Mr.

Rosario and I'm the Chair of the Planning Commission.

Welcome to the Planning Commission meeting.

Is there a study session today?

There's not mine.

Okay.

Please remember to turn off your cell phones.

The parking validation machine to the garage under city halls located at the rear of chambers.

Following roll call during the summary of hearing procedures, we will review how the public may provide comment during today's session.

At this time, if you're able, please join me for the pledge of allegiance.

Under God.

Thank you.

We will now move on to roll call.

My name is Carlos Rosario and I am here.

Vice Chair Bickford.

Here.

Commissioner Barroso.

Here.

Commissioner Bandal?

Here.

Commissioner Cantrell.

Here.

Commissioner Cow.

Not here.

Commissioner Casey.

Here.

Commissioner Nguyen is not here.

Commissioner Olivario is not here.

And Commissioner Young is not here.

So that is six in attendance and we have quorum.

So we'll now move on to the summary of the hearing procedures.

Before we begin, I want to remind the planning commission members and members of the public to follow our code of conduct to meetings.

This includes commenting on the specific agenda item only and addressing the full body.

Public speakers will not engage in a conversation with commissioners or staff.

All members of the planning commission, staff, and the public are expected to refrain from abusive language, repeated failure to comply with the code of conduct, which will disturb, disrupt, or impede the orderly conduct of this meeting may result in removal from the meeting.

This meeting of the planning commission will now come to order.

Now for the summary of hearing procedures.

If you want to address the commission, please fill out a speaker card located on the table near the audio video technician and deposit the completed card into the glass basket.

There are also speaker cards in the back of the chambers and at the side entrance.

The procedure for this meeting is as follows.

After staff's presentation, applicants or appellants may make their may make up to a five-minute presentation.

During the public comment period, the chair will call out names on the submitted submitted speaker cards in the order for those members of the public who attend in person.

As your name is called, line up in front of the microphone at the front of the chamber.

Generally, each speaker will be given up to two minutes for public testimony, and speakers using the translator will have up to four minutes.

At the discretion of the chair, the time allotted to each speaker may be changed depending on the number of items on the agenda, number of speakers, and other factors.

Speakers using the translator will have double the time allotted.

After the public testimony, the applicant and or appellant may make closing remarks for an additional five minutes.

Planning commissioners may ask questions of the speakers, response to commissioner questions will not reduce the speaker's time allowance.

The public hearing will then be closed, and the planning commission will take action on the item.

The planning commission may request staff to respond to public testimony, ask staff questions, and discuss the item.

If you challenge these land use decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at this public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing.

The planning commission's action on rezonings, pre-zonings, general plan amendments, and code amendments is only advisory to the city council.

The city council will hold public hearings on these items.

Section 20 12400 of the municipal code provides the procedures for legal protests to the city council on rezonings and prezonings.

The planning commission's action on conditional use permits is appealable to the city council in accordance with section 2010-220 of the municipal code.

Agendas and all staff reports for this meeting may be accessed on the city website.

Moving on to public comment.

This is the time for public comment to the planning commission on non-agendized items.

Please fill out a speaker's card and give it to the technician.

Each member of the public may address the commission for up to two minutes.

The commission cannot take any formal action without the item being properly noticed and placed on the agenda.

In response to public comment, the planning commission is limited to the following options.

Responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public, requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting, or directing staff to place the item on a future agenda.

Staff.

Do we have any public speakers or public comment for items not on tonight's agenda?

Seeing none, we will move on to deferrals and removals from the calendar.

Any items scheduled for this hearing this evening, which deferral is being requested, will be taken out of order to be heard first on the matter of deferral or removal.

Staff will provide an update on the items for which deferral and removal is being requested.

If you want to change any of the deferral dates recommended or speak to the question of deferring or removing these or any other items, you should say so at this time.

Looks like we have one item today, CP 22-011 and ER22-80.

A conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 2,000 square foot building proposed to be a Starbucks with a drive-thru and late night use.

Commissioners, do we have a motion to proceed?

Motion to approve.

Second.

Okay.

Any discussion?

None.

We have a motion from Commissioner Cantrell to proceed and a second from Commissioner Bandal.

If there's no further discussion, we'll go to a roll call vote.

Yes.

Commissioner Barroso.

Yes.

Commissioner Bandal?

Yes.

Commissioner Cantrell.

