[0:00] All right, folks. Thanks for joining us. Uh 6:00, go ahead and call this meeting

[0:03] to order. Can we get a roll call?

[0:09] » Commissioner Global >> here.

[0:11] » Commissioner Jamu absent. Commissioner Morales

[0:15] » present. >> Commissioner Perez

[0:17] » here. >> Chairperson Cond

[0:19] » here. Uh can you join me in the pledge of allegiance?

[0:44] All right. Citizens communication. While the series planning commission uh

[0:49] welcomes and encourages participation in planning commission meetings, adopted

[0:52] rules allow no more than 5 minutes for expression of non-aggenda items. Matters

[0:57] under the jurisdiction of the planning commission and not on the posted agenda

[1:01] may be addressed but by by the general public. However, California law

[1:05] prohibits the planning commission from taking action on any matter which is not

[1:09] on the posted agenda unless it is determined to be an emergency by the

[1:12] planning commission. Citizens are entitled to address the planning

[1:16] commission on any agenda item subject to the fiveminute provision. Is there

[1:21] anyone tonight that would like to make public comment on an item not on the

[1:25] agenda? Seeing none, anybody on Zoom?

[1:31] » No hands raised on Zoom. Okay, go ahead and close citizens communication. Moving

[1:36] on. Conflict of interest. Is there anyone on the planning commission that

[1:40] would like to declare a conflict of interest? Seeing none. Moving on to the

[1:45] consent calendar. All matters listed on the consent calendar considered routine

[1:49] in nature and will be enacted upon by a single motion unless it is otherwise

[1:54] requested by a commissioner or the public for special consideration.

[1:58] Otherwise, the recommendation of staff will be to accept and act upon by roll

[2:03] call vote. Is there anyone on the commission that would like to pull an

[2:06] item uh for further discussion? >> Um staff would uh like to request that

[2:11] we move item Excuse me. So, item six.

[2:18] Item six um from public hearing to um unfinished business.

[2:25] We need a a motion in a second. Does that operate the same or what's the

[2:32] reasoning for that?

[2:37] » Tom, do you want to >> Sure. It it'll operate the same. There's

[2:40] no need for a public hearing on that. Uh it looks like it was just misplaced on

[2:44] the agenda. >> Okay. And action can still be taken on

[2:49] that item. Correct. >> That's correct.

[2:52] » Okay. Um, I'll go ahead and motion to move item six to You said unfinished

[2:57] business to unfinished business. >> I'll second.

[3:03] » I got a first and a second. Got a roll call.

[3:09] » Commissioner Global. >> I,

[3:11] » Commissioner Jamu. >> Commissioner Morales.

[3:15] » Hi, >> Commissioner Perez.

[3:18] Chairperson Cond. >> Hi. Okay. Anybody from the public that

[3:22] would like an item from consent pulled?

[3:27] Seeing none, I'll bring it back to commission and I'll make a motion on

[3:31] items 1 through 4

[3:37] » with the um the green sheet for the minutes.

[3:40] » Yeah, with the corrected green sheet on the minutes.

[3:45] » I'll second that. Okay, we got a first and a second. We got a roll call.

[3:54] Commissioner Global. >> Hi.

[3:56] » Commissioner Morales. >> Hi.

[3:58] » Commissioner Perez. Chairperson Cond.

[4:02] » Hi. >> All right. Um, moving on to public

[4:06] hearing item number five. Turn it over to staff. I believe Miss George.

[4:36] All right. Good evening, chair and commissioners. Tonight's item is a

[4:40] request for approval of a second 10-year extension for conditional use permit

[4:46] number 0635, which would allow the continued operation of an existing

[4:52] wireless communications facility, which is a cell tower located at 1331 Angie

[4:58] Avenue. This request does not involve any expansion, modifications, or

[5:02] operational changes to the existing facility and is solely intended to allow

[5:07] the facility to continue operating for an additional 10-year term.

[5:12] So, the reason that it's coming back for commission action to renew the lease or

[5:16] the the term of its operation is because there was a condition in the original

[5:22] use permit that it would be good for 10 years and um subject to renewal every 10

[5:28] years.

[5:30] Next slide. Thank you. So, as mentioned, the applicant is requesting an approval

[5:35] of a 10-year extension of the conditional use permit.

[5:39] The request is limited to extending the expiration date of the permit and does

[5:44] not include any modifications to the approved tower, equipment, site layout,

[5:48] or operations. So, if approved, the permit would remain effective through

[5:52] September 19th, 2036. The current expiration is September 19th, so of

[5:58] 2026. So the extension would go start on September 19th and run through 2036.

[6:06] Next slide. Existing project site. The project site

[6:11] is located at 1331 Angie Avenue. It's kind of shown on your screen there and

[6:16] also within your staff report. It is within the Mitchell Road corridor area

[6:21] of the city. The site consists of approximately 1 acre and is already

[6:25] developed with the wireless communications facility and all of the

[6:28] associated equipment. The surrounding area is predominantly industrial and the

[6:33] facility has operated at this location for nearly 20 years.

[6:40] So, a little bit of history. Conditional use permit number 0635 was originally

[6:46] approved by the planning commissioner in September of 2006.

[6:51] The approval authorized construction and operation of an 82 foot 4-inch monopole

[6:56] wireless communications facility. And then in 2016, the planning commission

[7:01] approved a 10-year extension of the permit, extending its expiration date

[7:05] through September 19th, 2026. The current request represents the

[7:10] second extension for the facility.

[7:16] So for land use and zoning, the property carries a light industrial general plan

[7:21] designation. When the original permit was approved in 2006, the planning

[7:25] commission determined the facility was consistent with the general plan and

[7:29] compatible with surrounding land uses. Because no changes are proposed to the

[7:33] facility or its operation, staff finds that the project remains consistent with

[7:38] the city's general plan. Next slide.

[7:45] The project site is located within the industrial park zoning district and is

[7:50] governed by the Mitchell Road corridor specific plan. The planning commission

[7:54] previously determined that the facility was compatible with the purposes of the

[7:58] district when approving the permit in 2006 and reaffirmed those findings

[8:03] during the 2016 extension. Again, because no modifications are proposed,

[8:07] staff finds that the facility does remain consistent with the zoning

[8:10] designation and the specific plan.

[8:18] The facility remains operational and is in compliance with its existing

[8:22] approval. Staff is not aware of any code enforcement actions, operational

[8:26] concerns, or compliance issues associated with the facility. The

[8:30] applicant is requesting only the ability to continue operating the existing

[8:34] approved use for an additional 10 years.

[8:42] Staff did evaluate the request in light of existing conditions on the site and

[8:46] the surrounding area. Again, since the facility has operated for approximately

[8:50] 20 years without issue and no changes are proposed to the approved project,

[8:54] staff finds that the site remains adequate to support the use and that

[8:58] continued operation of the facility will not adversely affect surrounding

[9:01] properties or public health, safety or welfare.

[9:09] For the environmental review, staff evaluated the request pursuant to SQUA

[9:14] and determined that the project does remain categorically exempt under SQA

[9:17] guidelines section 15301 existing facilities. The request authorizes only

[9:23] continued operation and does not involve any kind of expansion, modification, or

[9:27] intensification of the approved use.

[9:35] Staff recommends that the planning commission find the project

[9:37] categorically exempt pursuant to SQA guidelines and adopt a resolution

[9:42] approving a second 10-year extension of the conditional use permit 0635

[9:48] which again would ex extend the current operation to September 19th 2036.

[9:54] There's the carryover condition that at that time it would come back to

[9:57] commission if it were to be re-extended again. And that concludes staff's

[10:02] presentation. I'm available for any questions and the project applicant is

[10:06] also on the line for any questions. >> All right. Thanks, Mr. George. Uh the

[10:11] public hearing is now open. Uh does the applicant have anything to say on this

[10:16] uh item? >> Um this is Jacob Hamilton. I'm

[10:20] representing the applicant SBA. I don't have anything to add. That sounds um

[10:26] exactly like what the project is. And I'll be here for questions if you need

[10:29] it. Okay, thank you. Um, go ahead and open

[10:33] this up for public comment. Anybody uh here tonight that would like to make

[10:37] public comment on this item.

[10:41] Seeing none, uh, anybody on Zoom or emails

[10:46] » and no emails for this item and no hands raised.

[10:50] » Okay, go ahead and close uh the public hearing portion and bring it back to the

[10:55] commission for further discussion. Any questions of staff or the applicant?

[11:03] I guess my only question the 10-year um extension is that just because that's

[11:08] how it kind of started. Is that the reasoning?

[11:11] » Yeah, it was just built into the original conditions of approval.

[11:14] » Okay. All right. Well, I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve.

[11:19] » Go ahead and second. Got a first and a second. Can we get a roll call?

[11:26] » Commissioner Global. Hi, >> Commissioner Morales.

[11:30] » Hi, >> Commissioner Perez.

[11:33] » Hi, >> Chairperson Cond.

[11:35] » I >> thank you.

