All right, folks. Thanks for joining us. Uh 6:00, go ahead and call this meeting
to order. Can we get a roll call?
» Commissioner Global >> here.
» Commissioner Jamu absent. Commissioner Morales
» present. >> Commissioner Perez
» here. >> Chairperson Cond
» here. Uh can you join me in the pledge of allegiance?
All right. Citizens communication. While the series planning commission uh
welcomes and encourages participation in planning commission meetings, adopted
rules allow no more than 5 minutes for expression of non-aggenda items. Matters
under the jurisdiction of the planning commission and not on the posted agenda
may be addressed but by by the general public. However, California law
prohibits the planning commission from taking action on any matter which is not
on the posted agenda unless it is determined to be an emergency by the
planning commission. Citizens are entitled to address the planning
commission on any agenda item subject to the fiveminute provision. Is there
anyone tonight that would like to make public comment on an item not on the
agenda? Seeing none, anybody on Zoom?
» No hands raised on Zoom. Okay, go ahead and close citizens communication. Moving
on. Conflict of interest. Is there anyone on the planning commission that
would like to declare a conflict of interest? Seeing none. Moving on to the
consent calendar. All matters listed on the consent calendar considered routine
in nature and will be enacted upon by a single motion unless it is otherwise
requested by a commissioner or the public for special consideration.
Otherwise, the recommendation of staff will be to accept and act upon by roll
call vote. Is there anyone on the commission that would like to pull an
item uh for further discussion? >> Um staff would uh like to request that
we move item Excuse me. So, item six.
Item six um from public hearing to um unfinished business.
We need a a motion in a second. Does that operate the same or what's the
reasoning for that?
» Tom, do you want to >> Sure. It it'll operate the same. There's
no need for a public hearing on that. Uh it looks like it was just misplaced on
the agenda. >> Okay. And action can still be taken on
that item. Correct. >> That's correct.
» Okay. Um, I'll go ahead and motion to move item six to You said unfinished
business to unfinished business. >> I'll second.
» I got a first and a second. Got a roll call.
» Commissioner Global. >> I,
» Commissioner Jamu. >> Commissioner Morales.
» Hi, >> Commissioner Perez.
Chairperson Cond. >> Hi. Okay. Anybody from the public that
would like an item from consent pulled?
Seeing none, I'll bring it back to commission and I'll make a motion on
items 1 through 4
» with the um the green sheet for the minutes.
» Yeah, with the corrected green sheet on the minutes.
» I'll second that. Okay, we got a first and a second. We got a roll call.
Commissioner Global. >> Hi.
» Commissioner Morales. >> Hi.
» Commissioner Perez. Chairperson Cond.
» Hi. >> All right. Um, moving on to public
hearing item number five. Turn it over to staff. I believe Miss George.
All right. Good evening, chair and commissioners. Tonight's item is a
request for approval of a second 10-year extension for conditional use permit
number 0635, which would allow the continued operation of an existing
wireless communications facility, which is a cell tower located at 1331 Angie
Avenue. This request does not involve any expansion, modifications, or
operational changes to the existing facility and is solely intended to allow
the facility to continue operating for an additional 10-year term.
So, the reason that it's coming back for commission action to renew the lease or
the the term of its operation is because there was a condition in the original
use permit that it would be good for 10 years and um subject to renewal every 10
years.
Next slide. Thank you. So, as mentioned, the applicant is requesting an approval
of a 10-year extension of the conditional use permit.
The request is limited to extending the expiration date of the permit and does
not include any modifications to the approved tower, equipment, site layout,
or operations. So, if approved, the permit would remain effective through
September 19th, 2036. The current expiration is September 19th, so of
2026. So the extension would go start on September 19th and run through 2036.
Next slide. Existing project site. The project site
is located at 1331 Angie Avenue. It's kind of shown on your screen there and
also within your staff report. It is within the Mitchell Road corridor area
of the city. The site consists of approximately 1 acre and is already
developed with the wireless communications facility and all of the
associated equipment. The surrounding area is predominantly industrial and the
facility has operated at this location for nearly 20 years.
So, a little bit of history. Conditional use permit number 0635 was originally
approved by the planning commissioner in September of 2006.
The approval authorized construction and operation of an 82 foot 4-inch monopole
wireless communications facility. And then in 2016, the planning commission
approved a 10-year extension of the permit, extending its expiration date
through September 19th, 2026. The current request represents the
second extension for the facility.
So for land use and zoning, the property carries a light industrial general plan
designation. When the original permit was approved in 2006, the planning
commission determined the facility was consistent with the general plan and
compatible with surrounding land uses. Because no changes are proposed to the
facility or its operation, staff finds that the project remains consistent with
the city's general plan. Next slide.
The project site is located within the industrial park zoning district and is
governed by the Mitchell Road corridor specific plan. The planning commission
previously determined that the facility was compatible with the purposes of the
district when approving the permit in 2006 and reaffirmed those findings
during the 2016 extension. Again, because no modifications are proposed,
staff finds that the facility does remain consistent with the zoning
designation and the specific plan.
The facility remains operational and is in compliance with its existing
approval. Staff is not aware of any code enforcement actions, operational
concerns, or compliance issues associated with the facility. The
applicant is requesting only the ability to continue operating the existing
approved use for an additional 10 years.
