consideration that I think the city is trying to do, have been considering and trying to make sure that the right process move forward by addressing sinus issues and still consider that they're operating illegally or in violations of the city ordinance. That's the conditions that I propose at this point right now that the city, I mean, that the business does not operate until all licensing is in compliant based on the condition of the use permit.

through the chair. If I could just jump in. We do have a condition in place that requires the applicant to maintain a valid secondhand dealer's license. I think what you're asking for is basically already required by this condition. I think I just wanted to point out that enforcement of that can be a little bit challenging from staff's perspective. We have attempted to put some strong conditions in to make sure that they are adhering with all the requirements, but then once the use permit is approved, it's really up to staff to stay on top of that and enforce those conditions. I don't know how quickly or how long it takes to get a secondhand dealer license and what that process looks like. So I just wanted to mention that, that it's a little bit challenging, especially if the turnaround period is short. Yes.

Well, yes, and my request is specifically on the owners of the owner to be in compliance with the city. I understand that there is probably some constraints with enforcing and checking in, but hopefully that they will act in good faith moving forward in the process.

If I may offer one thing that you could consider is perhaps we could get a little bit more detail about the process for obtaining the license, see, confirm where they're at in that process. And then perhaps if you had other questions for the applicant, we could bring that back. Just wanted to have you maybe consider that as an option.

Okay. So I think that will be an option as well, showing us what the next steps, what that process will actually look like, and hopefully have a timeframe so we can kind of get an idea how to move forward with that. Within it, that's, in considering that, I think that maybe we can put this on We scheduled this for another meeting so we can have these questions for the applicants of what that process may look like and what security measures that they may have in place in order to try to fulfill the conditions moving forward. Even though I am aware that the security aspect is not required, but it will be great to understand what steps have been put in place moving forward.

I just wanted to jump in as well, just to make sure everyone fully understood what your options are. So if you are not ready to issue an approval tonight, you could do a continuance. Or, you know, I'm hearing a lot of concerns about this application. If you don't agree with the recommendation, you could also vote to deny the application. So I just want to make it clear that you all understand what options you have in front of you.

Yes, I don't want to deny it because I would like to, a path forward so this could be corrected. but I would like the questions and the concerns to be addressed for the applicant as well. And I think that will be probably in the best interest, even if there have been concerns that have been raised and considering that there has been questions raised by the council member as well. So it will be good to hear what the applicant has to say and explain the timeline moving forward of how we can actually get this approved. And so my request is to move to a continuous

Just wanted to add to what Kristen just said, that if it's denied, the applicant has the right to appeal. So there is an appeal process and they would get a hearing, fair hearing in front of the council.

Okay, all right, thank you. So I would like for a continuance on this applicant. For the applicant to be present, well, okay, let me make a motion. I motion to continue line item A, which is holding a public hearing to consider the realization approving a major use permit and signed permit, collectively a plan, 25-0148 to establish a pawn shop at 3716 Sonoma Boulevard after finding that the project exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15301 class one existing facilities and 15311 class 11 accessory structure. request to have the continuous and requesting that the applicant is present to hopefully address some of the questions that we had here on the planning commission. I mean, here in this meeting and to outline what this next steps will be to get, I guess, a dealer's license or a handler license to be fully in compliance with the city of Vallejo, as well as in compliance with state policy and laws. Okay.

I'll second. Through the chair, just a clarifying question. Are we continuing to the next regular scheduled meeting or is there a certain date?

Next scheduled meeting, please.

So just for the record, the next regular scheduled meeting is July 20th, I believe. Yes, July 20th.

Yes. We can schedule it for July 20th.

Yeah, we have three ayes and two noes. The motion passes.

Great, thank you. And we can move to the next agenda item. Thank you again for the presentation and informing us and welcoming us to the process. Thank you again.

So through the commission, I do want to announce that Laura Solomon is actually leaving the city. So this is the last day, night she'll be here before the planning commission. She has taken an opportunity elsewhere. So I do want to say thank you, Laura, for the past four years. You know, you've grown extremely a lot and we really appreciate your help.

Yes. Yes. Well, thank you for everything and your help. And we appreciate it, even though it'd be sad to see you go. But it's great that you have an opportunity to explore and move on to something else that works for you and is in the best interest of what you're going for. So congratulations on your endeavors. So wish you well. All right. All right. Okay, so we can move to the next agenda item, which is We're going to hold a public hearing to consider a resolution recommending the city council amend chapter 16.303 relating to accessory dwelling units and finding such action exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, presented to public resource code section 21080.17 and CEQA guidelines section 15282H.