Yes.

Commissioner Cow.

It's not here.

Commissioner Casey?

Yes.

Commissioner Nguyen is not here.

Commissioner Oliverio is here.

Yes.

Commissioner Young is not here.

And myself is a yes, making seven and the mission carries.

Or sorry, the motion carries.

Do we have any other items to defer today?

Does not look like it.

So we'll go on to the consent calendar.

There will be no separate discussion of individual consent calendar items as they are considered to be routine and will be adopted by one motion.

If a mission if a member of the commission requests debate, separate vote or recusal on a particular item, that item may be removed from the consent calendar by the chair and considered separately.

The public may comment on the entire consent calendar and any items removed from the consent calendar by the chair.

Staff will provide an update on the consent calendar.

If you wish to speak on one of these items individually, please come to the podium at this time.

Okay, seeing we have two items on the consent calendar tonight.

Reviewing and approving the action minutes from August 27th, 2025.

And CP 2504 and ER25-31.

A conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 90 foot high monopine on North Capitol Avenue.

Seeing no speakers, we'll turn it over to the Commission.

And do we have a motion to approve?

Motion approved.

Okay, we have a motion to approve the consent calendar from Commissioner Olivario and a second from Vice Commissioner Bickford.

We'll now move on to a roll call vote.

Vice Chair Bickford?

Yes.

Commissioner Barroso.

Yes.

Commissioner Bandal?

Yes.

Commissioner Cantrell?

Yes.

Commissioner Cow.

Yes.

Here.

Commissioner Casey?

Yes.

Commissioner Nguyen is not here.

Commissioner Olivario?

Yes.

Commissioner Young is not here.

And myself is a yes, making eight yeses.

And the motion carries.

Okay.

On to public hearing.

Generally, the public hearing items are considered by the planning commission in the order in which they appear on the agenda.

However, please be advised that the commission may take items out of order to facilitate the agenda, such as to accommodate significant public testimony or may defer discussion of items later to later agendas for public hearing time management purposes.

At this time, I'd like to ask Commissioners to disclose any conflicts of interest or ex parte discussions.

Thank you.

On to item 5A, PP 25 4, adopting an ordinance amending various sections of Title 20, part 16 of the San Jose Municipal Code.

Do we have a staff presentation?

Good evening, Commissioners, Chair.

My name is Melina Iglesias, and I get to serve as the Director of Events for the Office of Economic Development and Cultural Affairs.

I'm joined by my colleague Zach Mendez, Public Life and Event Manager, who will speak to the proposed changes in more detail.

Thank you.

So we're here to provide an update to the temporary outdoor use of private property ordinance in part 16 of Title 20, which governs temporary use of private property for outdoor special events.

This includes clarification on permitting operational requirements and compliance measures to ensure safe and consistent use of private property for temporary activities.

Today we'll cover the key changes in the ordinance and how the updates align with the city's policies and community objectives.

And after the presentation, we'll uh have time for questions and feedback from the commission.

So just a little background on the update.

The body of work came to us from City Council directive highlighting the city's value of events on private property for building community and supporting local businesses and artists.

Staff were directed to explore ways to reduce barriers for events on private property through again temporary outdoor special events.

What we did is we focused on uh opportunities to facilitate more events on private property by lowering activation barriers within the municipal code, uh relax event frequency limits, expand eligible event days, and streamline code limitations.

We also provided clarifications for events near residential areas to balance activation with community considerations.

As to our process timeline from March 2024 through June 2025, staff conducted policy analysis, gathered stakeholder input, and developed recommendations.

From June to July of 2025, we engaged in public outreach and sought review from the Airport Land Use Commission.

Next, I want to just give you a quick overview of our current outdoor special event process for through the Office of Cultural Affairs permits.

Event organizers must submit an application along with property owners' approval.

The permit application undergoes a review process focused on time, place, and manner in compliance with San Jose Municipal Code.

Permit costs for the temporary outdoor special event through the Office of Cultural Affairs are structured to encourage activation and start at $875 for first-time events and $477 for event returning events.

We also have a 45-day approval process, so applications can be submitted up to one year in advance, and it takes us approximately 45 days to approve that.

Now, if an event does not meet the conditions for temporary outdoor special events through the Office of Cultural Affairs, they can explore alternative options through a conditional use permit or special use permit through the planning department, which requires the property owners' commitment to convert their use.