[11:37] » All right, moving on to unfinished business will be item number six.

[11:45] » I'll be presenting this item tonight. Is the audio okay?

[11:48] » Yep, we hear you. Good. Sounds good. So, I wanted to acknowledge that there has

[11:54] been some irregularity in the procedure here for this recommendation. So, that's

[11:59] mainly what I'll be reporting on tonight. Um, during the last city

[12:03] council meeting, this item was actually brought to city council for discussion

[12:07] as a moratorum recognizing that this is something the planning commission had

[12:11] been considering. uh the city council had consensus not to continue pursuing

[12:17] the item and they declined to provide authorization for further staff time

[12:20] related to this item. So that left staff um with this current uh draft of the

[12:28] staff report uh which was drafted prior to that meeting. Um so we don't have

[12:33] much in the way of substantative updates for you on this uh or you know any

[12:38] further metrics but we did want to give you guys an opportunity opportunity to

[12:43] discuss it and uh it was agendaized as an action. So you may make the

[12:48] recommendation however that's not going to come back to um the city council as

[12:55] an agenda item. So that's sort of the background here. I'm happy to talk about

[12:59] the moratorum and the state law surrounding that if you have questions

[13:02] on it, but I'll let you guys go ahead and direct the discussion.

[13:08] Okay. Uh go ahead and start I guess with the commission first before we take it

[13:12] out to the public. Um any commissioners have any initial

[13:17] thoughts?

[13:20] Yeah, I have a thought on this that we need to pay attention more to what

[13:26] the citizens are asking for and take that into account as well as

[13:32] any findings that we make. And I think it's important uh

[13:38] to listen to the citizens of this city on what they want. And by the looks of

[13:44] some of these emails that we got today, uh, majority of them do not want to see

[13:51] any more gas stations and, um, car washes.

[13:57] Thanks, Commissioner. Um, I'll go ahead and start. I just kind of for the record

[14:01] and for the public of how we got to where we are today. Um, I put together

[14:07] just a brief timeline. So on May 4th of 26, a referral was made by vice chair

[14:14] Jimu uh for a discussion on a moratorium for car washes that came back to us on

[14:20] May 18th, 2026. The planning commission gave consensus for the moratorum to move

[14:26] forward as an agenda item. I added fuel stations to that recommendation. Um then

[14:33] on June 15th, the item was brought back not as an agenda item but a discussion.

[14:39] Um and staff stated they needed more feedback from all the commissioners

[14:44] which was given. And then on July 13th, 2026,

[14:49] this item was taken to the city council for discussion on whether to spend staff

[14:53] time to assemble a staff report and further research. The council gave

[14:58] consensus 3 to2 not to give staff more time on this item. So, uh I guess my

[15:04] initial question for you, Mr. City attorney, um why was this item taken to

[15:09] city council if the planning commission had not officially voted on an agenda

[15:14] item? >> I think that's a great question and I I

[15:18] think it really comes down to sort of uh the authorization for staff resources,

[15:24] right? Um, I think you know the city uh manager saw that staff was going to be

[15:31] spending quite a bit of time on this and wanted to make sure that it's something

[15:34] that was uh productive for the for the city and uh wanted to get um direction

[15:40] from the city council on whether or not they wanted to entertain this as a

[15:44] possibility and they decided that they didn't and they didn't want to spend any

[15:48] more money on it. So I think that's what it really comes down to.

[15:52] » Okay. So then my next question is why was a staff report completed?

[15:58] » It was uh this was staff report had been drafted prior to that. Um and so I just

[16:04] added on the uh the procedural history there and and you know in an effort to

[16:08] respect the commissioners and the request for an agenda item. I I thought

[16:13] it was necessary to bring this back to you as a discussion and as an

[16:17] opportunity. Um, you know, I I it wasn't necessarily required, but just as an as

[16:24] an effort to to discuss it once one last time before, um, we were off the record

[16:29] on it. >> Yeah. Okay, that No, that makes sense.

[16:32] And I appreciate it being brought back. And that takes me into my next point of

[16:35] um we do have a municipal code and a process for the planning commission to

[16:41] that we have the authority to make recommendations

[16:44] to the city council pursuant to section 2.05.040F

[16:51] of the municipal code. Is that correct? >> That's correct. And and it doesn't

[16:55] provide for much in the way of procedure for that but it does provide you with

[16:59] the off authority. So, um, in an effort to to respect that authority and to, uh,

[17:05] to let you guys, uh, discuss it and if you wanted to act on it, that that's how

[17:10] we got here. >> Okay. But so, we take action tonight.

[17:14] It's not going anywhere is what you're saying. It'll be reported to the city

[17:17] council, but there's, you know, a a staff report on this item, a moratorum,

[17:23] is is fairly extensive and requires pretty robust legal findings because

[17:28] you're going to be changing uh permitted land uses. Uh so you really want to have

[17:35] uh some legal research and legal time into uh the exact agenda documents. So,

[17:42] that was going to be a larger um a larger project for staff.

[17:48] » Okay. So, if there's action on this item, what does it look like going back

[17:52] to the city council then? >> It it'll be a likely a report from the

[17:56] city attorney uh saying that you guys made the recommendation, but in light of

[18:01] uh council's previous consensus, we didn't agendaize the item.

[18:09] Well, it seems like um there there was some sort of mistake of

[18:15] why this was taken to the city council before we had the opportunity to

[18:18] actually vote on the item. It it makes zero sense to me why that was done. Um

[18:25] if it was done out of spite to disrupt this whole process. Um but it it's very

[18:31] unfortunate that that happened. Um so I just want to say that on the record. Um,

[18:37] and uh, I guess moving to a a question. I'm sure something else will come up,

[18:41] Tom, but moving on to uh, I know one member of the council relied on, you

[18:47] know, not moving forward with this discussion um, in fear that it would

[18:52] impact Maverick. Will a temporary moratorum impact that approved

[18:57] development? >> Uh, that's an ongoing litigation. I

[19:02] can't discuss that on the record. I think Mr. Gary was about to answer but

[19:07] he may not now. >> So on the Mono Williams any previous

[19:14] approved projects are not touched by the moratorum. So

[19:21] this would mtorium is only for new projects that come into the city.

[19:27] » Thank you. So the answer is no. It would not impact Maverick. Um okay. Any other

[19:33] questions from commission before I take it out to the public?

[19:39] Okay, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing now. Is there anybody in the

[19:41] audience that would like to speak on this item?

[19:56] Hold on.

[20:03] Okay. I don't want to see it go back to the city council. They've already stated

[20:09] their opinion whether it matters or not. It's going to cost more money to have it

[20:14] investigated. And this is what I refer to as the city nickel and diamond us to

[20:20] death. We cannot afford these stupid little things. This should have never

[20:25] went to the city council first. It did. It's done. They have stated their

[20:30] opinion. You're not going to change the m the mayor's mind. He's a little

[20:34] hypocrite to start with. I just the answer is no. No gas station

[20:41] is going to try to come here that doesn't think they're going to make

[20:45] money. They're going to do their due diligence to see whether we want them or

[20:49] not. And that's at the time when you say yes or no. But to take this back to the

[20:54] city council to spend any more money on it is foolish. That's my opinion. Thank

[20:59] you. >> Anybody else for public?

[21:02] » Can you please um state your name for the record?

[21:08] » I'm sure as hell you all know by now, but it's Shirley Rogers, Series,

[21:12] California. >> We know he's Shirley. All right. Anybody

[21:17] else for public comment?

[21:22] » I would just like to say that I agree with what she said. If we're going to

[21:26] bring any more businesses into into series, it should be sit down dinner

[21:30] places and no more chicken places, no more gas stations. But what Shirley said

[21:34] is correct. And my name is Barbara Loots.

[21:39] Thank you, Barbara. Anybody else for public comment?

[21:48] » My name is uh Jorgeero. Um, my question to to to whoever made that

[21:56] mistake, why continue with something that was a mistake? Two mistakes, don't

[22:02] make it right. Continue to make the same mistake over and over. And it's not just

[22:07] with this situation. It's with different situations that have happened in the

[22:12] city that a mistake is done and it continues to happen over and over again.

[22:17] Um, the Maverick gas station, a lot of

[22:22] people understand that it's a different type of gas station is going to make

[22:29] those diesel trucks stop in series instead of driving by and just going

[22:34] either to Ripen or to Livingston depending what direction they're

[22:38] traveling. But any other gas stations in town, we have a nice store right there

[22:43] on Whitmore and Mitchell that it's been empty than Bacon because

[22:53] another gas station went across the street more modern and you call it

[22:59] whatever you want to call it, but run out of out of business the other gas

[23:03] stations. Um, so what's going to happen in a few years? We're gonna have other

[23:09] gas stations around town that are going to be out of business looking bad. The

[23:15] same thing with the car wash. There is a car wash on every main street in town.