Good evening, Chair Taylor and members of the Planning Commission. I'm going to fill in for our long-range planning team this evening and give you a very brief presentation on this item. Slide, please. Okay, so to start out with a little bit of background, if you recall, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 20th of this year to consider some amendments to the Vallejo Municipal Code related to accessory dwelling units. The changes that were proposed were all recommended to be more consistent with state law. During the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the ordinance as presented with a five to one vote. um following that recommendation we scheduled the item for consideration before the city council that meeting was scheduled to occur on may 26 however between may 22nd and may 26 we received a couple of comment letters um namely from cal hdf which is the california housing defense fund and then we also received some comments from the vallejo flood and waste district um BECAUSE WE WERE SHORT ON TIME, WE OPTED TO PULL THE ITEM FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA AND REVIEW THESE COMMENTS MORE CLOSELY. WE WORKED WITH OUR LEGAL TEAM AND WE CONDUCTED A TECHNICAL REVIEW AND WE DECIDED THAT THE COMMENTS THAT WERE RAISED WERE VALID AND WE DID MAKE SOME ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE. We now are before you this evening to re-present this item so you can see the changes that were added and you can re-evaluate those and then make a new recommendation to go forward to city council. Just to give you a overview, well, before I do this, I just wanted to note that the ordinance that is presented in the packet includes a red line version, so you can see exactly what each of these changes are. They're pretty narrow in scope. They're not too much. The first four items on this list are changes that were made in order to ensure that the ordinance is consistent with government code section 66323, which is a provision of state law that requires ministerial approval for certain ADUs and JADUs. So the changes that we made included Related to historic standards, we clarified that the objectives standards that were related to historic resources don't apply for those ADUs subject to government code 66323. Same thing with parking. Those standards do not apply. Front setbacks, those also do not apply. And then this fourth one here, we clarified that the maximum ADU size of 1,200 square feet also does not apply to the multifamily detached ADUs that are subject to 66323. In addition, the comments that we received from VFWD were related to the utility connections. I believe the previous version of the ordinance stated that utility providers shall require separate utility connections. This was clarified to say that they may require them. And then the last item was an additional item, just to clarify that as part of the ministerial review process for ADUs and JADUs, the new process requires them to go straight to the building division. So this is just an added clarification that we will still be conducting a planning division review in conjunction with that building review. So that is it for the changes. At this point, staff recommends that the Planning Commission find the ordinance to be exempt from CEQA, and we recommend that you adopt the resolution as presented, recommending that the City Council approve the revised ADU ordinance. Should you move forward with this item tonight, the next steps would include scheduling the ordinance introduction in front of the city council. This is tentatively set for September. And then following an approval, the ordinance would be shared with HCD for a final review, which would be done within 60 days of that review process, or that approval process, I'm sorry. And that is it. This concludes my presentation this evening. I'm available if you have any questions.

All right, great. Thank you for your presentation, and I believe we can open this up for the public hearing, correct? Yes, so can we open this up for the public hearing and give each speaker three minutes?

Through the chair, I currently do not have any members of the public that have signed up in person, nor any members of the public that have raised their hand online at this current time. Feel free to carry on, and if anyone signs up within the next few minutes, I'll be sure to let you know. All right, sounds great. Thank you.

Through the chair, I apologize, I forgot to mention one item. We did receive one comment letter earlier today. It was a letter from Cal HDF. I believe a copy was shared with the commission. It is a letter in support of the revised ordinance as presented.

Great, thank you. I'm going to reach out to my commissioners if they have any questions or any comments.

Yes, I always do. And I kind of read this before. Can you please let me know in reference to the utility providers may require separate utility connections, what would determine this requirement or not?