Staff did evaluate the request in light of existing conditions on the site and
the surrounding area. Again, since the facility has operated for approximately
20 years without issue and no changes are proposed to the approved project,
staff finds that the site remains adequate to support the use and that
continued operation of the facility will not adversely affect surrounding
properties or public health, safety or welfare.
For the environmental review, staff evaluated the request pursuant to SQUA
and determined that the project does remain categorically exempt under SQA
guidelines section 15301 existing facilities. The request authorizes only
continued operation and does not involve any kind of expansion, modification, or
intensification of the approved use.
Staff recommends that the planning commission find the project
categorically exempt pursuant to SQA guidelines and adopt a resolution
approving a second 10-year extension of the conditional use permit 0635
which again would ex extend the current operation to September 19th 2036.
There's the carryover condition that at that time it would come back to
commission if it were to be re-extended again. And that concludes staff's
presentation. I'm available for any questions and the project applicant is
also on the line for any questions. >> All right. Thanks, Mr. George. Uh the
public hearing is now open. Uh does the applicant have anything to say on this
uh item? >> Um this is Jacob Hamilton. I'm
representing the applicant SBA. I don't have anything to add. That sounds um
exactly like what the project is. And I'll be here for questions if you need
it. Okay, thank you. Um, go ahead and open
this up for public comment. Anybody uh here tonight that would like to make
public comment on this item.
Seeing none, uh, anybody on Zoom or emails
» and no emails for this item and no hands raised.
» Okay, go ahead and close uh the public hearing portion and bring it back to the
commission for further discussion. Any questions of staff or the applicant?
I guess my only question the 10-year um extension is that just because that's
how it kind of started. Is that the reasoning?
» Yeah, it was just built into the original conditions of approval.
» Okay. All right. Well, I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve.
» Go ahead and second. Got a first and a second. Can we get a roll call?
» Commissioner Global. Hi, >> Commissioner Morales.
» Hi, >> Commissioner Perez.
» Hi, >> Chairperson Cond.
» I >> thank you.
» All right, moving on to unfinished business will be item number six.
» I'll be presenting this item tonight. Is the audio okay?
» Yep, we hear you. Good. Sounds good. So, I wanted to acknowledge that there has
been some irregularity in the procedure here for this recommendation. So, that's
mainly what I'll be reporting on tonight. Um, during the last city
council meeting, this item was actually brought to city council for discussion
as a moratorum recognizing that this is something the planning commission had
been considering. uh the city council had consensus not to continue pursuing
the item and they declined to provide authorization for further staff time
related to this item. So that left staff um with this current uh draft of the
staff report uh which was drafted prior to that meeting. Um so we don't have
much in the way of substantative updates for you on this uh or you know any
further metrics but we did want to give you guys an opportunity opportunity to
discuss it and uh it was agendaized as an action. So you may make the
recommendation however that's not going to come back to um the city council as
an agenda item. So that's sort of the background here. I'm happy to talk about
the moratorum and the state law surrounding that if you have questions
on it, but I'll let you guys go ahead and direct the discussion.
Okay. Uh go ahead and start I guess with the commission first before we take it
out to the public. Um any commissioners have any initial
thoughts?
Yeah, I have a thought on this that we need to pay attention more to what
the citizens are asking for and take that into account as well as
any findings that we make. And I think it's important uh
to listen to the citizens of this city on what they want. And by the looks of
some of these emails that we got today, uh, majority of them do not want to see
any more gas stations and, um, car washes.
Thanks, Commissioner. Um, I'll go ahead and start. I just kind of for the record
and for the public of how we got to where we are today. Um, I put together
just a brief timeline. So on May 4th of 26, a referral was made by vice chair
Jimu uh for a discussion on a moratorium for car washes that came back to us on
May 18th, 2026. The planning commission gave consensus for the moratorum to move
forward as an agenda item. I added fuel stations to that recommendation. Um then
on June 15th, the item was brought back not as an agenda item but a discussion.
Um and staff stated they needed more feedback from all the commissioners
which was given. And then on July 13th, 2026,
this item was taken to the city council for discussion on whether to spend staff
time to assemble a staff report and further research. The council gave
consensus 3 to2 not to give staff more time on this item. So, uh I guess my
initial question for you, Mr. City attorney, um why was this item taken to
city council if the planning commission had not officially voted on an agenda
item? >> I think that's a great question and I I
think it really comes down to sort of uh the authorization for staff resources,
right? Um, I think you know the city uh manager saw that staff was going to be
spending quite a bit of time on this and wanted to make sure that it's something
that was uh productive for the for the city and uh wanted to get um direction
from the city council on whether or not they wanted to entertain this as a
possibility and they decided that they didn't and they didn't want to spend any
more money on it. So I think that's what it really comes down to.
» Okay. So then my next question is why was a staff report completed?
» It was uh this was staff report had been drafted prior to that. Um and so I just
added on the uh the procedural history there and and you know in an effort to
respect the commissioners and the request for an agenda item. I I thought
it was necessary to bring this back to you as a discussion and as an
opportunity. Um, you know, I I it wasn't necessarily required, but just as an as
an effort to to discuss it once one last time before, um, we were off the record
on it. >> Yeah. Okay, that No, that makes sense.