[23:23] There's one on Whitmore, a new one on Whitmore. There's another one on

[23:28] Whitmore at Mitchell, the Quick Quack Hatch Road. So, we have access to car

[23:34] washes all around town. Why more car washes instead of focusing on trying to

[23:40] bring other businesses that are going to attract people just like

[23:47] that diesel truck stop is going to attract people to stop in

[23:52] series. focus on bringing businesses that are going to attract people from

[23:56] out of town instead of just filling out the empty lots with gas stations that

[24:02] again we don't have to drive more than a mile to find a gas station. If it was a

[24:08] electric vehicle charging a station, 100% in favor of that because that's the

[24:15] direction that the u the world is going. But just having gas stations just to

[24:22] have them, it's just uh it makes no sense. It makes no sense to to continue

[24:29] with that those projects that are just going to fill out the land and later on

[24:36] just going to be vacant. Thank you. Anybody else for uh public comment?

[24:47] » Okay. Uh moving on to Zoom. Anybody on Zoom?

[24:54] No hands raised on Zoom, but we did receive a few emails I can read into

[24:59] record. >> Okay,

[25:14] this is for Nick Maynard, series resident. Please read this comment into

[25:19] the public record for agenda item six. Chair cond and members of the planning

[25:24] commission. I am writing in support of the planning commission referring a

[25:28] temporary moratorum on new car wash and fueling station entitlements to the city

[25:34] council. Series currently has 17 fuel stations with three more already

[25:40] approved. If the approved car wash projects are completed, our city will

[25:46] have seven full-ervice car washes and three self-service car washes serving

[25:52] approximately 49,000 residents. Those numbers should be enough to justify

[25:58] taking a temporary pause and evaluating whether continuing to approve more of

[26:03] the same uses is in the best long-term interest of series. A moratorum

[26:09] would not close any existing business or permanently prohibit future development.

[26:14] It would simply give the city time to study market saturation, traffic

[26:19] impacts, water and infrastructure demands, environmental concerns,

[26:24] employment opportunities, and the opportunity cost of using limited

[26:28] commercial property for additional gas stations and car washes. Series needs

[26:34] economic diversity. We should be working to attract

[26:37] businesses that create quality jobs, generate meaningful economic activity,

[26:43] provide services residents are currently leaving town to obtain and strengthen

[26:49] the city's long-term tax base. Approving another gas station or car wash may be

[26:55] the easiest development decision, but that does not necessarily make it the

[26:59] best decision for the community. I disagree with staff's recommendation

[27:04] that the planning commission take no action simply because the city council

[27:09] did not previously reach a consensus. The planning commission has the

[27:15] authority and responsibility to make recommendations concerning development

[27:19] within the city. The council should receive a formal recommendation and be

[27:24] required to consider the issue publicly. I ask the planning commission to

[27:29] recommend that the city council adopt a temporary moratorum while the city

[27:34] evaluates its zoning and development policies. At minimum, if the legal

[27:39] findings for an urgency moratorum cannot be established, the commission should

[27:45] recommend stronger entitlement requirements or zoning standards for

[27:49] future car washes and fueling stations. series residents deserve a thoughtful

[27:54] economic development strategy, not an endless repetition of the same limited

[27:59] uses. Thank you.

[28:15] » Good morning, Series planning committee. I fill series does not need any more gas

[28:20] stations or car washes. We have too many already. Please, let's commit to

[28:26] focusing on bringing quality businesses here. Be more selective and think

[28:31] longevity. This is super important so we do not end up with new businesses that

[28:36] don't last. Thank you for your time and consideration. Jyn Turnbo, city of Siri

[28:42] resident since 1973.

[28:56] Chair condant and members of the planning commission, I am writing in

[28:59] support of the planning commission's efforts to evaluate whether Siri should

[29:03] adopt a excuse me adopt a temporary moratorum

[29:08] on new car wash and fueling station entitlements while the city studies

[29:13] potential updates to its land use regulations.

[29:17] I encourage the commission to continue exercising its authority to make

[29:22] recommendations to the city council despite the council's initial lack of

[29:26] consensus on July 14th. The planning commission serves as the city's advisory

[29:32] planning body and its responsibility is to evaluate long-term land use policy

[29:38] based on planning principles and evidence even when those recommendations

[29:43] may not initially align with the council's position. The staff report

[29:47] demonstrates that series already has a significantly higher concentration

[29:53] of these uses than population-based averages. The report identifies 10 total

[29:59] car washes, seven fullervice car washes, and three

[30:04] self-service car washes if all approved projects are constructed, serving a

[30:09] population of approximately 49,000 residents.

[30:13] It further notes that the city currently averages approximately one car wash for

[30:19] every 4,900 residents, while national estimates are approximately two

[30:25] commercial car washes per 10,000 residents. Likewise, series currently

[30:30] contains 17 fuel stations with three more approved for a total of 20 possible

[30:36] fueling stations, resulting in approximately one fueling station for

[30:41] every 2900 residents. The report concludes that these

[30:46] concentrations exceed statewide population-based averages while

[30:51] acknowledging that Highway 99 and regional traffic may justify somewhat

[30:55] higher demand. At the same time, the report also recognizes that the existing

[31:02] concentration may indicate the city is approaching market saturation and that

[31:08] current data alone cannot determine whether continued expansion reflects

[31:12] sustainable demand or an over supply. These statistics should not be dismissed

[31:19] simply because series experiences commuter and pass through traffic. The

[31:23] presence of highway 99 is not by itself evidence that unlimited expansion

[31:29] remains consistent with sound planning policy. The purpose of a temporary

[31:34] moratorum is not to permanently prohibit these businesses, but rather to allow

[31:39] the city sufficient time to determine whether additional development supports

[31:44] the general plan, economic development goals,

[31:48] infrastructure capacity, and the long-term character of the city's

[31:52] commercial corridors. As noted by the city attorney,

[31:58] California law already provides the city council with the legal authority to

[32:03] adopt such a temporary pause. The planning commission's role is not to

[32:07] adopt the ordinance itself, but to recommend action and assist in

[32:11] developing the legislative record and supporting findings for the council's

[32:16] consideration. I respectfully encourage the commission

[32:19] to continue moving this discussion forward by adopting a formal

[32:23] recommendation to the city council supported by specific planning findings.

[32:28] Those findings could include concerns regarding traffic circulation,

[32:33] infrastructure demand, environmental impacts associated with water

[32:37] consumption, and underground fuel storage, preservation of commercially

[32:43] valuable intersections, and the city's long-term economic development

[32:47] objectives. These are all recognized planning considerations that California

[32:51] cities routinely evaluate when regulating land uses. If the city

[32:56] council remains unwilling to pursue a temporary moratorum, I encourage the

[33:01] commission to recommend alternative regulatory measures that would

[33:05] accomplish many of the same planning objectives. These include initiating

[33:09] amendments to title 18 of the m municipal code to require conditional

[33:14] use permits for future fueling stations and express car washes. Establishing

[33:20] minimum spacing requirements between similar uses. Creating corridor specific

[33:25] development standards along Highway 99, Hatch Road, and Mitchell Road.

[33:31] Adopting overlay districts for high-v value commercial intersections.

[33:36] implementing enhanced design and landscape standards, requiring

[33:40] additional findings related to economic development and land use compatibility,

[33:45] or developing performance standards that better integrate these uses into the

[33:49] city's long-term planning goals. The planning commission has already

[33:53] recognized.

[34:08] Dear members of the series planning commission, I am writing as a concerned

[34:14] resident to respectfully ask the planning commission to consider the

[34:18] long-term needs of our community as new development projects are reviewed and

[34:23] approved. Many residents have noticed the continued growth of car washes and

[34:28] gas stations throughout series. While these businesses certainly serve a

[34:33] purpose, it feels as though our city has become saturated with them. I encourage

[34:39] the commission to consider whether future commercial development could

[34:43] better reflect the needs and interests of the families who call Series home.

[34:48] One of the greatest needs, particularly in District 2, is for more activities

[34:53] and recreational opportunities for children and families.

[34:58] Our community would greatly benefit from attractions such as indoor play center,

[35:04] family entertainment venue, youth creation facilities, sports complexes,

[35:09] educational activity centers, or other businesses that provide safe and

[35:14] engaging places for children and teens. As our city continues to grow, I hope we

[35:19] can prioritize developments that improve quality of life, encourage families to

[35:24] stay and spend time locally, and provide positive spaces for young people.

[35:30] Investing in familyfriendly amenities would help make series a more vibrant

[35:34] and connected community while supporting local economic growth. Thank you for

[35:39] your time, your service to our city, and your consideration of this perspective.

[35:43] I appreciate the work the planning commission does to help shape the future

[35:47] of series and I hope these concerns will be taken into account as future projects

[35:52] are considered. Sincerely, Christina Dilla series president.

[35:58] » Hey Stephanie, for the record, the last comment, what was the the name on that

[36:02] one? I don't know if you said >> Oh, yes. Sorry. Uh Josh Steelely.

[36:06] » Okay.