At this point, I'll turn it over to Zach, who will speak through the proposal changes for these for this process.

Thank you, Melina.

Good evening, commissioners and chair.

My name is Zachary Smendez, Office of Economic Development and Cultural Affairs, Public Life and Events Manager.

I'm excited to be here today to summarize the proposed changes staff are recommending and discuss some of the rationale that staff have behind our recommendations.

So the first to start with maybe the most impactful change to our event organizers.

We are recommending updates to the allowable number of events that take place on a private property.

Currently, within the limitations, outdoor private pro outdoor special events on private property are limited to two events in a six-month period and to four events in a five-month period, depending upon what resident what zoning the underlying land use.

Our change would allow for up to 26 events to happen within the year, and this would be applicable to all private parking, private property parking lots.

Our rationale behind this was based on our policy analysis, which revealed a wide range of frequency limitations used by jurisdictions of similar sizes.

And this recommendation accounts for best practices while considering feedback from our local event producers.

The change would be equivalent to a weekly event happening over the course of an entire year, over half of a year, six months, my apologies, or for two events per month over the course of a year, while still keeping the use temporary to qualify as a special event rather than a permanent use.

By increasing the overall frequency, we think that we can provide flexibility to our event organizers to allow for more activations while keeping a cutoff for when more permanent steps would be required.

The next changes that we are considering recommending are probably the largest changes to the body of text within the municipal code language and is related to the zoning of the property and proximity to residential dwelling units.

Previous limitations for the proximity to residential dwelling units and location of the event were tied to the zoning type underneath, whether that be commercial, residential, or industrial.

The recommendation would consolidate all of these limitations into one section titled residential dwelling unit considerations.

Additionally, we are recommending that within the consolidation, we make the minimum distance consistent across all zoning types.

So for residential zoning areas, there would be no change.

That distance from a residential dwelling unit would remain at 50 feet, but for commercial and for industrial zoned areas that resident that distance would reduce from 150 feet to 50 feet to be consistent with residential zoning area.

All other limitations within the code would remain the same.

We are also recommending an exclusion for urban villages, neighborhood business districts, and mixed-use commercial zones, recognizing the more dense urban nature of these areas and allowing for activations to happen within those to enhance public life and opportunities for our residents to engage in quality public life.

Our rationale behind this is largely focused on streamlining the code limitations and providing our customers with consistency and increasing the legibility of code requirements for event organizers.

Some of these changes are will make the things consistent with our Alfrasco efforts to allow the businesses more flexibility for the use of their space, and these changes coincide with general plan goals to make more livable spaces throughout our city.

In addition to that change, we are also recommending the removal of how much of a parking lot can be used for special events.

Under the current limitation, you are not allowed to displace more than 50% of the existing parking for its intended from its intended use or a maximum displacement of 250 spaces, whichever is less.

We believe that in removing this limitation, it'll allow for smaller parking lots to be activated fully.

And as Melina had mentioned previously, this would still be subject to time place and manner, and so our office would still have some control over whether an event isn't appropriate for a parking lot.

And then the last changes that we are considering are related to the duration in days and hours of operation.

Previously, the code allowed for events to take place on Fridays and Saturdays and Sundays when adjacent to residential zones.

Our change would include Thursday as well, and it would also expand the hours of operations for Thursday, Friday, and Saturday only from 9 o'clock to 9, 9 o'clock a.m to 9 o'clock p.m.

to be 9 o'clock p a.m.

to 9 o'clock PM.

I apologize for the mistake in the slide there.

We are also including an exception for the downtown core from this time limitation for schools and as well as schools and religious churches or religious assembly uses.

Our rationale behind this is that it allows for an industry standard or what has become industry standard amongst event organizers, activations that happen between Thursdays and Sundays.

And then the hours of operation are make it consistent with that business hours in most areas.

The exclusion is based on the need for flexibility to operate later in the downtown area and particularly for cultural events in relation to religious groups, such as Ramadan, where fasting is broken later in the evening, and we have events that take place later in the evening as a result of the celebrating the breaking of the fast.

The changes to the duration are necessary to align the uh with the days and hours of operation.

And that concludes staff's presentation on the overall summary of the changes and the recommendations, and we are available for any questions.

Thank you.

And thank you very much.

That we will turn it over to the commission.

Uh Commissioner Casey.

Thank you, Chair.