Sure, like for example, PG&E required separate metering or the water department required separate metering for an ADU from the main house. If a city ordinance required it and the utility company, we don't, you know, that's the way the state law reads is may require. And it says that you, it's up to the local agency to, You know, if we want, we could adopt an ordinance that required it. So we haven't adopted an ordinance that requires separate metering. So there is a provision where a local agency may require utility companies to separately meter ADUs from the main structure. But we haven't done that, and so we changed that to may and not shall. But VFWD had a problem with that because they actually require them to be together. If you have an ADU on your property, they have to conjoin before they hit the street and hit the main street.

okay so they have to they can be separate laterals and then they have to meet up before they go and meet the main wow yeah they can't be separate laterals going out from okay so a follow-up question would be um you mentioned pg e how is pg i mean is pg e notified whenever a building is built

So during the construction phase of developing an ADU, the developer or the contractor needs to get in contact with PG&E. They have to get an inspection from the city of Vallejo for a meter release. So the city of Vallejo goes out there and inspects the meter, adds a sticker to it, and then that's how PG&O is made aware that it's been inspected by the city. Once they receive the inspection, then the contractor or whoever's building the EDU needs to get in contact with PG&E to schedule an appointment where PG&E will then energize the meter and release it so that it can be in operation.

All right, great. Thank you and good question. Any other fellow commissioners have any questions or any comments?

No, I certainly. Enjoyed reading a commendation letter. Normally it's the opposite. So I just want to commend city staff on, you know, all the hard work you guys have been putting in and, you know, compliments come far in between. So take them while you can. And it was a really good joy. It really was to see this and to read it. So give yourselves, you know, a round of applause. We certainly are. Thank you.

All right, great, thank you. Well, this, I'm gonna check back in for the public forum to see if we have any speakers.

Through the chair, we have not had any members of the public raise their hands to speak on this item.

All right, great, thank you. I think we can close the public forum at this moment. And if we have any other questions or comments?

Just through the chair, I'm curious about PG&E and how accessory unit can work if we don't kind of work out how that should happen, meaning that we're really talking about two different, I mean, it's not always going to be a family. It could be, you know, two separate entities and power bills and things, looking at the cost of just, our gas and electric bill. Seems to me like we would want to address that a little bit more definitively.

For something like that, ultimately, the decision for requiring a separate meter, I believe, is up to PG&E. So they will put that requirement in place.

Okay.

or or the landlord could make that decision as well if they wanted to proactively separate question then uh being you're over the building Department does the city then notify PG&E whenever a new unit or whatever is being built okay

All right, I guess we don't have any other questions or any comments. All right, I guess we can move on to the next phase and make a motion to move forward.

I will make the motion to approve the resolution recommending the city council amend chapter 16.303 relating to accessory dwelling units and finding such action exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to public resources code section 21080 0.17 and CEQA guidelines section 15282. I second.

We have five ayes and the motion carries.

All right, great. Thank you. And again, thank you for the presentation. All right, so we're going to move on to the next agenda line item, which is written communications.

Through the chair, just before we get into that item, I do want to ask the chair if it's okay for council member or vice mayor to come up to the podium since he wasn't here during the city council liaison portion of the agenda. Yes, absolutely.

good evening chair taylor vice chair douglas commissioners staff and the general public thank you for being here tonight the report i have is we have if you haven't noticed we have opened up the application process for our boards and commissions so we are looking to fill our vacant our one vacant planning commission seat hopefully soon We'll be setting up our scheduled application or our interviews in the near future, so stay tuned for that. For some recent, hopefully everybody had an enjoyable 4th of July weekend. And recently, I just wanted to point out that If you haven't, I know I mentioned at our last Planning Commission meeting, if you haven't noticed the construction that was going on at Costco and the Fairview project, so that has rapidly expanded and moved forward quite a bit. They're still doing a lot of the underground and utilities, they're patching that up, but they're gonna be opening up the four-lane highway, from my understanding, at the end of July beginning, of August so look forward to that and then and then so you're actually going to be being a be able to see some vertical construction towards the end of July and the beginning of August also so keep an eye out on that and that's going to be something good that that we as a council will be promoting quite a bit moving forward and stuff and then for let me see there was something there's a few other items that I wanted to bring up check my notes here So I know, for those that aren't aware, this week is 7-07 week, so there's a lot of activities going on. So trying to get out there in the public and stuff like that is something moving forward. At our last council meeting, or towards the end of June, we did approve our budget for 26-27, so we do have a balanced budget moving forward. And so we will be looking at... typically through the budget cycle process, we will be looking at how to better improve a lot of our push for economic development. So there may be a few adjustments when it comes to the mid-year adjustment coming towards the end of November and December there to look for that. So looking forward to see if we can implement your working plan. I know you guys are working on and hopefully putting that and bringing that in front of the council sometime soon. And then... And then just wanted to also point out is that with the summer season right now, there are, we do have quite a, oh, I just want to officially get on the record that to council member, or Commissioner Medeiros' question about comments that I think were claimed to be from me, but as a formal point of reference, council members are not allowed to voice an opinion one way or the other on any projects or any anything that comes in front of this commission or any commissioner board i think what and it was pointed out that what was referenced were questions that were brought up and just for your understanding When I get emails from residents when these projects are publicly noticed and stuff, so I send those questions to staff. And for the record, I'm not allowed to communicate directly with any of you commissioners about questions that so that typically go through staff and staff is the one that communicates that to you so so I don't want to get the impression that those questions were directly for me those are typically questions that I get from the community that gets forward on to staff for them to process that through their resources or through their process and then to forward that to you as part of a part of the written communications as a staff that we receive so just want to make sure that that's a clarification that that we don't communicate either directly with the applicants in most in many cases or directly with any commissions or boards. So just want to make sure that that gets put on the record for that. And also for the summer, there's a lot of summer internships coming on. So I was assigned a summer intern, and they happen to be, one of them happens to be out in the public right now. And the fact that she is an aspiring, she's actually a senior in high school, um looking towards an architectural career so i think she would appreciate um an introduction maybe after this meeting and to kind of get some of your inputs towards this and maybe have some conversations with you at over during her summer internship time that she's here so she's been soaking up a lot of the um time hanging out with me and being exposed to a lot of these type of meetings and other events and city council meetings and things of that nature. So that's something that I hope that you have the opportunity to maybe introduce yourself and maybe have some communications and kind of give her your understanding and your participation in coming in front of the, being on the planning commission and things of that nature and being part of civics of what they're currently learning through their internship program. And that would be the end of my reports. Any questions? All right. Do you have any questions?