[36:16] Good evening, Series Planning Commission. My name is Courtney Man and

[36:20] I am a fourth generation series resident raising the fifth generation of my

[36:25] family here. I am extremely disappointed that we are once again

[36:31] discussing the outcome of the council's decision regarding the gas station and

[36:35] car wash moratorum. I strongly oppose adding more gas stations and car washes

[36:41] to our small city. To be candid, I am deeply disappointed in those of you who

[36:46] voted in favor of approving another car wash on Hatch Road. We were appointed,

[36:52] you were appointed to represent the people of Series and to help shape a

[36:56] community where families want to live, work, and invest in their future.

[37:01] Instead, many residents are left with the impression that public opinion

[37:05] carries little weight when it conflicts with predetermined agendas. The message

[37:11] being sent is that what the community wants is secondary to what is most

[37:16] convenient for developers rather than what is best for the people who already

[37:20] call home. My family remains in series because of

[37:25] our deep roots and the support system we have here. We are fortunate to have

[37:29] family members who help care for our children while we work. If that support

[37:34] did not exist, I am not sure we would still choose to live here. I know many

[37:40] other families who are who share similar concerns about the direction of our city

[37:46] is heading. Excuse me. For two years, I served on the series Unified School

[37:51] District Advisory Council, where I saw firsthand that enrollment has been

[37:56] declining. An entire elementary school was built with the expectation that a

[38:02] proposed housing development would fill it with students. That development never

[38:06] materialized. And today, the campus is being used for

[38:09] inschool suspension, overflow from Central Valley High School, and adult

[38:14] education programs. While those programs serve important purposes, the school was

[38:19] not built for those uses and rep it represents a costly example of planning

[38:24] based on projected growth that never occurred. Series needs to stop planning

[38:29] for growth that has not yet happened. We cannot continue making long-term

[38:34] decisions based on assumptions instead of current realities. I believe there

[38:39] are legitimate concerns that deserve careful consideration. Traffic

[38:44] congestion throughout our city, particularly along

[38:48] corridors like Hatch Road, continues to worsen. Every additional gas station and

[38:53] drive-through car wash, generates more traffic, more vehicle trips, longer

[38:58] lines, more turning movements, and greater congestion on roads that are

[39:03] already heavily traveled. These impacts affect the daily lives and

[39:10] safety of the residents who already live here. There are also environmental

[39:14] concerns for a city our size. Series already has a remarkably high number of

[39:20] car washes. These businesses require significant water use, generate waste

[39:26] water, increase vehicle emissions from cars,

[39:31] idling in cues, and contribute additional noise and traffic. Before

[39:35] approving even more of these facilities, the city should ask whether our

[39:39] community is truly underserved or whether we are whether we have already

[39:44] exceeded what our current population reasonably needs.

[39:49] We also have a clear example of how these types of properties

[39:53] can become long-term public safety concerns. The former TripleR gas station

[39:58] now sits abandoned and has become a location associated with home

[40:02] homelessness and other public safety issues. While no one can predict the

[40:07] future of every business, this property demonstrates that vacant fuel stations

[40:12] can become liabilities for surrounding neighborhoods when they are no longer

[40:16] economically viable. Approving additional gas stations without

[40:20] considering long-term demand increases the possibility of creating more vacant

[40:25] commercial properties that ultimately become burdens on the community. These

[40:30] are not hypothetical concerns. They are current conditions affecting the health,

[40:35] safety, and welfare of our student, our residents. Today,

[40:39] I ask that you carefully consider the long-term vision for seriesir. We have

[40:43] an opportunity to build a community that reflects the values and desires of its

[40:48] residents instead of repeating the same development patterns. As someone whose

[40:53] family has called series home for five generations, I want to be proud of the

[40:57] direction our city is taking. Tonight, I ask you to consider not just what can be

[41:03] built, but what should be built. I ask you to weigh the evidence before you,

[41:07] listen to the residents you represent, and make decisions that prioritize the

[41:11] long-term health, safety, and welfare.

[41:30] Please read this comment into the public record. As a citizen of series, I

[41:34] strongly disagree with adding more gas stations and car washes. As a community,

[41:39] we need more housing and more code enforcement. Our city has abandoned

[41:43] buildings and gas stations that are already making our community a very

[41:47] unattractive place to live and visit. As a resident, I don't invite family to

[41:54] area due to the poor looking quality and feel of this city. The city has gone

[41:59] downhill with homeless and abandoned buildings since we

[42:04] purchased our home. If the city wants to keep residents, the council should

[42:08] listen and respect what the citizens need and desire. Respectfully, Melanie

[42:13] Casses.

[42:23] Good evening. My name is Angie Riley. I am writing this email to express my

[42:27] thoughts on building more gas stations and car washes in our small city of

[42:31] Series. As I drove to work this morning between Morgan Road and the freeway

[42:36] entrance, the five gas stations in the short distance only were servicing one

[42:41] patron each. I don't feel that our city needs to add any more to the 20 that

[42:47] currently exists. We are not in shortage of either of these service stations and

[42:52] our city deserves more options than gas and a clean car. As a longtime resident

[42:58] of seriesir, I do not agree that our city should build our build more gas

[43:03] stations or car washes. Thank you for your time, Angie Riley.

[43:11] Celeste. >> Okay. Um I'm going to double check in

[43:15] the public. Anybody else that would like to make public comment? Shirley, I

[43:20] apologize. You already had your five minutes.

[43:22] » I didn't use up my whole five minutes, so bear

[43:25] » with me. >> My problem is again the money.

[43:31] » You know, you have the ability to okay or not okay when something comes up

[43:37] before you. >> Three minutes is good. But to spend any

[43:40] more money to investigate this, to send it to a city council that you already

[43:47] know is going to say no, would be a waste of money. These people that are

[43:54] saying they don't want any more gas stations. When I moved here 51 years

[43:58] ago, there was a bar and a church on every corner. These things solve their

[44:03] self. Thank you.

[44:08] All righty. Uh, yeah. Did you have public comment?

[44:11] » Yeah. Come on up. >> Sorry, it's my first time here. How many

[44:14] minutes do I have? >> You have five minutes.

[44:15] » Five minutes. Okay. I'm not a resident here in series. However, I live nearby

[44:20] and uh I'm actually appalled that you guys have something like this. It's

[44:26] really communist because, you know, private businesses in our country really

[44:31] should be driven by demand as well as capital. When the government comes in

[44:38] and proposes we're going to have a moratorum, a moratorum is not transient.

[44:45] It is not temporary. Once your policy passes, it is permanent. What does that

[44:50] mean? That means if any of existing stations or car washes, you know, um

[44:58] should either go out of business because the owners age out or that, you know,

[45:04] nobody wants to buy it or cannot buy it if your policy passes. You literally

[45:09] tells people you cannot do it. You cannot do it. You cannot do it because

[45:16] you're the government. Let me ask you this. Are you American?

[45:21] for crying out loud. I am so shocked. I was born in Taiwan and I cannot believe

[45:27] how rapidly California is losing to communism. You may not realize it

[45:32] because I come in here, I see you guys. You guys look like normal Americans. I'm

[45:37] sure you don't mean to have this policy so that your uh you know nice city can

[45:43] become communist. But that's how communist is so scary because it first

[45:48] infiltrate us. um disguised as something that is noble. Well, because you know,

[45:55] gas station, it's gonna pollute the air. It's whatever.

[46:00] Those are just excuses. Because if you think about science, why do we have

[46:07] trees? You know, trees cannot exist without carbon dioxide. We humans

[46:13] breathe in oxygen to live. Trees need carbon dioxide to live. That was God's

[46:20] design. So that when we breathe out carbon dioxide, the tree naturally

[46:26] filters the carbon dioxide and give us back oxygen. That's what trees do. So

[46:33] for those so-called scientists, I want to ask them, what are they thinking? If

[46:38] for real, God forbid, that they truly get rid of every single particle of

[46:44] carbon dioxide, you know what's going to happen to us? we will also die because

[46:49] that would also mean that we will no longer have oxygen for crying out loud.

[46:53] Please, you guys are good people. I can tell from your faces. Do not let

[47:00] deception lead you lead us to the path of

[47:06] communism. There is no point of no there is point

[47:10] of no return because I also uh share with you I have a property in the Bay

[47:15] Area Contracasta County they have built so many affordable housing it's coming

[47:22] here in the next 5 years you may not be these nice faces sitting up there that's

[47:28] what I experienced truly I was blessed by God that I have a

[47:32] property here which I bought 20 years ago so that I am like a refugee right

[47:37] Now in these in this you know nice county trying to dodge communism there.

[47:44] Communism is like tsunami. It is coming like this wave that is devouring all of

[47:51] us. Please use science. Use the good founding principles of our founding

[47:58] fathers. You know we all have inalienable rights. What does that mean?

[48:03] Everybody should have their right to exercise their brain to decide how they

[48:08] want to invest their money if they feel that they can make money having gas

[48:14] stations or car washes. Why can't they have the the opportunity or the right to

[48:19] do it? And with all respect, you guys are all nice people. But you sitting

[48:24] there, you are the government. So let me respectfully ask you,

[48:30] what right do you have to take away our right to exercise our freedom to pursue

[48:36] happiness and prosperity and liberty? Thank you.