Um I just had two clarifying questions so that I understand it better.

Um the first one in terms of what qualifies as one event versus two.

So if it's an event that's Thursday through Sunday with it and without any breaks, is that one event?

That is correct.

Okay, and if they if it's like a um uh celebration um where you have some of the farmers' markets and things, and it's a Thursday and then a Sunday, that's two events.

No, we would consider that one event as long as it's the same um intent of the event in one application in the same model for the setup, but that would be considered one event.

So that would count as one against the 26?

Correct.

So as long as it's a Thursday to Sunday, but if you do a Sunday and a Thursday, that's two events.

For clarification, that would be um, yes, I see the pattern that you're speaking to, and that's uh what we considered was series events to your point exactly of like night markets or farmers markets where they have uh reoccurring uh events, but we would consider that a series, so that would be one event.

And just to emphasize it would be dependent upon how the event was applied for.

And so if the organizer applied as one event Thursday and Sunday in the series, we would consider it one event.

Okay, so the number of days that could be utilized could be much larger than well, larger than 26 times four, even then.

Uh it would be at most it would be 26 times four, because it would at most it could be 26 events, 20 26 events that are four days long each.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, and then I mean it is a big I uh I support the change overall, it is a big change, and so and there's always going to be something that we didn't anticipate, I suspect, or what have you.

So I don't know what process is in place to review the success, the impact, um, and circle back to see if there's any modifications that are necessary to this.

Thank you for the question.

Uh, we would apply our current process, which uh we do take the review for time, place, and manner.

We have uh debrief meetings as well.

Uh what we do with our process is we get the application, we review it internally to confirm that it is something that we can uh permit through our uh process, and then we distribute it to any of the um applicable departments that are providing a service or a permit for the event, and we review it collaboratively.

Then we host what is called a pre-event coordination meeting where we invite the event organizer representatives from each department and agency as well as stakeholders to the meeting and we can engage in the conversations about the event and discuss all of the elements.

And at that point, we mitigate any concerns or impacts.

Then we have the event.

We do the site inspections, we work with the property owners and we host the event, and then we have a pre-event meeting to confirm that the event was conducted in a in a safe manner and a successful manner for that space.

So we do evaluate post-event, and if there are situations where we uh had a situation that was not applicable to the property to the community, then we can deny the application.

Okay, and I'm thinking more kind of looking back six months, nine months a year, because it is a big change, and I'm just afraid of some of the smaller neighborhoods.

Maybe where we didn't anticipate, and suddenly there's 26 times four events going on in a neighborhood.

So just some if there's a tracking six months, nine months a year later to see okay, do we need to modify this a bit?

Because we're it's a pretty dramatic change.

Again, I support it.

We need more activities, especially with all the events coming to town, but I'm also learning that we don't have a process in place to kind of gut check it a year later to see if did we go too far.

Yes, I think what what we could do is we can work through um the tracking mechanism as you mentioned uh to see if there's um the complaints and concerns, and then we can mitigate that um through the process, and if we need to go back, we would come back to to the commission and go through the process.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Commissioner Bickford followed by Commissioner Kendrill.

Just a follow on to what Commissioner Casey was saying.

Have you done any kind of analysis on the impact of this change based on like last year's event applications?

Are we doubling the amount of activity in the city based on this change?

Are we what do you have some level of anticipation?

Thank you for the question.

Yes, uh, through our analysis process, we did look at the inventory of private property spaces that would accommodate outdoor special event activations, and quite frankly, there aren't a whole lot of open spaces, so we don't see a significant increase.

It's going to be contingent on the applicants and uh what we're receiving from them as far as proposals, but I will speak to the trend that we are seeing, which is part of the body of work that was proposed to us with those night markets and farmers' markets that um where they want to approach the communities and neighborhoods that don't have uh open spaces like parks and um looking at what is uh accessible to them for this type of activation.

So I would assume that we do see more, but it would be probably on the smaller scale of a farmers market or a night market that is relevant to the community.

And Zach, did you want to add to that for your analysis?

Yeah, if I may add, I think not so much of an analysis, but based on some assumptions on what activities are happening, we do have like night markets in the Grand Century Little Saigon area that are already expressing interest in doing more activations in areas like that.

And so I think yes, we will we will likely see an increase in night markets in some places that are already being activated as night markets.

But um, to answer your question, I think Melina did a great job.