And I appreciate it being brought back. And that takes me into my next point of
um we do have a municipal code and a process for the planning commission to
that we have the authority to make recommendations
to the city council pursuant to section 2.05.040F
of the municipal code. Is that correct? >> That's correct. And and it doesn't
provide for much in the way of procedure for that but it does provide you with
the off authority. So, um, in an effort to to respect that authority and to, uh,
to let you guys, uh, discuss it and if you wanted to act on it, that that's how
we got here. >> Okay. But so, we take action tonight.
It's not going anywhere is what you're saying. It'll be reported to the city
council, but there's, you know, a a staff report on this item, a moratorum,
is is fairly extensive and requires pretty robust legal findings because
you're going to be changing uh permitted land uses. Uh so you really want to have
uh some legal research and legal time into uh the exact agenda documents. So,
that was going to be a larger um a larger project for staff.
» Okay. So, if there's action on this item, what does it look like going back
to the city council then? >> It it'll be a likely a report from the
city attorney uh saying that you guys made the recommendation, but in light of
uh council's previous consensus, we didn't agendaize the item.
Well, it seems like um there there was some sort of mistake of
why this was taken to the city council before we had the opportunity to
actually vote on the item. It it makes zero sense to me why that was done. Um
if it was done out of spite to disrupt this whole process. Um but it it's very
unfortunate that that happened. Um so I just want to say that on the record. Um,
and uh, I guess moving to a a question. I'm sure something else will come up,
Tom, but moving on to uh, I know one member of the council relied on, you
know, not moving forward with this discussion um, in fear that it would
impact Maverick. Will a temporary moratorum impact that approved
development? >> Uh, that's an ongoing litigation. I
can't discuss that on the record. I think Mr. Gary was about to answer but
he may not now. >> So on the Mono Williams any previous
approved projects are not touched by the moratorum. So
this would mtorium is only for new projects that come into the city.
» Thank you. So the answer is no. It would not impact Maverick. Um okay. Any other
questions from commission before I take it out to the public?
Okay, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing now. Is there anybody in the
audience that would like to speak on this item?
Hold on.
Okay. I don't want to see it go back to the city council. They've already stated
their opinion whether it matters or not. It's going to cost more money to have it
investigated. And this is what I refer to as the city nickel and diamond us to
death. We cannot afford these stupid little things. This should have never
went to the city council first. It did. It's done. They have stated their
opinion. You're not going to change the m the mayor's mind. He's a little
hypocrite to start with. I just the answer is no. No gas station
is going to try to come here that doesn't think they're going to make
money. They're going to do their due diligence to see whether we want them or
not. And that's at the time when you say yes or no. But to take this back to the
city council to spend any more money on it is foolish. That's my opinion. Thank
you. >> Anybody else for public?
» Can you please um state your name for the record?
» I'm sure as hell you all know by now, but it's Shirley Rogers, Series,
California. >> We know he's Shirley. All right. Anybody
else for public comment?
» I would just like to say that I agree with what she said. If we're going to
bring any more businesses into into series, it should be sit down dinner
places and no more chicken places, no more gas stations. But what Shirley said
is correct. And my name is Barbara Loots.
Thank you, Barbara. Anybody else for public comment?
» My name is uh Jorgeero. Um, my question to to to whoever made that
mistake, why continue with something that was a mistake? Two mistakes, don't
make it right. Continue to make the same mistake over and over. And it's not just
with this situation. It's with different situations that have happened in the
city that a mistake is done and it continues to happen over and over again.
Um, the Maverick gas station, a lot of
people understand that it's a different type of gas station is going to make
those diesel trucks stop in series instead of driving by and just going
either to Ripen or to Livingston depending what direction they're
traveling. But any other gas stations in town, we have a nice store right there
on Whitmore and Mitchell that it's been empty than Bacon because
another gas station went across the street more modern and you call it
whatever you want to call it, but run out of out of business the other gas
stations. Um, so what's going to happen in a few years? We're gonna have other
gas stations around town that are going to be out of business looking bad. The
same thing with the car wash. There is a car wash on every main street in town.
There's one on Whitmore, a new one on Whitmore. There's another one on
Whitmore at Mitchell, the Quick Quack Hatch Road. So, we have access to car
washes all around town. Why more car washes instead of focusing on trying to
bring other businesses that are going to attract people just like
that diesel truck stop is going to attract people to stop in
series. focus on bringing businesses that are going to attract people from
out of town instead of just filling out the empty lots with gas stations that
again we don't have to drive more than a mile to find a gas station. If it was a
electric vehicle charging a station, 100% in favor of that because that's the
direction that the u the world is going. But just having gas stations just to
have them, it's just uh it makes no sense. It makes no sense to to continue
with that those projects that are just going to fill out the land and later on
just going to be vacant. Thank you. Anybody else for uh public comment?
» Okay. Uh moving on to Zoom. Anybody on Zoom?
No hands raised on Zoom, but we did receive a few emails I can read into
record. >> Okay,
this is for Nick Maynard, series resident. Please read this comment into
the public record for agenda item six. Chair cond and members of the planning
commission. I am writing in support of the planning commission referring a
temporary moratorum on new car wash and fueling station entitlements to the city
council. Series currently has 17 fuel stations with three more already
approved. If the approved car wash projects are completed, our city will
have seven full-ervice car washes and three self-service car washes serving
approximately 49,000 residents. Those numbers should be enough to justify
taking a temporary pause and evaluating whether continuing to approve more of
the same uses is in the best long-term interest of series. A moratorum
would not close any existing business or permanently prohibit future development.