[48:41] » Thank you for your comments. Anybody else for public comment?

[48:45] Mr. Warren, can we get the uh camera turned on to

[48:52] the public there? Thank you. Uh, good evening council. John Warren,

[48:57] resident, city of Siri. I was considering whether to speak this

[49:02] evening. The matter is very controversial. I know some cities close

[49:06] by or neighboring cities are considering this same situation about the large

[49:13] number of certain types of businesses in our community. But I do think growth has

[49:19] to be monitored. We have a general plan in the city and zoning that kind of

[49:24] dictates where certain businesses, whether it's a a chicken business or a

[49:29] car wash business or a gas station, where they can be located. And maybe

[49:34] it's time series does step back and take a look at their zoning and take a look

[49:40] at uh how the design of the city we want to see move going forward. Um maybe gas

[49:49] stations don't need to be in some of the locations where they're allowed now. Um

[49:55] and u if you take a look I hear the comments about the

[50:01] District 2 businesses and things over there. Um there's quite a few gas

[50:07] stations there and and we border on Crows Landing Road. I don't know when

[50:11] the last time any of you folks went down Crows Landing or Yoseite Boulevard.

[50:16] There's about 9,000 gas stations over in those locations and they're what a mile

[50:22] away from us if we drive down Whitmore or we drive down Hatch Road. There's a

[50:27] lot of other businesses over there. There's certain types but u our sphere

[50:32] of influence reaches out and u and encompasses a lot more than 20 gas

[50:38] stations that we have. Um so it's something to consider. Um I think taking

[50:44] a step back maybe a short moratorum. There's some time frames on moratorum

[50:49] and they should be closely adhered to. So taking a look at that u might be the

[50:55] thing that our city should do. Thank you.

[50:58] » Thank you Mr. Warren. Anybody else for public comment? I see one hand raised on

[51:03] Zoom. >> Yes, we have Brandy Meyer. Y

[51:11] » can you hear me? Okay. >> Yep, we can hear you.

[51:15] » Okay. Um, I don't know what the answer is to this, but I just wanted to put in

[51:19] my two cents. Um, I own several businesses here in Syria. I've been a

[51:23] resident for 30 plus years. I'm not sure moratorum, but I do know

[51:28] when I read through it, it said temporary. It's a temporary moratorium

[51:32] as of now. What I would like to see is more of a variety of businesses coming

[51:37] to series. I would love to see maybe a bakery, an antique shop, another ice

[51:42] cream shop. We need more for our families here in series. And from what I

[51:48] understand, we have over 25 or over 20 plus gas stations.

[51:53] So, I wouldn't want to encourage gas stations

[51:58] or those types of businesses, but I do think we need to I don't know, maybe an

[52:02] ad hoc committee put together to go out and find other businesses or other

[52:06] investors who can bring in a variety of businesses.

[52:11] I would never want to discourage a business to come to seriesiries, but

[52:17] I think the answer at this point is that we need to find a variety of other

[52:22] businesses that can bring in tax dollars.

[52:25] So, that's about all I have to say and uh good luck to you guys because I know

[52:30] this is going to be a tough decision.

[52:34] » All right. Thanks, Brandon. All right. Final call for public comment.

[52:39] Okay. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the public comment portion and

[52:42] bring it back to the commission. Um I guess I Tom, just a few more questions.

[52:48] Um I just I pulled up the city council agenda from um July 13th. Um and it and

[52:57] I was at that meeting uh as well. Um the discussion was about staff time to do

[53:04] further research. Is that correct? And Julian, you can chime in if if you would

[53:08] like.

[53:12] I'll let Julian answer that. I I wasn't at that city council meeting.

[53:15] » Yes, that is correct. It was more for financial reasons,

[53:19] » but specifically for to do further research on this topic. Correct.

[53:25] » And for the record, there were three members who said on the dis should go

[53:31] back to the planning commission for further direction. Is that correct?

[53:38] I would have to check the minutes from that. Um,

[53:42] recla was a three two vote. It

[53:46] » was a 3-2 vote. However, >> yeah, go ahead, Tom. I just reviewed um

[53:52] the uh video before this and it was a 3-2 vote not to um add any additional

[53:58] staff time to the uh to the this item and it was it did not explicitly include

[54:03] any referral back to the planning commission is my understanding.

[54:08] » Okay. Well, I would encourage you to go back and listen to the discussion. Um

[54:12] there were two the two who voted in favor

[54:16] that vote is on the record but council council member for district 2 stated

[54:20] this should go back to the planning commission. That's the first thing she

[54:23] said. So um I guess with that in mind it's now back to us.

[54:31] The again this whole process is just so backwards. But um we make a

[54:37] recommendation tonight and it's not going back to them as an action agenda

[54:42] item. >> I I do not believe that it would be

[54:46] agendaized as a action item. You know, a moratorium like this would require um uh

[54:53] the ordinance itself uh public notice public noticing an extensive staff

[54:58] report. Uh so those would all need to be prepared. uh at the at the maximum it

[55:04] would go back as a discussion item but I think due to uh the consensus provided

[55:10] uh the council declined to entertain that so it would just be reported to the

[55:15] council as a recommendation by the planning commission the council doesn't

[55:19] have any obligation to agendaize such a recommendation although that is

[55:24] typically what does happen >> okay but when this went back without our

[55:28] knowledge it was not an action item to consider this. It was it was to consider

[55:35] staff time. Do you do you understand where I'm trying to differentiate this?

[55:40] » Yes, I do. And so >> those are two different things. If we

[55:44] take this back, it's an actual item as far as this process goes that we have

[55:49] the authority to do this. It goes back for their con official in consideration.

[55:56] rather when this went to the city council uh on July 13th, it was we want

[56:02] your opinion on staff time to do further research. Those are two different

[56:08] different things. >> I I think one is intrinsic to the other

[56:12] in that you need staff time in order to prepare something like that for the

[56:16] council. Um so I I would say that that that's how they are connected. Uh I

[56:21] don't know as though the city city staff can prepare any further on this given

[56:26] the direction of the city council. >> Okay. Um,

[56:33] has a process like this ever happened before to where the planning commission

[56:39] um goes about the process pursuant to the municipal code

[56:45] gives consensus waiting for it to be agendaized and an item without any um uh

[56:53] notice just goes to the city council without

[56:58] you know just going outside of the process. that the municipal code has set

[57:01] up. Has that ever happened to your knowledge before?

[57:04] » Um to my knowledge, uh no, that has never happened. Uh the city manager has

[57:11] the authority to bring any item to the city council. And so I I think that's

[57:15] where he used his authority to say, "Look at we need some direction on on if

[57:20] you want us to move forward with this despite the lack of planning

[57:24] commission's recommendation." And so and that's how we got to uh the current

[57:29] procedural history. I you know what I acknowledge it's irregular and um it's

[57:34] difficult but uh that's the current situation and the planning commission

[57:41] authority is fairly narrow here.

[57:46] » Okay. Well, I I am requesting the city manager be at our next meeting to

[57:51] explain why this process was done backwards and why the item was taken to

[57:55] the city council um and basically sabotage basically this whole process.

[58:01] So, it's very >> Yep. I will add that I believe that

[58:05] there might have been an additional referral item from a city council member

[58:10] that was sort of in the sphere of this and so it might have been in um an

[58:15] effort to address both of these items together. I think they were doing sort

[58:19] of a referral oriented meeting previously. not 100%

[58:24] sure on that, but I do know that um a council member had referenced your your

[58:29] discussion and had wanted to um consider something. I I don't know if it was

[58:34] exactly the same, but consider something that was associated with it. And those

[58:38] two things combined might have prompted uh the uh the procedure.

[58:43] » Okay. Why I would like the city manager to give some sort of report perhaps at

[58:48] our next meeting to explain this because it's it's disheartening to it

[58:52] discourages the planning commission for making recommendations pursuant to the

[58:57] municipal code that we have power to do so. So if we tonight in our referral

[59:03] section or new business ma matters initiated by the planning commission if

[59:07] somebody makes a recommendation how do we not know it's going to turn into a

[59:11] debacle like this? It's um again it's just disheartening to see. Um okay.

[59:17] Yeah, go ahead. >> I mean I at the end of the day the

[59:20] recommendation was put in front of the city council and and I I get that you

[59:23] guys didn't flush it out completely. >> With all due respect, it was not the

[59:27] recommendation. It was to staff time. That's what the discussion was about. I

[59:32] was at the meeting. It was not the official

[59:35] temporary moratorum. That discussion may have turned to that and that's the

[59:40] council's will. However, the the discussion was about staff time. So, it

[59:45] it has turned this process into just just a circus.