And and my next question is about the public outreach, because you spent a year analyzing and a month on public outreach, it looked like to me.

Did you get any input from community when you did that outreach?

And what was it positive?

Was it negative?

I'm I'm mainly concerned about those places that are adjacent to residential areas where you might end up with some friction.

Yeah, so part of our analysis process was engagement with largely event organizers, and so we spent a lot of time gathering feedback with event organizers through our policy analysis phase in our public outreach phase.

We did host a public meeting that was open to everybody, and we received feedback regarding some of the concerns as well.

Based on what we are looking at, I think there's very little interaction between you know where parking lots and where residential properties overlay.

And again, we're looking to make the limitations consistent with what already exists for residential properties, which is a 50-foot buffer from that.

Um, and like Melina had mentioned, you know, we still have the ability to kind of assess whether an event is appropriate for a neighborhood, and I think we have a process that requires the organizer to conduct community outreach before they're able before we're able to issue an event authorization.

And so if we are going through that process and we're hearing already from a community that they're not excited about an event, we can look to have conversations about how we can best mitigate that first before we have to potentially deny an event.

And one more question.

Does this it it said on private property?

Do these same things apply?

Like if somebody wants to do an event in a city park or another city property, or is that a completely different process?

Yes, thank you for that question.

That is a distinction that is significant.

We do not have the same limitations for public spaces.

This is specific to private property because the intent is supposed to be that it's a parking lot.

So we wanted to make sure that we continued that temporary use for our side of it for the events.

Okay, and really last question this time.

That 50-foot, 150 foot uh decreasing to 50 feet.

Um that's a lot of that's a lot of buffer space that that we're taking away.

Did what was the thought process behind that reduction?

Yeah, thank you for that question.

So that that reduction is in relation to commercial and industrial properties, and it's so that it would be consistent with the changes that were already made to residential properties as part of the alfresco efforts.

Uh and those changes were made, I believe, a little over a year ago.

Thank you.

Commissioner Kentrell.

So in terms of uh alcohol sales, is that covered in in any of this?

Is that available to the to these uh for these events in general?

Yes, Commissioner, that is available through the permit process.

So an event organizer can apply for a temporary alcohol permit.

Again, that would go through the review process to see that it makes sense in time, place and manner for the location of the space.

Okay, and in some of the new um open container areas, I don't know what they call it.

Um, how is there are there any restrictions about it being on property, open to carry how do you control that?

Thank you, Commissioner.

That is a very exciting um tool that we are implementing now or entertainment zones.

Um, and those are only in eight locations and they apply only to public property, public space, so they would not touch upon the private property um work that we've doing through this ordinance update.

Okay, and and I'm I'm just curious, not that I'm opposed, I'm curious because it could turn into an organization basically creating an open air bar on you know pretty high traffic days competing with other local bars for those uh those consumers.

Is there any safeguard to kind of kind of prevent that?

Uh well, through the permit process, we review every element of the event proposal, and like I said, through our pre-event coordination meeting, which is a round table of representatives from each department agency, including if they propose uh the request for use of alcohol at the event, would include ABC.

So we look at those things in place as well.

And um I think to the questions that are coming upon us, um, it's like what do we expect?

What do we anticipate with this update?

And really it's just a do we allowing what we already have in place now, just more frequently.

And if I may add briefly, within the permitting of alcohol as part of an event, there are still some limitations.

You have to have police on pre on site in order to make sure that they're there and the say that the event remains safe.

Usually it has to be within a fenced area, like a beer garden area, and so the event organizer is still required to kind of curate the space a little bit and and manage it in a specific way.

Actually, my concern was more about um competition for bars who spend quite a bit on licensing, um, you know, and have that type of consistent um operations on on nights that are popular for those facilities just wouldn't be for a competition at all.

So just if ABC is in is um in the mix, maybe they would restrict that, but it just seems like that's a lot of time available for competition for those customers in a you know a lower threshold, lower cost uh way to do it.

So I don't know if that would be fair.

All right, anything else from the commissioners?

Alright.

I myself would love to see more alfresco and night markets and bike parties and everything else that makes San Jose so great.

Do we have a motion uh to accept the staff's recommendation?

Through the chair, I don't think we've opened the public hearing yet, so we need would need to do that first.

Thank you.

Apologies.

Do we have anybody from the public that would like to speak?