No. Well, thank you so much for the presentation. I was definitely going to call you. I was going to use the other as an opportunity to reach out. But thank you for the clarification and helping us understand exactly some and guidelines that we need to follow by. So that's very helpful, so I appreciate that. And looking forward to meeting your interns and sharing any information that we have available that they may hopefully find helpful. So that's good that we get them involved very early. Yes. Excellent to hear that you want to go into the direction of architecture. So that's a really good project. I think Commissioner Douglas here, Chair Douglas is an architect, right?

That's correct.

That's good. So he might be a good resource to reach out to as well to get some answers. So, yes. So, but yes, but thank you for the update. And if anyone doesn't have any other questions or feedback, that's all that I have.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right. So I think we're still on under written communications or do we still move on to the next agenda item?

Through the chair, for written communications, the only written communication we did receive was the letter from Cal HDF that Kristen brought up during her presentation. That was provided to each of the members of the planning commission via email as well as provided on the dais and it has been posted on the city's website as well.

All right, great, thank you so much for the update. And thanks for the reminder to call on Vice Mayor Matulik to give us update. So we're gonna move on to the next agenda item, which is report of the presiding officers and members of the planning commission. And we'll start with the secretary report. We're gonna go start with the secretary report. Yes, please.

I THINK CESAR IS HAVING SOME TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES WITH HIS LAPTOP, SO I'M GOING TO JUMP IN. WE HAVE JUST A SHORT REPORT FOR YOU THIS EVENING. NEXT SLIDE. JUST SOME RECENT CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. I'M SURE YOU ALL HAVE BEEN WATCHING, BUT JUST TO REITERATE, THE COUNCIL DID VOTE TO ADOPT THE ANNUAL 26-27 BUDGET JUST RECENTLY. That main action was taken on June 23rd and then there was a follow up on June 30th to get the last piece of that approved. So that is complete and that is good news for the city. Some upcoming actions that the city council will be taking related to our department planning and development services include consideration of whether or not to proceed with an application for the pro housing designation. I believe I mentioned this during our last meeting. This is, an application to have the city potentially be considered as a pro-housing city. This has been reviewed and considered by the Housing and Community Development Commission. I don't know if I have that name correct. They did recommend approval. Next step is go to city council. If they tell us to proceed, then we will begin the process, which will include some community engagement and additional items. So we will keep the planning commission in the loop as that moves forward, if it moves forward. We also have the EVCS ordinance, which is the electric vehicle charging station. This is one that you all recently considered and made a recommendation to approve. That is going to be going to council on the 28th of July. And then we are still working to solidify all of the terms for the consultant contract for the downtown and waterfront specific plans. This has taken a little bit more time than we expected, but we are hoping to get this in front of the council in the next month or two. Upcoming planning commission actions. We are looking to have the inclusionary housing come forward at the beginning of August. We also have a parcel subdivision map that is proposed at 774 Admiral Callahan Lane tentatively scheduled for August as well. We have a new coffee shop that is being proposed, the Seven Brew Coffee Shop at 1179 Admiral Callahan Lane. Our beginning of August is looking pretty busy right now, so this one is pretty much ready to go as well. And then the last item is a self-storage facility that's proposed at 1609 Lewis Brown. This one, I don't know if this will make it in August, but it is one that will be moving forward in the next couple months. We have one meeting in August, by the way, just one planned for right now. Quick update on the building division activity tracker, just to kind of see how things are going this year so far. I don't have information for June yet, But our latest numbers are posted here for May. It's a little bit up and down each month. But in May, we did a total of 233 permits, which is a little bit lower than the previous months, but kind of in the range. This last slide here is just all of the staff level approvals that we did during the month of June. I'm not gonna go through these, but if you have any questions on them, we'd be happy to answer them. And I think that's it. Just to note, we did not include any of the long range projects this time around. Hector's been on vacation. He'll be back next meeting, hopefully, to share some updates related to that work. And then the last item that I wanted to mention is that we are scheduled, if you recall, we had a special referral from city council to look at business corridors and make recommendations. We received memos from a number of you on this topic. We had conversations and we kind of put together the list. Those have been provided to the Economic Development Commission. We are on their calendar for this Wednesday night, July 8th, to share all of the recommendations from planning commissioners. The referral that we received said that the recommendation should have input from the EDC. So that is the goal of the meeting on Wednesday night. Once we get that input from the EDC, we will probably just type it up and add it to the packet and then send the whole thing to city council for final review. So I just want to let you know that that is happening and I will be there to present that item. And I believe that's it. Cesar, you have anything else to add?