It would simply give the city time to study market saturation, traffic
impacts, water and infrastructure demands, environmental concerns,
employment opportunities, and the opportunity cost of using limited
commercial property for additional gas stations and car washes. Series needs
economic diversity. We should be working to attract
businesses that create quality jobs, generate meaningful economic activity,
provide services residents are currently leaving town to obtain and strengthen
the city's long-term tax base. Approving another gas station or car wash may be
the easiest development decision, but that does not necessarily make it the
best decision for the community. I disagree with staff's recommendation
that the planning commission take no action simply because the city council
did not previously reach a consensus. The planning commission has the
authority and responsibility to make recommendations concerning development
within the city. The council should receive a formal recommendation and be
required to consider the issue publicly. I ask the planning commission to
recommend that the city council adopt a temporary moratorum while the city
evaluates its zoning and development policies. At minimum, if the legal
findings for an urgency moratorum cannot be established, the commission should
recommend stronger entitlement requirements or zoning standards for
future car washes and fueling stations. series residents deserve a thoughtful
economic development strategy, not an endless repetition of the same limited
uses. Thank you.
» Good morning, Series planning committee. I fill series does not need any more gas
stations or car washes. We have too many already. Please, let's commit to
focusing on bringing quality businesses here. Be more selective and think
longevity. This is super important so we do not end up with new businesses that
don't last. Thank you for your time and consideration. Jyn Turnbo, city of Siri
resident since 1973.
Chair condant and members of the planning commission, I am writing in
support of the planning commission's efforts to evaluate whether Siri should
adopt a excuse me adopt a temporary moratorum
on new car wash and fueling station entitlements while the city studies
potential updates to its land use regulations.
I encourage the commission to continue exercising its authority to make
recommendations to the city council despite the council's initial lack of
consensus on July 14th. The planning commission serves as the city's advisory
planning body and its responsibility is to evaluate long-term land use policy
based on planning principles and evidence even when those recommendations
may not initially align with the council's position. The staff report
demonstrates that series already has a significantly higher concentration
of these uses than population-based averages. The report identifies 10 total
car washes, seven fullervice car washes, and three
self-service car washes if all approved projects are constructed, serving a
population of approximately 49,000 residents.
It further notes that the city currently averages approximately one car wash for
every 4,900 residents, while national estimates are approximately two
commercial car washes per 10,000 residents. Likewise, series currently
contains 17 fuel stations with three more approved for a total of 20 possible
fueling stations, resulting in approximately one fueling station for
every 2900 residents. The report concludes that these
concentrations exceed statewide population-based averages while
acknowledging that Highway 99 and regional traffic may justify somewhat
higher demand. At the same time, the report also recognizes that the existing
concentration may indicate the city is approaching market saturation and that
current data alone cannot determine whether continued expansion reflects
sustainable demand or an over supply. These statistics should not be dismissed
simply because series experiences commuter and pass through traffic. The
presence of highway 99 is not by itself evidence that unlimited expansion
remains consistent with sound planning policy. The purpose of a temporary
moratorum is not to permanently prohibit these businesses, but rather to allow
the city sufficient time to determine whether additional development supports
the general plan, economic development goals,
infrastructure capacity, and the long-term character of the city's
commercial corridors. As noted by the city attorney,
California law already provides the city council with the legal authority to
adopt such a temporary pause. The planning commission's role is not to
adopt the ordinance itself, but to recommend action and assist in
developing the legislative record and supporting findings for the council's
consideration. I respectfully encourage the commission
to continue moving this discussion forward by adopting a formal
recommendation to the city council supported by specific planning findings.
Those findings could include concerns regarding traffic circulation,
infrastructure demand, environmental impacts associated with water
consumption, and underground fuel storage, preservation of commercially
valuable intersections, and the city's long-term economic development
objectives. These are all recognized planning considerations that California
cities routinely evaluate when regulating land uses. If the city
council remains unwilling to pursue a temporary moratorum, I encourage the
commission to recommend alternative regulatory measures that would
accomplish many of the same planning objectives. These include initiating
amendments to title 18 of the m municipal code to require conditional
use permits for future fueling stations and express car washes. Establishing
minimum spacing requirements between similar uses. Creating corridor specific
development standards along Highway 99, Hatch Road, and Mitchell Road.
Adopting overlay districts for high-v value commercial intersections.
implementing enhanced design and landscape standards, requiring
additional findings related to economic development and land use compatibility,
or developing performance standards that better integrate these uses into the
city's long-term planning goals. The planning commission has already
recognized.
Dear members of the series planning commission, I am writing as a concerned
resident to respectfully ask the planning commission to consider the
long-term needs of our community as new development projects are reviewed and
approved. Many residents have noticed the continued growth of car washes and
gas stations throughout series. While these businesses certainly serve a
purpose, it feels as though our city has become saturated with them. I encourage
the commission to consider whether future commercial development could
better reflect the needs and interests of the families who call Series home.
One of the greatest needs, particularly in District 2, is for more activities
and recreational opportunities for children and families.
Our community would greatly benefit from attractions such as indoor play center,
family entertainment venue, youth creation facilities, sports complexes,
educational activity centers, or other businesses that provide safe and
engaging places for children and teens. As our city continues to grow, I hope we
can prioritize developments that improve quality of life, encourage families to
stay and spend time locally, and provide positive spaces for young people.
Investing in familyfriendly amenities would help make series a more vibrant
and connected community while supporting local economic growth. Thank you for
your time, your service to our city, and your consideration of this perspective.