See none.

Anything else from the commissioners?

I motion to accept.

Second.

Who said who was the second?

Okay, we have a motion from commission vice uh chair Bickford to recommend the city council to take the actions recommended by staff and a second from Commissioner Casey.

I will now go to a roll call vote.

Vice Chair Bickford.

Yes, Commissioner Barroso.

Yes.

Commissioner Bandal.

Yes.

Commissioner Cantrell.

Reluctantly, yes.

Commissioner Cow.

Yes.

Commissioner Casey?

Yes.

Commissioner Nguyen is absent.

Commissioner Oliverio.

Yes.

Commissioner Young is absent and myself is yes.

Uh, making that 8 to 2.

So the motion carries.

All right.

Moving on to referrals from city council boards, commissions, or other agencies.

Do we have any at this time?

No referrals.

Thank you.

And good and welfare.

Do we have a report from City Council?

We do.

Thank you.

And good evening, Minir Sandhir, Deputy Director of Planning with BBC E.

So a quick report from City Council.

So on September 16th, the City Council considered a Chick-fil-A project appeal.

That actually did not come before the Planning Commission.

That was a project that was approved at a director's hearing with a specific condition added to retain existing structures on site.

That item was appealed by the owner to remove that condition because they wanted to propose only the Chick-fil-A for operational functionality of that site.

And they also appealed the environmental determination on the CEQA exemption.

And because they appealed both those actions, the item went directly to City Council.

Our codes allow for environmental appeals to go directly to City Council.

So that project was approved by City Council, and that condition was removed.

On September 18th, thank you to all the commissioners who joined who joined the joint study session with City Council on our general plan and land use overview.

Yesterday, on September 23rd, the council also considered a conforming rezoning from the APD zoning district to the commercial neighborhood zoning district at 655 Almaden Avenue.

This was a historic bakery, and the change in the zoning designation allows for other commercial general general commercial uses on that site.

This was an item that had come before the commission.

So I just wanted to provide that brief update.

I'm sorry, but did you say that they that the city council approved it?

Yes, that is correct.

All right.

Anything on subcommittee formation reports, outstanding business study sessions?

I suppose we already mentioned.

Yes, I can mention uh on on uh item C, the commission calendar and study sessions.

Uh, the next planning commission regularly scheduled meeting for October 8th would be canceled.

We do not have any items lining up for that meeting.

However, we will make it up by uh starting our four-year review process.

Uh the schedule was shared uh with the commissioners.

We will be posting it uh in the next few days online as well, so the members of the public are aware.

Uh and our first kickoff meeting for that effort will be on October 15th.

Um we will be sending calendar invites, so you all have that on your calendars.

Uh, I think at this point we are targeting one meeting a month for the most part.

Um, and I think there may be one or two months where we may not have meetings because of the holidays and the other planning commission regular schedules.

Uh, but that schedule is out, and we look forward to initiating that process.

So, a question.

I'm sorry, that's just a question about uh attendance at those planning meetings.

Are they part of the required attendance for the planning commission?

Um I will have to look into that.

Uh we would really appreciate having the full commission because the four-year review process, like the council is trusting this commission to really, you know, guide that process and that conversation.

So we really hope that uh majority of the commissioners can make most of those meetings and discussions.

I'm planning to be there.

I just wanted to make sure that I know attendance-wise.

Yes.

Thank you.

Do you know?

Um, in that in those um those sessions, uh, are there four additional public hearings as well?

Okay.

Uh we are planning for outreach meetings in addition to the planning commission study sessions.

So I my understanding is we might have six to eight planning commission study sessions as part of the advisory role that you're playing on this um process.

Uh but we are staff will be hosting at least four more community outreach meetings, but they would be separate from these study sessions.

And are we required to attend those as well?

No, you're not the commission is not required to attend those.

Are we considered during those meetings?

Are we considered planning commissioners?

Are we task force members?

Is there a difference?

Um do we put on a different hat?

How would you describe that?

Yeah, I think you are the advisory body as the planning commission.

Um, so it is a brown act body, so you know, we will do the roll call.

We would want to see quorum at these meetings.

These are study sessions, so there is no formal action at these meetings.

I think once the four-year review process ends, at that point, the planning commission, you know, may have to make a recommendation as the planning commission to council on the four-year review process.