I just want to share some exciting news. I believe two years ago, this planning commission here approved a use permit development review and design review for a new Chick-fil-A along Sonoma Boulevard and Mini Drive and Broadway. So they've actually started construction. They started moving ground today. at the pre-construction meeting. At the pre-construction meeting, they're expected a 22-week construction timeline. So that's exciting to see more development happening along Sonoma Boulevard.

Great, thank you for the update. That was exciting. Yes? Yes, please.

Through the chair, I apologize. There's a couple of items I failed to mention. And thank you for the tie-in for that. And by the way, that Chick-fil-A is in District 2, by the way. So thank you for bringing that highlight. And this is kind of a good tie-in to the economic portion of it. And this may highlight a lot of the things that you may not think were... THIS COMMISSION MAY PLAY A PART OF IT, BUT ON WEDNESDAY, OR I'M SORRY, LAST FRIDAY, I ATTENDED A GRADUATION FOR THE WATERFRONT WORKING COALITION. THEY HAD A COHORT NUMBER 6 GRADUATION. SO FOR THOSE THAT MAY NOT BE AWARE OF THAT, THAT IS AN EDUCATIONAL AND A TRAINING CENTER THAT'S ON MAYOR ISLAND WHERE IT'S A 10-WEEK PROGRAM AND GRADUATES AFTER THAT 10-WEEK PROGRAM, THEY CAN GO INTO THE MARITIME industry so there and they set it up to where there's actually jobs already lined up for them for the most part once they complete that 10-week program so it's those type of facilities that we're looking to add to Mare Island of those type of things and I and at that same graduation, I had an extensive conversation with our interim economic director, Brad Paul, and he was giving me a heads up of a lot of things that they're moving forward with giving tours of Merrill Island to perspective, clients and prospective investors to Maryland. So this speaks to a lot of the special districts or some of the business quarter plans that this commission will directly be addressing. if you haven't already please take a close look at a lot of those and and and if you can keep an eye out or keep an ear out for the economic asking economic development related type of questions that where you lead of putting in the land use and kind of what the business entities may be able to go in there and with that economic um development understanding of how we can better improve that so once again this ties in to where myself and council member um matias are working trying to work hand in hand of this commission along with the economic development um commission working together to co to have a collaborative conversation to move both of our both these um uh from the city council level through these commissions that you and the Economic Development Commission are a big part of and then also just to put in there um a heads up that we have we as accounts we have our goal setting session scheduled for saturday july 25th which is a public meeting so that would be a great opportunity to kind of if you if you have nothing to do on that day to join us and kind of provide public um input or a community informed input onto that and Once again, speaking as an individual versus speaking as a commissioner would be very helpful, but that doesn't mean that you can't have your commissioner hat on when you're speaking as an individual also though. So just keep throwing those dates out there. And then more importantly, tomorrow, for those that aren't aware, at nine o'clock, we have a ribbon cutting ceremony over at highway 37 and fairgrounds drive which is the opening uh ribbon cutting for the diverging diamond that is um that is opening up or it's been open but it's it's going to get its official um hoopla um tomorrow at there and then right after that john congressman john garamendi is going to be in town to PASS OFF A $1.09 MILLION CHECK TO VFWD AS PART OF HIS EFFORTS AT THE CONGRESS LEVEL OF GETTING A LOT OF THE FUNDING THAT WE AS A CITY HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR AND THROUGH THOSE THROUGH HIS EFFORTS THROUGH THERE WE WILL ALSO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT HIS SHIPS ACT SO IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN SPEAKING TO CONGRESSMAN GUERRAMANI DEPENDING ON WHAT HIS time availability is he will be in town tomorrow and we're going to be at Mare Island right at what is I think it's 175 Pintado the building right at the right past the the bridge right there on on Mare Island where he'll be there will be a ceremony with his check presentation to VFWD and I will be present at both the ribbon cutting and Congressman Garamendi's passing off ceremony. So that would officially be the end of my council liaison report. So any questions?