[59:49] » Well, I I think you do need to understand at some point that the the

[59:52] planning commission doesn't have the authority to uh you know uh have

[59:57] specific staff time allocated to their requests within reason of course but

[1:00:03] » I understand that it's ultimately again I want to follow the process we it

[1:00:09] starts here. We make the recommendation. We give consensus. It's agendaized. We

[1:00:13] vote on it and then it's taken to the city council.

[1:00:18] We gave consensus and it was taken to the city council without an agenda item

[1:00:22] to where we had a public hearing where people could show up and give their

[1:00:26] thoughts. The public, you know, was honestly the the loser in this because

[1:00:30] they didn't get to participate. And now they're here tonight giving their

[1:00:34] opinion. We had eight email, seven emails, members of the public, and we're

[1:00:39] going to take action, but it's going nowhere. It It's embarrassing.

[1:00:44] So, I know you got no response. It's okay. It's just my comments. Um, okay. I

[1:00:49] have more uh discussion on this, so I want to refer to the item

[1:00:55] of the staff report. Um, so the map identifies 17 fuel fueling stations

[1:01:01] within the city of series and the map identifies three fueling stations under

[1:01:06] development or or in progress. Um,

[1:01:11] however, the map does not include fueling stations on Joyce Avenue, Circle

[1:01:17] K76. It does not include George's Gas 76 on

[1:01:24] Central Avenue. It does not include SC Fuels on 237 East Whitmore A and it does

[1:01:31] not include the abandoned TripleR on Whitmore and Mitchell.

[1:01:36] Um the map also does not include a rumored gas station in front of Walmart.

[1:01:41] Um

[1:01:44] so with that um in mind, we have a flawed staff report based on the

[1:01:49] numbers. Um, but I have a couple different scenarios that I'm just going

[1:01:55] to submit to the the record and then the members here and people on Zoom. So,

[1:01:59] going off of the data presented in the staff report, 17 fueling stations and

[1:02:04] three in development, we have 4.08 fueling station per 10,000 resident.

[1:02:12] The state average um is 2.65 65 gas stations per 10,000

[1:02:20] resident. So with that, we're almost double.

[1:02:25] And uh Modesto, their average is 3.62 gas stations per 10,000 resident.

[1:02:32] We're 4.08 under 17 fueling stations and three in

[1:02:38] development. So, if we add the four gas stations that were not included in the

[1:02:43] staff report, that number jumps up to 4.9

[1:02:48] fueling stations per 10,000 resident. So again, the state average 2.6

[1:02:54] and accurate fueling stations is 24 in our city and that's 4.9 per 10,000

[1:03:00] residents. Um, to give perspective, um,

[1:03:06] let's see here. Um, again, Modesto 3.6 six. Their population is over 200,000

[1:03:12] people. And Tracy has an average of 2.6 as well.

[1:03:17] Their population is over 100,000 people. Um,

[1:03:22] and we have 49,000 people in our city and we have

[1:03:28] we have 4.9 fueling stations per 10,000 person. It's the numbers are there. Um,

[1:03:35] and it's again just very um discouraging to see that this, you know, we see all

[1:03:41] the social media comments we heard tonight. A lot of people are in favor of

[1:03:44] this. We have too many gas stations in our city and and car washes. There's

[1:03:49] limited data on that. City of Mantika is in the process of of doing a similar

[1:03:55] temporary moratorum um and and series is failing. So, in in

[1:04:02] this topic, um, so those are those are my comments. I'm going to I know I spoke

[1:04:06] a lot tonight, but I'm going to open it up to my other commissioners for

[1:04:09] questions. >> Uh, yeah, Tom, I have a question. Um my

[1:04:13] understanding is that the moratorum was discussed as possibly opening up the

[1:04:18] city to litigation by um developers hoping to develop a gas station or car

[1:04:24] wash having the correct permits and then given any sort of kind of um response

[1:04:31] from the planning commission um would possibly

[1:04:35] um open us up for litigation. Is is that something that's true or is that more

[1:04:40] speculation? Well, I I wouldn't say it would be from

[1:04:44] necessarily um

[1:04:47] particular project applicants, but they would rather attack the validity of the

[1:04:50] moratorium as a whole, right? Um you have to you have to find some concrete

[1:04:55] you have to make some concrete findings about um health, safety, welfare to um

[1:05:01] ensure that the moratorium is permissible under state law. And so

[1:05:05] that's a broad category. That's a broad area and the city has broad police power

[1:05:10] to regulate those things but we really need to come from a position uh of

[1:05:15] conformance with with that state law in order to um pass a moratorium similar to

[1:05:21] this. Uh whereas the um the effects on the community are

[1:05:27] less uh apparent for gas stations and car washes than they might be for

[1:05:32] another type of use. say like you see a lot of the data centers going through

[1:05:36] moratorium right now. That's a little bit of a you know more visible um uh

[1:05:43] challenge to the community. So something like this you just really want to make

[1:05:47] sure that you're in conformance with the say law before passing it.

[1:05:52] » Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. Um yeah, I just wanted to say that um I

[1:05:57] it's really nice to get this feedback, the emails and having people come to the

[1:06:01] meeting. this this feedback helps us get the data that that allows us to do this

[1:06:06] kind of work. Um so I I appreciate that. Uh I I do think a little bit of uh the

[1:06:13] process has been lost in this discussion. um very much so the

[1:06:17] moratorum is is a legal category and u similar to what Tom said I think like

[1:06:24] that threshold to develop a moratorum hadn't really been met in terms of the

[1:06:29] research and the staff time and also of course there's the idea of of paying

[1:06:33] staffers to do more work to research this so economic development is not a

[1:06:38] one-man show um we are not um the only uh folks involved in this so Um, I

[1:06:46] understand kind of the frustration with having just these new projects in

[1:06:51] development, but I think, um, I voted against it because I thought, uh, one,

[1:06:57] it would it would open us up to litigation, and two, we were denying

[1:07:01] shovel ready projects that had already been approved by um, our various

[1:07:06] departments. Um, so I just wanted to kind of discuss more of the nuance. Um,

[1:07:12] the the anger and the expression is is necessary and helpful. Um, but I'm

[1:07:17] wondering if we can do something like similar to a moratorum that isn't quite

[1:07:22] at that legal threshold, more like suggested guidelines for future uh fuel

[1:07:27] and car wash stations that have a hiring kind of requirement for serious

[1:07:32] residents or maybe 50% of their pumps have to be EV chargers. Is that

[1:07:37] something that can kind of get around the inability to develop a moratorum or

[1:07:42] is that um a suggestion that maybe is a little bit too um farreaching for this

[1:07:50] platform? I don't know if staff wants to jump in.

[1:07:55] » So, so a big portion of the um moratorum is to provide time for the city to study

[1:08:01] its land use and to propose future regulations for those types of uses. So

[1:08:06] I think your suggestion makes a lot of sense in that uh you won't be imposing

[1:08:10] the moratorum but you'll still be thinking about the studying and

[1:08:13] evaluating the land uses which is which is a component of what you're typically

[1:08:18] doing during that moratorum period. >> Okay. Um I don't know if that's like a

[1:08:24] motion we can do. Sorry chair I'll defer to you.

[1:08:27] » Uh yeah I think we'll see if anybody else has any comments. When when we

[1:08:31] discussed this item, the initial time the consensus was 5-0. Correct.

[1:08:43] Okay. I was just curious. Dor Dory said she voted no. I thought it was it was

[1:08:46] unanimous.

[1:08:52] I was just curious. Okay. Bob, you got any comments?

[1:08:59] Francisco? Um, no. I mean,

[1:09:03] as we sit here reading and going through all these emails, I I think the people

[1:09:08] have spoken. So

[1:09:26] this item doesn't require any action to be taken or you can you can make a

[1:09:31] motion. Um uh anything that will be done will be done by the minutes. There's no

[1:09:35] associated resolution.

[1:09:40] Yeah, I'm trying to figure making sure I got all my points across.

[1:09:44] Can Tom, did you put together a staff report or did did Julian?

[1:09:48] » I added the uh the background and the um the legal components of it.

[1:09:55] » Okay. So, >> who added the gas stations?

[1:10:00] » Are you referring to the map? >> Yes. Yes, sir.

[1:10:03] » The map I did. Okay. All the yellow dots are the current gas stations that we

[1:10:07] have. The green dots, the lightly green dots

[1:10:11] are the ones that have been re have been approved by commission.

[1:10:17] Okay. Can can we confirm on the record that Circle K76 is not on that map on

[1:10:22] Joyce A which is by the 711 headed towards the

[1:10:29] 99 has Jamba Juice attached to it.

[1:10:36] Oh, I've Heen. >> He burned in. Yes.

[1:10:39] » Oh, the one that's supposed to be to the left of the two dots there. Okay.

[1:10:43] » So, confirming that one is not on the map.

[1:10:46] » There's Chevron. There's the 76. That is not on there.

[1:10:48] » Okay. And confirming George's Gas 76 on Central A is not on that map.

[1:11:04] I stand correct. You stand yes. It is not on here.