But I think for these study sessions, it's intended to be the planning commission meeting to discuss all of these, you know, topics as an advisory body to council.

All right.

One more question, I promise.

Um so if we attend the public meetings, are we attending in any official capacity or are we just citizens?

Um I think if you're attending since you are on the commission and the advisory body, um, I think it is in your role as the commission or the advisory body.

So I would recommend and perhaps Aaron can weigh in on this, like as the city attorney, like what the legal requirements are.

Uh, but really your role in those public outreach meetings would be to listen uh versus directly engage, because I think that role, since you will be rec making recommendations, like we have we just have to be careful of how you conduct yourself at these meetings.

Yeah, just uh in terms of looking at the bylaws, this would probably fall under a special session or special meeting rather than a study session, although we don't anticipate um planning commission having to vote and take any action, so it's more of a review of the of the general plan and then providing recommendations uh moving forward.

Um so there's there's no there's no vote necessarily, but it is it is going to be um conducted similar to a to a study session.

Yeah, I'm just curious about my right as a private citizen to attend a public meeting.

He's talking about the public meetings, not the study sessions.

I'm sorry.

So the question is whether you will be attending, if I'm understanding correctly, if you will be attending.

No, the four extra sessions, the community open community outreach meetings.

Yeah.

If I could weigh in a little bit, um uh uh Commissioner Contral.

So so typically, like as a commissioner, you have that voice at the dais as well, right?

Because you are a commit commissioner.

Um so in the public meetings, it's like any project, right?

Like when there is a project, uh, if you are going to be present as a uh member of the public, then you have to recuse yourself from being on the commission and being on the dais.

So I think that would be up to you if you want to engage as a member of the public or if you are, you know, want to engage as a planning commissioner.

But once you decide which role you, you know, want to assign to yourself, then I think you would have to recuse yourself from the other role.

So I think that there is opportunity for you to engage through through this process, but you do that as the commissioner, since the council has trusted this commission to play that role.

Thanks for the clarification.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Okay, I I have a question.

So if you know it'll be kind of interesting to attend those four sessions just to see what the community has to say and kind of get it a bigger um feedback opportunity.

So if we were to attend those four, how should we play it out?

Is it that we don't engage with the public or kind of step back or what's the right method?

I think the ideal you know scenario would be that you're there to listen and observe.

And if there are further questions about that, I would encourage you to reach out to City Attorney's Office as well, specifically if there's certain topics that you'd like to discuss.

Just one more thing.

I'm sorry.

So I guess we're kind of the since there's no public body doing this, we're we're acting as a public body.

Um, if our constituents, the community wants to speak to us directly to carry forward with what they're thinking, is that appropriate or not?

I'm a little confused whether or not we have to recuse ourselves because we listen to the public or I yeah.

Well, I I will say that our first outreach meeting will not be before your first session.

So these are great questions.

Uh, let me look into this a little bit more, Commissioner Contrell, and then at our next meeting, we'll be able to provide uh guidance on how to engage with the community, and then also if you would like to attend the meetings, you know, what would be some of the guidelines around that?

So I think at the next at the first sort of kickoff of the four-year review study session, we can provide some more some further details.

So I'll just say this.

I think the public has a perception that we are available to provide input through us to the process, uh, and it would be it would be difficult for for me to to not be able to serve the community that way, given the makeup of this body.

Um so we we really need to honestly reflect on that because if they don't have a conduit to provide input, other than you know, the four public meetings where no decisions are really made, I think we might be defeating the purpose.

If I may add, there they do I mean I appreciate that and respect that that the public may want to directly reach out to you, but the planning commission study sessions do provide that additional conduit that they can send written comments to staff, they can send written comments to the commission as the advisory body, they can uh speak at these study sessions, um, and then we also have the four outreach meetings.

Uh so there are various conduits that would be available to the public as they want to engage through this process.

Um, and you know, I I think the uh the role that the commissioners are playing.

I completely understand your dilemma, Commissioner Contrell, and I think we'll have to discuss with the city attorney's office.

Like, you know, if they directly engage with you, how do you communicate to everybody at the dais or everybody in that study session?

What those conversations were uh and I don't know.

Yeah, Commissioner, if I may uh we're not requesting that members of the planning commission advocate their roles as public officials or the public's access to those individuals uh that serve on the on this planning commission.