Which time for which one? Which time tomorrow for the Congressman's ribbon cutting? The Congressman Garamendi.

It's kind of overlapping with the ribbon cutting one. But we've been assured that we will both be able to attend both ribbon cutting and the ceremonial check passing off. So it's the ribbon cutting for the Fairgrounds Drive and Highway 37 is scheduled at nine. And so I'm assuming it'll be, or it's actually scheduled at, hold on. Yes, it's scheduled at nine. somewhere between nine and 10 with the, I don't know what the full agenda program is, and then soon after everyone will be heading over to Mare Island right after that, which is a general 11, 10.30 or 11 o'clock ceremony with the check pass off by Congressman Garamendi, so.

Any additional questions? I don't have any questions. Okay. Thank you. Great, thank you for your update, I appreciate it. right so i believe that we can move to the next agenda item which is the city attorney's report i have nothing to report thank you all right great thank you and then we move to the next uh line item which is report of the chairperson and members of the commission i do not have anything to report at this moment i wonder if my fellow commissioners have any updates or anything to report All right. We're going to move on to the next agenda item, which is report of the ad hoc subcommittees, which is the work plan ad hoc subcommittee recommendation. We'll hand it over to Commissioner Medeiros.

Yes. When did we meet? Was that this week or the end of last week?

It was the end of last week, I believe, on Thursday.

Yeah. Yeah. So we did meet. we're moving it forward i do not have a plan date as of this point in time however uh... if you remember in our last meeting i asked uh... those uh... commissioners who are not part of the ad hoc to please provide their top three goals to work on and if you could pass that through staff and then have Unless it's okay for them to just email me, I don't know. I don't know about the Brown Act issues.

I would pass through staff. That sounds like a great plan.

Okay. And then if staff could punt that to the ad hoc commission, I would appreciate it. That's all I have for now.

Thank you for your update. Any other members of the commission have any questions or... Any feedback off the app? All right, great. Well, thank you.

Wait, through the chair. Commissioner. I think that would violate the Brown Act, too, because you'd be using staff as a... So you'd still be communicating through staff. So could we bring back those items for discussion and schedule it on the agenda? So if you want to get their input, you could put it on an agenda as a regular... We could do that.

However, I don't want to spend time writing a report or a plan and then have it... you know have other ideas coming in that's going to waste the time of the ad hoc committee i mean that's kind of the the dilemma maybe during this agenda item you could ask the question ask it again and then the next time for the next meeting they could come prepared to discuss it we could have a little discussion okay does that work it's it's on the meeting minutes that's included in this package as far as the the question that i did ask

One other suggestion, maybe you could consider reversing the order of operations and maybe the ad hoc subcommittee could suggest top three and bring those to the commission before you get into the details of the plans. That's another option. Okay, that'll work.

That'll work.

All right, great, thank you for the update. If there's no other questions or any feedback, we can move on to the next line item, which is other, unless there's anything else that has not, we haven't had a chance to bring up during this meeting and we can hopefully use this moment now to bring it up. If not, all right, we'll move to the last item, which is adjournment. So the planning commission is now adjourned. conclude at 8.38 p.m.