[1:11:07] » SC Fuels on East Whitmore is not on that map as well. And Triple R on Whitmore is

[1:11:14] not on that map. >> Triple R is not because it's not a gas

[1:11:16] station that's in service. So it's an abandoned gas station.

[1:11:19] » It is a gas station though, right? >> But it's not an operated gas station. So

[1:11:24] the site is it's a dead site. So due to circumstances that are beyond our

[1:11:31] control, that is a dead sight. Um so it it's not a gas station. It was at one

[1:11:36] time a gas station, but it's not an active gas station, so it is not on

[1:11:40] here. Um what was the other one that you said?

[1:11:42] » Um SC Fuels. Um >> one in front of Rockefeller.

[1:11:49] » No, it headed towards Crows Landing. I don't believe that's Rockefeller.

[1:11:55] It would be past flyers if you're headed toward down

[1:11:58] » on the right hand side. That is a county gas station. That is not in the city of

[1:12:02] Series. >> Okay. It It's in It's in our city

[1:12:05] limits. I mean, it's in district two. >> It's not in our district.

[1:12:08] » No. >> In front of Gallow.

[1:12:14] » No, not at Well, yeah, I believe that is Gallow across the street. Yes.

[1:12:18] » Yes. So, that is county. >> Okay.

[1:12:22] So, we're missing you two I I believe three with triple R

[1:12:27] but two gas stations off of that list. Okay,

[1:12:31] » thank you. >> Yep. Thank you. Um so again I I'm going

[1:12:35] to revert back to we we are way over the state average and local average. Um

[1:12:41] Modesto has 3.62,

[1:12:45] Tracy has 2.6, Stockton has 2.9. And these are cities with populations

[1:12:51] well well uh more than more than ours. Um and it's it's oversaturation of of

[1:12:59] gas stations and and there should be more studies done on car washes as well.

[1:13:04] But I'm going to make a motion. Um I would like to separate these two items.

[1:13:10] Um and I'm again however staff decides to take it back to city council. It is

[1:13:15] what it is. this process has been um whatever the right term for it is. But

[1:13:22] um I'm going to make a motion to recommend to the Siri City Council to

[1:13:26] put a temporary moratorium on fueling stations in the city of series for one

[1:13:31] year revisiting the moratorum after one calendar year passes due to the

[1:13:36] inconsistencies with the general plan oversaturation data and local state

[1:13:40] averages while changing the findings to those stated.

[1:13:45] Just to jump in there, I apologize. They can only implement a 45day moratorum,

[1:13:50] but then it would have to be extended. >> I will change it to 45 days to do that.

[1:13:58] » I'll go ahead and second that. >> We got a first and a second. Can we get

[1:14:01] a roll call?

[1:14:08] » Commissioner Global. >> Hi,

[1:14:11] » Commissioner Morales. Hi, >> Commissioner Perez.

[1:14:15] » Nay. >> Chairperson Condid.

[1:14:17] » Hi. >> Okay. Motion passes. Um 31.

[1:14:25] » Okay. And second, I will make a motion to recommend to the Siri city council to

[1:14:28] put a temporary moratorium on car washes in the city of series for 45 days

[1:14:32] revisiting the moratorium after those 45 days passes due to the inconsistencies

[1:14:37] of the general plan, oversaturation, public concern, and data. while changing

[1:14:42] the findings to those stated. >> Second that first and a second. Can we

[1:14:48] go to roll call?

[1:14:51] » That was Global that second. >> Yeah.

[1:14:53] » I

[1:14:56] » uh Commissioner Goel >> I

[1:14:59] » Commissioner Morales >> I

[1:15:01] » Commissioner Perez. >> Chairperson Condit.

[1:15:05] » I motion passes 3 to one with one absent.

[1:15:11] Okay, moving on. Unfinished business, none. New business, none. Ma matters

[1:15:15] initiated by planning commission and staff. I would like the city manager at

[1:15:19] our next um planning commission meeting to discuss um the municipal code section

[1:15:28] 2.05.040F 040F

[1:15:31] and a um explanation for why this process on item six was uh turned out

[1:15:37] the way it did and reports. Anybody have any reports?

[1:15:44] Seeing none, we'll go ahead and adjourn to our next meeting on Yeah, I have to

[1:15:51] adjourn this though. adjourn to August 3rd, 2026 at 6 p.m. and we are going to

[1:15:57] convene to the series downtown revitalization area board um right now.

[1:16:03] So go ahead and adjourn this one. Yeah, we'll go and take a 5m minute

[1:16:07] break.

[1:20:08] All righty, folks. We're going to get started here. I'm going to call this uh

[1:20:11] meeting to order and we get a roll call.

[1:20:18] » Let's see. Commissioner Global.

[1:20:23] Commissioner Morales >> present.

[1:20:26] » Commissioner Jamu absent. Commissioner Perez.

[1:20:30] Chairperson cond. Conflict of interest. Anybody having a

[1:20:35] conflict of interest? No. Consent calendar. All matters list on the

[1:20:39] consent calendar considered routine in nature uh and will be enacted by a

[1:20:43] single motion unless otherwise requested by an individual commissioner or the

[1:20:47] public for special consideration. Otherwise, the recommendation of staff

[1:20:50] will be to accept accepted and act upon by roll call vote. I'm going to turn it

[1:20:55] over to Mr. Giri here.

[1:21:04] So, good evening, planning commission chair.

[1:21:08] Uh this evening, um I'll give you a little history on the downtown

[1:21:13] revitalization board for the new uh planning commissioners. So, the series

[1:21:18] downtown revitalization area was established um pursuant to the parking

[1:21:24] and business improvement area of 1979 and adopted an ordinance in 1988

[1:21:32] uh by the Siri City Council um for the purpose of the district was to provide a

[1:21:37] funding mechanism through business assessments to support activities

[1:21:41] improvements that would enhance and promote the downtown area. In 1995, the

[1:21:46] city council adopted an ordinance which expanded the flexibility of how

[1:21:51] assessments could be utilized for programs and projects specifically for

[1:21:56] the downtown area.

[1:22:00] The state law requires that the city council establish an advisory board for

[1:22:04] the district. The advisory board is responsible for making recommendations

[1:22:09] to the city council regarding expenditures of assessments revenues and

[1:22:14] may also provide recommendations concerning the method and basis of

[1:22:17] leving assessments within the district. When initially established, the advisory

[1:22:22] board was compri comprised of business owners located within the boundaries of

[1:22:28] the downtown revitalization area. So that boundary is from

[1:22:33] El Camino north to Magnolia. The business is just north of Magnolia

[1:22:40] um to the

[1:22:44] east side um of six uh all the way east to sixth street. um only those

[1:22:52] businesses to the west and then all the way from Al

[1:22:57] Camino to Magnolia where it meets on the intersection by Polar Street.

[1:23:03] U to ensure continued administr uh the boundaries over time participation by

[1:23:08] business owners had declined um resulting in reoccurring difficulties in

[1:23:12] maintaining a quorum necessary to conduct official business.

[1:23:17] So in 1998 the planning commission was appointed as

[1:23:22] the advisory uh board and the planning commission has contain continued to

[1:23:28] fulfill this role since that time providing recommendations to city

[1:23:32] council regarding the downtown revitalization. So this evening um we're

[1:23:37] here one um first, second, third and fourth quarter

[1:23:43] are presented. These should be coming to you quarterly um due to staff um

[1:23:54] we had an overturn in the finance department and then in our department.

[1:23:59] So we apologize for them coming to you all at one time, but normally they would

[1:24:02] come um after each quarter to present to you a report um and also to indicate the

[1:24:10] expenses and what assessments were collected during those quarters.

[1:24:16] So the last two years unfortunately the city council has

[1:24:21] uh voted not to levy the assessments. So, as you can see on the quarter

[1:24:27] reports, there's zero assessments that were uh collected, but we did have a

[1:24:32] significant um expenditures that we had to pay out through in this account. So,

[1:24:38] tonight um to we're just asking for the advisory board to approve the quarterly

[1:24:44] reports and then also to approve the annual report for the 2627 year. in that

[1:24:53] report. Basically, it's the improvements and activities to be proposed is to

[1:24:59] continue with um if granted the assessments to come in and then

[1:25:06] utilizing that funding that's in this set aside separate account. It's a

[1:25:11] standalone budget account for the downtown businesses uh to utilize that

[1:25:16] to pay for the lighting. Um the landscaping contract has been

[1:25:21] cancelled due to there is there was no funding into that account. Um to improve

[1:25:27] uh they I think they want to do like way science to help um kind of emphasize the

[1:25:35] downtown businesses and stuff. So that is just a placeholder. So part of it is

[1:25:39] we have to present to the advisory board any ex expenditures that we this

[1:25:46] um bid would like to expend during the

[1:25:51] year. Um so basically we have placeholders. So as you can see on the

[1:25:59] it's uh the attachment sorry

[1:26:11] It's exhibit D, which is the proposed um budget for 2627.

[1:26:18] The projected revenue we anticipate to collect approximately $7,000 from

[1:26:24] businesses. The expend expenditures for this year is roughly 2,750.