So, you know, it would uh as Manier said earlier, would be like any other project if you have ex parte communications with any members of the public that have kind of shaped um your your view on this, then you would you would disclose that if it's enough to create a bias, then uh you know you may be asked to recuse yourself, but you are not you're not barred from having conversations with your constituents through this process.

You are still a member of the planning commission.

Um I don't know if that provides some greater clarity a little bit.

And we and we can we can we can discuss further if there are additional questions as we get closer.

I think some of the community agreed to this process thinking that um they would have access to their commissioners to at least talk through their interest.

Um I just don't want to, I think they might be concerned that it may by having a conversation may push their commissioner out of the position they were in.

That's that's all.

I I think you know, if they were talking to the the other committee members, I don't think there was that restriction.

When they had the 42-member committee.

So I I think we need to to be clear about that because we can provide greater clarity.

Okay.

Commissioner Barroso.

Thank you.

Uh good evening, everyone.

So quick quick question.

Can you give us a history walk on how the model looked like before?

Uh I do understand it was a lot bigger.

Did they also play more of a of a listen and learn type of role?

I think neither Aaron or I were here at that time.

Uh Commissioner Barroso.

Uh we can certainly find out at like before the next uh study session.

Um my understanding is that you know there were a 40 plus member uh task force uh that did these study sessions, which was like the open forum where you invited the public to speak, and I think that is the intent with this planning commission as well.

Like we would not be meeting in this in the chambers for these study sessions, we would be in the wing rooms, which allows us to interact more freely to give public a chance to to um you know address the commission, um, and and then we will have those four outreach meetings.

Uh I will have to, I'm not sure how they individually may have engaged with members of the public.

I know that you know this was a large large body.

Um so again, as Aaron pointed out, like it doesn't preclude you from having conversations, it's just about, you know, how you share those conversations with the full commission because you're all weighing in on you know providing guidance through this process uh on the four-year review.

Perfect, thank you.

And my follow-up question is after the four uh study sessions, is there something that we eventually as either a task force or a commission weigh in on, like vote on the final four year to go to council?

How does it how does the after the four sessions look like?

Yes, so um I my understanding is that once the um the outreach is completed and the four-year review process is done, at that point staff will be going and working on all of the amendments, and those will come to the commission for making a recommendation to council.

Uh we are still trying to finalize some details about you know, at the end of the four-year review process, do we also have a recommendation meeting at that point?

Understanding that some of the commissioners will be turning out at the end of June, but we haven't finalized that process yet.

Okay.

Um, and just something sort of related to the first one, the previous body were did it also go in the way of they listened, they learned there were more of an audience, maybe some discussion, but eventually whatever they said it went to the commission.

Um, or was it um something that they themselves voted on at their level, then it went to the commission, and then for a third step to council.

Um, it's just I'm trying to figure out what the new model if we're listening, we're engaging um to a certain extent, and then it comes to us, but since we were the task force, now it comes to us, and now we switch ads from task force listeners to now we're weighing in as commissioners.

So something that we ourselves worked on, and I think that's maybe the efficiency that is intended.

Um, yeah, if you can just research that part too.

Thank you.

Yes, I'm again I'm not very familiar with what happened in the past, and I think the commissioners who may have been involved in the process in the past are are not here on the dies today.

Um but that is the intent that as the advisory body you get an opportunity to hear from the from staff, from the community members, from each other, and weigh in on the various aspects to that that are that would be before you as part of this four-year review process.

And at the end of that, I think we would condense and collect all of the information and you know, ask Plan Commission is this your recommendation on how to move forward, um, and then also perhaps take that to council.

So the the intent is that since you will be at along that every step of the way and understanding where the community's coming from, that you would be ready, sort of pro to provide that direction and guidance on how to move forward.

Thank you.

I um watched all 10 meetings around the time that I applied for the planning commission of the previous task force.

If I recall correctly, they would do study sessions.

Then folks on the uh task force would make suggestions about what they would like to see amended in the general plan or things that they would like staff or city council to research, such as opportunity housing was a big one proposed by Juan Estrada at the last task force.

And so they did have votes during those sessions.

Um but I can't recall whether or not their recommendations went to planning and then council or what happened there, but I mean that would obviously be great to know and to get some clarity around uh Commissioner Barroso's uh questions.

Thank you, Commissioner Barroso.

All right, we will open the floor to any comments for the public record.

All right, if not, then we will adjourn at 7 21.