I appreciate the work the planning commission does to help shape the future
of series and I hope these concerns will be taken into account as future projects
are considered. Sincerely, Christina Dilla series president.
» Hey Stephanie, for the record, the last comment, what was the the name on that
one? I don't know if you said >> Oh, yes. Sorry. Uh Josh Steelely.
» Okay.
Good evening, Series Planning Commission. My name is Courtney Man and
I am a fourth generation series resident raising the fifth generation of my
family here. I am extremely disappointed that we are once again
discussing the outcome of the council's decision regarding the gas station and
car wash moratorum. I strongly oppose adding more gas stations and car washes
to our small city. To be candid, I am deeply disappointed in those of you who
voted in favor of approving another car wash on Hatch Road. We were appointed,
you were appointed to represent the people of Series and to help shape a
community where families want to live, work, and invest in their future.
Instead, many residents are left with the impression that public opinion
carries little weight when it conflicts with predetermined agendas. The message
being sent is that what the community wants is secondary to what is most
convenient for developers rather than what is best for the people who already
call home. My family remains in series because of
our deep roots and the support system we have here. We are fortunate to have
family members who help care for our children while we work. If that support
did not exist, I am not sure we would still choose to live here. I know many
other families who are who share similar concerns about the direction of our city
is heading. Excuse me. For two years, I served on the series Unified School
District Advisory Council, where I saw firsthand that enrollment has been
declining. An entire elementary school was built with the expectation that a
proposed housing development would fill it with students. That development never
materialized. And today, the campus is being used for
inschool suspension, overflow from Central Valley High School, and adult
education programs. While those programs serve important purposes, the school was
not built for those uses and rep it represents a costly example of planning
based on projected growth that never occurred. Series needs to stop planning
for growth that has not yet happened. We cannot continue making long-term
decisions based on assumptions instead of current realities. I believe there
are legitimate concerns that deserve careful consideration. Traffic
congestion throughout our city, particularly along
corridors like Hatch Road, continues to worsen. Every additional gas station and
drive-through car wash, generates more traffic, more vehicle trips, longer
lines, more turning movements, and greater congestion on roads that are
already heavily traveled. These impacts affect the daily lives and
safety of the residents who already live here. There are also environmental
concerns for a city our size. Series already has a remarkably high number of
car washes. These businesses require significant water use, generate waste
water, increase vehicle emissions from cars,
idling in cues, and contribute additional noise and traffic. Before
approving even more of these facilities, the city should ask whether our
community is truly underserved or whether we are whether we have already
exceeded what our current population reasonably needs.
We also have a clear example of how these types of properties
can become long-term public safety concerns. The former TripleR gas station
now sits abandoned and has become a location associated with home
homelessness and other public safety issues. While no one can predict the
future of every business, this property demonstrates that vacant fuel stations
can become liabilities for surrounding neighborhoods when they are no longer
economically viable. Approving additional gas stations without
considering long-term demand increases the possibility of creating more vacant
commercial properties that ultimately become burdens on the community. These
are not hypothetical concerns. They are current conditions affecting the health,
safety, and welfare of our student, our residents. Today,
I ask that you carefully consider the long-term vision for seriesir. We have
an opportunity to build a community that reflects the values and desires of its
residents instead of repeating the same development patterns. As someone whose
family has called series home for five generations, I want to be proud of the
direction our city is taking. Tonight, I ask you to consider not just what can be
built, but what should be built. I ask you to weigh the evidence before you,
listen to the residents you represent, and make decisions that prioritize the
long-term health, safety, and welfare.
Please read this comment into the public record. As a citizen of series, I
strongly disagree with adding more gas stations and car washes. As a community,
we need more housing and more code enforcement. Our city has abandoned
buildings and gas stations that are already making our community a very
unattractive place to live and visit. As a resident, I don't invite family to
area due to the poor looking quality and feel of this city. The city has gone
downhill with homeless and abandoned buildings since we
purchased our home. If the city wants to keep residents, the council should
listen and respect what the citizens need and desire. Respectfully, Melanie
Casses.
Good evening. My name is Angie Riley. I am writing this email to express my
thoughts on building more gas stations and car washes in our small city of
Series. As I drove to work this morning between Morgan Road and the freeway
entrance, the five gas stations in the short distance only were servicing one
patron each. I don't feel that our city needs to add any more to the 20 that
currently exists. We are not in shortage of either of these service stations and
our city deserves more options than gas and a clean car. As a longtime resident
of seriesir, I do not agree that our city should build our build more gas
stations or car washes. Thank you for your time, Angie Riley.
Celeste. >> Okay. Um I'm going to double check in
the public. Anybody else that would like to make public comment? Shirley, I
apologize. You already had your five minutes.
» I didn't use up my whole five minutes, so bear
» with me. >> My problem is again the money.
» You know, you have the ability to okay or not okay when something comes up
before you. >> Three minutes is good. But to spend any
more money to investigate this, to send it to a city council that you already
know is going to say no, would be a waste of money. These people that are
saying they don't want any more gas stations. When I moved here 51 years
ago, there was a bar and a church on every corner. These things solve their
self. Thank you.
All righty. Uh, yeah. Did you have public comment?
» Yeah. Come on up. >> Sorry, it's my first time here. How many
minutes do I have? >> You have five minutes.