[1:26:31] that it will include electricity where the downtown lighting. Um we put

[1:26:37] advertisement in there. This is just if there was like a major event that they

[1:26:40] wanted to hold and the businesses wanted to advertise it, they would be allowed

[1:26:44] to pull from this funding to do large advertisement outside of what like the

[1:26:49] city or any other would do. And then contract services, it was discussed that

[1:26:54] they wanted to do like Christmas lighting on the trees downtown during

[1:26:58] Christmas time. So, we had to put a placeholder in there for approximately

[1:27:02] $1,000. Not sure if that's what it was going to cost, but these are just

[1:27:05] placeholders in there. As you can see, wayfinding signs, downtown incentive

[1:27:10] programs, and FCOD um renovation, those are just on holding

[1:27:15] back in 20, I believe 17. Um they were approved as expenditures.

[1:27:22] Um the funding has we've had a lot of funding in there, but over time it has

[1:27:28] deplened. The last two years it really deplenished because there was no

[1:27:32] assessment. And so we're asking for the the board to approve the the

[1:27:39] expenditures, approve the yearly report, and then this would then go to city

[1:27:44] council for approval and then for them to set a public hearing 30 days from the

[1:27:50] approval. um to vote on the levy assessment. And

[1:27:55] the levy assessment then the businesses would be notified

[1:27:59] um by mail or the public hearing to come in either oppose or agree with the the

[1:28:07] assessment at the time. or the council could wish to not collect the assessment

[1:28:12] and then um either vote to disband the bid or

[1:28:19] continue the assessment until the funding is replenished. Um right now

[1:28:24] we're looking at going into 2027 with approximately a little bit over $2,000

[1:28:32] um in that account.

[1:28:40] Okay, >> that's it.

[1:28:40] » Okay. Any any questions of uh of Julian? >> Yeah, I've got a couple questions for

[1:28:46] you, Julian. On exhibit A, you're showing

[1:28:52] all four quarters.

[1:28:56] um

[1:29:00] with what I can't figure out is you're showing an ending cash balance of

[1:29:06] 20,127. So yes, and I do apologize because

[1:29:10] that's when the quarter report was created at the end of

[1:29:18] where's the end of June, but we still had outstanding invoices from the Grover

[1:29:24] landscaping that had not been processed yet.

[1:29:28] So if you look at the bottom contract services, Grover was 1820 per month. So,

[1:29:34] we were we still needed um their invoices to come in and get

[1:29:39] cleared. >> So, you're saying that ending cash

[1:29:43] balance is 2,000? >> Yes.

[1:29:45] » Okay. >> Has that been updated on online or

[1:29:50] » that has that was just on the budget. If you look at the exhibit D, it just says

[1:29:55] approximately balance rollover is 231159.

[1:30:00] » Okay. because you're showing contract services of 36.40 a month that were

[1:30:07] subtracted. So why is there another Grover

[1:30:14] invoices?

[1:30:19] You put it in there. Hang on. You're showing that we paid for over

[1:30:24] $14,560 for the year.

[1:30:31] So, Grover's account should be 21,840 for 12 months.

[1:30:38] So, if you look at year to date, 14,560. And I apologize if it didn't get I think

[1:30:44] it didn't get calculated correctly. So, I do apologize and we can make that

[1:30:48] correction and bring it back. So, does Grover come weekly or

[1:30:55] » So, Grover would come once a week on Fridays, but they no longer will come as

[1:31:00] effective June 30th. They're no longer contracted with the city.

[1:31:03] » So, they were coming once a week basically.

[1:31:05] » They were coming once a week. Yes. >> Okay. Mhm.

[1:31:09] » And who is doing that service now? >> That service will fall back on the city

[1:31:15] of Syri.

[1:31:19] » Okay. Well, I'll go ahead and open it up to the public. Any members of the public

[1:31:23] that would like to uh speak on this item,

[1:31:29] Mr. Warren? >> Wait. Um, have we voted on the Is this

[1:31:35] for the consent item still or the annual report?

[1:31:39] » I think we're still on the consent. >> Okay. Just

[1:31:42] » that can be open up to the public or >> I think we skipped over the consent. So,

[1:31:47] can we vote on the consent, please? >> Hold on one second, Mr. Warren. I'll go

[1:31:51] ahead and motion to approve item uh seven and then we'll take it to the

[1:31:55] public hearing.

[1:31:59] » I'll second that. >> Okay, we got a first and second on

[1:32:02] consent. We get a roll call. >> Commissioner Global

[1:32:06] » I. >> Commissioner Morales,

[1:32:09] » I. >> Commissioner Perez,

[1:32:11] » hi. >> Chairperson Condan.

[1:32:13] » Hi. Okay, now we will open the public

[1:32:16] hearing.

[1:32:20] » Good evening, commissioners. John Warren, city of Siri. I remember there

[1:32:25] was some discussion on the assessment and

[1:32:31] the cost of doing business, landscaping and the lighting and stuff previously.

[1:32:37] And there was some question as to if there was a mechanism in place to

[1:32:43] collect the

[1:32:47] money that the that the levies or the uh city would charge the revitalization

[1:32:56] board would approve for who's going to collect the uh the dollars and what

[1:33:02] account it would go into. And has that been resolved as to whether

[1:33:07] the business downtown actually have to pay these levies

[1:33:13] and who collects them and what mechanism is in place to make those collections.

[1:33:20] » We will have staff answer that. That would be my question that I remember

[1:33:24] that from before that there was no mechanism to collect the revenues of the

[1:33:30] that were going into the fund and that some of the businesses down there are

[1:33:34] not paying basically their fair share which makes it hard on the ones that are

[1:33:39] and also whether the city can afford to hire uh or

[1:33:47] have a outside agency come in and take care of the uh landscaping. being

[1:33:52] reverses the city staff. >> Thank you.

[1:33:58] Any other members of the public that would like to comment on this item?

[1:34:04] » Yep. Yep. Come on up. State your name. >> I am Freedom by God above America. Um by

[1:34:11] Brown Act. I don't need to tell you my name. Okay.

[1:34:14] » So, I'm using a fictitious name. Um, since I'm here, um, I just want to share

[1:34:20] with you that if I were ever going to want to come to seriesir and I did a

[1:34:25] little bit of a research on your city, you are a very young city. The average

[1:34:30] age of your community is about 30ome years old. So, um there's a lot of um

[1:34:35] activities that perhaps uh you can provide for the families to come because

[1:34:42] uh once you revital lies your downtown, you still want people to come, right? So

[1:34:48] I think uh like what you were talking about and by the way I really respect

[1:34:53] and admire uh that you pointed out uh at the previous meeting that the order of

[1:35:00] that particular um agendaized item was done in a backwards way. So I feel that

[1:35:08] uh this topic also when you want to revitalize and I was hoping to hear your

[1:35:14] objectives um perhaps those need to be pinpointed

[1:35:18] first and then um you know it's easier then for the public to be able to

[1:35:24] participate because then we know oh they have revitalized certain things and then

[1:35:29] we can come and spend money and that's how you are able to get more of tax

[1:35:34] dollars because we spend money and that therefore uh the revitalization is not

[1:35:39] just a point in time but it will be uh perpetual. Thank you.

[1:35:45] » Thank you. Anybody else for public comment?

[1:35:50] » All right. Anybody on Zoom?

[1:35:54] » No hands raised. >> Okay. Bring it go ahead and close the

[1:35:57] public uh hearing process and bring it back to the commission for action.

[1:36:02] Um Julian, can we answer Mr. Warren's question as far as is there something

[1:36:06] set up to collect the levy.

[1:36:11] » So we are looking at utilizing um HDL who does the quarterly mil tax.

[1:36:19] So it would be linked to their quarterly mil tax to ensure that the businesses

[1:36:24] are submitting their quarterly assessments.

[1:36:29] um where before our third party collector was not doing their due

[1:36:35] diligence. So we would do have something in place.

[1:36:39] » Okay. Any other questions of uh the commission?

[1:36:48] An action is required. Correct. This goes back to the city council.

[1:36:51] » That is correct. is just to accept the annual plan and then for it to go to

[1:36:56] city council for approval for the annual uh report and then for them to set a

[1:37:01] public hearing 30 days from that for a levy assessment

[1:37:07] which will be uh a public hearing noted and each business will have a letter

[1:37:14] sent to them for that public hearing.

[1:37:21] I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve.

[1:37:25] » Go ahead and second. >> Okay, we got a first and a second. Can

[1:37:28] we get a roll call?

[1:37:33] » Commissioner Global >> I.

[1:37:35] » Commissioner Morales. >> I.

[1:37:37] » Commissioner Perez. >> I.

[1:37:39] » Chairperson Condent. >> Hi.

[1:37:41] » Motion passes 4 Z with one absent. >> Okay. New business none. And we will

[1:37:48] adjourn the series downtown revitalization area

July 20, 2026 Regular Planning Commission Meeting

Transcript