» Five minutes. Okay. I'm not a resident here in series. However, I live nearby
and uh I'm actually appalled that you guys have something like this. It's
really communist because, you know, private businesses in our country really
should be driven by demand as well as capital. When the government comes in
and proposes we're going to have a moratorum, a moratorum is not transient.
It is not temporary. Once your policy passes, it is permanent. What does that
mean? That means if any of existing stations or car washes, you know, um
should either go out of business because the owners age out or that, you know,
nobody wants to buy it or cannot buy it if your policy passes. You literally
tells people you cannot do it. You cannot do it. You cannot do it because
you're the government. Let me ask you this. Are you American?
for crying out loud. I am so shocked. I was born in Taiwan and I cannot believe
how rapidly California is losing to communism. You may not realize it
because I come in here, I see you guys. You guys look like normal Americans. I'm
sure you don't mean to have this policy so that your uh you know nice city can
become communist. But that's how communist is so scary because it first
infiltrate us. um disguised as something that is noble. Well, because you know,
gas station, it's gonna pollute the air. It's whatever.
Those are just excuses. Because if you think about science, why do we have
trees? You know, trees cannot exist without carbon dioxide. We humans
breathe in oxygen to live. Trees need carbon dioxide to live. That was God's
design. So that when we breathe out carbon dioxide, the tree naturally
filters the carbon dioxide and give us back oxygen. That's what trees do. So
for those so-called scientists, I want to ask them, what are they thinking? If
for real, God forbid, that they truly get rid of every single particle of
carbon dioxide, you know what's going to happen to us? we will also die because
that would also mean that we will no longer have oxygen for crying out loud.
Please, you guys are good people. I can tell from your faces. Do not let
deception lead you lead us to the path of
communism. There is no point of no there is point
of no return because I also uh share with you I have a property in the Bay
Area Contracasta County they have built so many affordable housing it's coming
here in the next 5 years you may not be these nice faces sitting up there that's
what I experienced truly I was blessed by God that I have a
property here which I bought 20 years ago so that I am like a refugee right
Now in these in this you know nice county trying to dodge communism there.
Communism is like tsunami. It is coming like this wave that is devouring all of
us. Please use science. Use the good founding principles of our founding
fathers. You know we all have inalienable rights. What does that mean?
Everybody should have their right to exercise their brain to decide how they
want to invest their money if they feel that they can make money having gas
stations or car washes. Why can't they have the the opportunity or the right to
do it? And with all respect, you guys are all nice people. But you sitting
there, you are the government. So let me respectfully ask you,
what right do you have to take away our right to exercise our freedom to pursue
happiness and prosperity and liberty? Thank you.
» Thank you for your comments. Anybody else for public comment?
Mr. Warren, can we get the uh camera turned on to
the public there? Thank you. Uh, good evening council. John Warren,
resident, city of Siri. I was considering whether to speak this
evening. The matter is very controversial. I know some cities close
by or neighboring cities are considering this same situation about the large
number of certain types of businesses in our community. But I do think growth has
to be monitored. We have a general plan in the city and zoning that kind of
dictates where certain businesses, whether it's a a chicken business or a
car wash business or a gas station, where they can be located. And maybe
it's time series does step back and take a look at their zoning and take a look
at uh how the design of the city we want to see move going forward. Um maybe gas
stations don't need to be in some of the locations where they're allowed now. Um
and u if you take a look I hear the comments about the
District 2 businesses and things over there. Um there's quite a few gas
stations there and and we border on Crows Landing Road. I don't know when
the last time any of you folks went down Crows Landing or Yoseite Boulevard.
There's about 9,000 gas stations over in those locations and they're what a mile
away from us if we drive down Whitmore or we drive down Hatch Road. There's a
lot of other businesses over there. There's certain types but u our sphere
of influence reaches out and u and encompasses a lot more than 20 gas
stations that we have. Um so it's something to consider. Um I think taking
a step back maybe a short moratorum. There's some time frames on moratorum
and they should be closely adhered to. So taking a look at that u might be the
thing that our city should do. Thank you.
» Thank you Mr. Warren. Anybody else for public comment? I see one hand raised on
Zoom. >> Yes, we have Brandy Meyer. Y
» can you hear me? Okay. >> Yep, we can hear you.
» Okay. Um, I don't know what the answer is to this, but I just wanted to put in
my two cents. Um, I own several businesses here in Syria. I've been a
resident for 30 plus years. I'm not sure moratorum, but I do know
when I read through it, it said temporary. It's a temporary moratorium
as of now. What I would like to see is more of a variety of businesses coming
to series. I would love to see maybe a bakery, an antique shop, another ice
cream shop. We need more for our families here in series. And from what I
understand, we have over 25 or over 20 plus gas stations.
So, I wouldn't want to encourage gas stations
or those types of businesses, but I do think we need to I don't know, maybe an
ad hoc committee put together to go out and find other businesses or other
investors who can bring in a variety of businesses.
I would never want to discourage a business to come to seriesiries, but
I think the answer at this point is that we need to find a variety of other
businesses that can bring in tax dollars.
So, that's about all I have to say and uh good luck to you guys because I know
this is going to be a tough decision.
» All right. Thanks, Brandon. All right. Final call for public comment.
Okay. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the public comment portion and
bring it back to the commission. Um I guess I Tom, just a few more questions.
Um I just I pulled up the city council agenda from um July 13th. Um and it and
I was at that meeting uh as well. Um the discussion was about staff time to do
further research. Is that correct? And Julian, you can chime in if if you would
like.
I'll let Julian answer that. I I wasn't at that city council meeting.
» Yes, that is correct. It was more for financial reasons,
» but specifically for to do further research on this topic. Correct.
» And for the record, there were three members who said on the dis should go
back to the planning commission for further direction. Is that correct?
I would have to check the minutes from that. Um,
recla was a three two vote. It
» was a 3-2 vote. However, >> yeah, go ahead, Tom. I just reviewed um
the uh video before this and it was a 3-2 vote not to um add any additional
staff time to the uh to the this item and it was it did not explicitly include
any referral back to the planning commission is my understanding.
» Okay. Well, I would encourage you to go back and listen to the discussion. Um
there were two the two who voted in favor
that vote is on the record but council council member for district 2 stated
this should go back to the planning commission. That's the first thing she
said. So um I guess with that in mind it's now back to us.
The again this whole process is just so backwards. But um we make a
recommendation tonight and it's not going back to them as an action agenda
item. >> I I do not believe that it would be
agendaized as a action item. You know, a moratorium like this would require um uh
the ordinance itself uh public notice public noticing an extensive staff
report. Uh so those would all need to be prepared. uh at the at the maximum it
would go back as a discussion item but I think due to uh the consensus provided
uh the council declined to entertain that so it would just be reported to the
council as a recommendation by the planning commission the council doesn't
have any obligation to agendaize such a recommendation although that is
typically what does happen >> okay but when this went back without our
knowledge it was not an action item to consider this. It was it was to consider
staff time. Do you do you understand where I'm trying to differentiate this?
» Yes, I do. And so >> those are two different things. If we
take this back, it's an actual item as far as this process goes that we have
the authority to do this. It goes back for their con official in consideration.
rather when this went to the city council uh on July 13th, it was we want
your opinion on staff time to do further research. Those are two different
different things. >> I I think one is intrinsic to the other
in that you need staff time in order to prepare something like that for the
council. Um so I I would say that that that's how they are connected. Uh I
don't know as though the city city staff can prepare any further on this given
the direction of the city council. >> Okay. Um,
has a process like this ever happened before to where the planning commission
um goes about the process pursuant to the municipal code
gives consensus waiting for it to be agendaized and an item without any um uh
notice just goes to the city council without
you know just going outside of the process. that the municipal code has set
up. Has that ever happened to your knowledge before?
» Um to my knowledge, uh no, that has never happened. Uh the city manager has
the authority to bring any item to the city council. And so I I think that's
where he used his authority to say, "Look at we need some direction on on if
you want us to move forward with this despite the lack of planning
commission's recommendation." And so and that's how we got to uh the current
procedural history. I you know what I acknowledge it's irregular and um it's
difficult but uh that's the current situation and the planning commission
authority is fairly narrow here.
» Okay. Well, I I am requesting the city manager be at our next meeting to
explain why this process was done backwards and why the item was taken to
the city council um and basically sabotage basically this whole process.
So, it's very >> Yep. I will add that I believe that
there might have been an additional referral item from a city council member
that was sort of in the sphere of this and so it might have been in um an
effort to address both of these items together. I think they were doing sort
of a referral oriented meeting previously. not 100%
sure on that, but I do know that um a council member had referenced your your
discussion and had wanted to um consider something. I I don't know if it was
exactly the same, but consider something that was associated with it. And those
two things combined might have prompted uh the uh the procedure.
» Okay. Why I would like the city manager to give some sort of report perhaps at
our next meeting to explain this because it's it's disheartening to it
discourages the planning commission for making recommendations pursuant to the
municipal code that we have power to do so. So if we tonight in our referral
section or new business ma matters initiated by the planning commission if
somebody makes a recommendation how do we not know it's going to turn into a
debacle like this? It's um again it's just disheartening to see. Um okay.
Yeah, go ahead. >> I mean I at the end of the day the
recommendation was put in front of the city council and and I I get that you
guys didn't flush it out completely. >> With all due respect, it was not the
recommendation. It was to staff time. That's what the discussion was about. I
was at the meeting. It was not the official
temporary moratorum. That discussion may have turned to that and that's the
council's will. However, the the discussion was about staff time. So, it
it has turned this process into just just a circus.
» Well, I I think you do need to understand at some point that the the
planning commission doesn't have the authority to uh you know uh have
specific staff time allocated to their requests within reason of course but
» I understand that it's ultimately again I want to follow the process we it
starts here. We make the recommendation. We give consensus. It's agendaized. We
vote on it and then it's taken to the city council.
We gave consensus and it was taken to the city council without an agenda item
to where we had a public hearing where people could show up and give their
thoughts. The public, you know, was honestly the the loser in this because
they didn't get to participate. And now they're here tonight giving their
opinion. We had eight email, seven emails, members of the public, and we're
going to take action, but it's going nowhere. It It's embarrassing.
So, I know you got no response. It's okay. It's just my comments. Um, okay. I
have more uh discussion on this, so I want to refer to the item
of the staff report. Um, so the map identifies 17 fuel fueling stations
within the city of series and the map identifies three fueling stations under
development or or in progress. Um,
however, the map does not include fueling stations on Joyce Avenue, Circle
K76. It does not include George's Gas 76 on
Central Avenue. It does not include SC Fuels on 237 East Whitmore A and it does
not include the abandoned TripleR on Whitmore and Mitchell.
Um the map also does not include a rumored gas station in front of Walmart.
Um
so with that um in mind, we have a flawed staff report based on the
numbers. Um, but I have a couple different scenarios that I'm just going
to submit to the the record and then the members here and people on Zoom. So,
going off of the data presented in the staff report, 17 fueling stations and
three in development, we have 4.08 fueling station per 10,000 resident.
The state average um is 2.65 65 gas stations per 10,000
resident. So with that, we're almost double.
And uh Modesto, their average is 3.62 gas stations per 10,000 resident.
We're 4.08 under 17 fueling stations and three in
development. So, if we add the four gas stations that were not included in the
staff report, that number jumps up to 4.9
fueling stations per 10,000 resident. So again, the state average 2.6
and accurate fueling stations is 24 in our city and that's 4.9 per 10,000
residents. Um, to give perspective, um,
let's see here. Um, again, Modesto 3.6 six. Their population is over 200,000
people. And Tracy has an average of 2.6 as well.
Their population is over 100,000 people. Um,
and we have 49,000 people in our city and we have
we have 4.9 fueling stations per 10,000 person. It's the numbers are there. Um,
and it's again just very um discouraging to see that this, you know, we see all
the social media comments we heard tonight. A lot of people are in favor of
this. We have too many gas stations in our city and and car washes. There's
limited data on that. City of Mantika is in the process of of doing a similar
temporary moratorum um and and series is failing. So, in in
this topic, um, so those are those are my comments. I'm going to I know I spoke
a lot tonight, but I'm going to open it up to my other commissioners for
questions. >> Uh, yeah, Tom, I have a question. Um my
understanding is that the moratorum was discussed as possibly opening up the
city to litigation by um developers hoping to develop a gas station or car
wash having the correct permits and then given any sort of kind of um response
from the planning commission um would possibly
um open us up for litigation. Is is that something that's true or is that more
speculation? Well, I I wouldn't say it would be from
necessarily um
particular project applicants, but they would rather attack the validity of the
moratorium as a whole, right? Um you have to you have to find some concrete
you have to make some concrete findings about um health, safety, welfare to um
ensure that the moratorium is permissible under state law. And so
that's a broad category. That's a broad area and the city has broad police power
to regulate those things but we really need to come from a position uh of
conformance with with that state law in order to um pass a moratorium similar to
this. Uh whereas the um the effects on the community are
less uh apparent for gas stations and car washes than they might be for
another type of use. say like you see a lot of the data centers going through
moratorium right now. That's a little bit of a you know more visible um uh
challenge to the community. So something like this you just really want to make
sure that you're in conformance with the say law before passing it.
» Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. Um yeah, I just wanted to say that um I
it's really nice to get this feedback, the emails and having people come to the
meeting. this this feedback helps us get the data that that allows us to do this
kind of work. Um so I I appreciate that. Uh I I do think a little bit of uh the
process has been lost in this discussion. um very much so the
moratorum is is a legal category and u similar to what Tom said I think like
that threshold to develop a moratorum hadn't really been met in terms of the
research and the staff time and also of course there's the idea of of paying
staffers to do more work to research this so economic development is not a
one-man show um we are not um the only uh folks involved in this so Um, I
understand kind of the frustration with having just these new projects in
development, but I think, um, I voted against it because I thought, uh, one,
it would it would open us up to litigation, and two, we were denying
shovel ready projects that had already been approved by um, our various
departments. Um, so I just wanted to kind of discuss more of the nuance. Um,
the the anger and the expression is is necessary and helpful. Um, but I'm
wondering if we can do something like similar to a moratorum that isn't quite
at that legal threshold, more like suggested guidelines for future uh fuel
and car wash stations that have a hiring kind of requirement for serious
residents or maybe 50% of their pumps have to be EV chargers. Is that
something that can kind of get around the inability to develop a moratorum or
is that um a suggestion that maybe is a little bit too um farreaching for this
platform? I don't know if staff wants to jump in.
» So, so a big portion of the um moratorum is to provide time for the city to study
its land use and to propose future regulations for those types of uses. So
I think your suggestion makes a lot of sense in that uh you won't be imposing
the moratorum but you'll still be thinking about the studying and
evaluating the land uses which is which is a component of what you're typically
doing during that moratorum period. >> Okay. Um I don't know if that's like a
motion we can do. Sorry chair I'll defer to you.
» Uh yeah I think we'll see if anybody else has any comments. When when we
discussed this item, the initial time the consensus was 5-0. Correct.
Okay. I was just curious. Dor Dory said she voted no. I thought it was it was
unanimous.
I was just curious. Okay. Bob, you got any comments?
Francisco? Um, no. I mean,
as we sit here reading and going through all these emails, I I think the people
have spoken. So
this item doesn't require any action to be taken or you can you can make a
motion. Um uh anything that will be done will be done by the minutes. There's no
associated resolution.
Yeah, I'm trying to figure making sure I got all my points across.
Can Tom, did you put together a staff report or did did Julian?
» I added the uh the background and the um the legal components of it.
» Okay. So, >> who added the gas stations?
» Are you referring to the map? >> Yes. Yes, sir.
» The map I did. Okay. All the yellow dots are the current gas stations that we
have. The green dots, the lightly green dots
are the ones that have been re have been approved by commission.
Okay. Can can we confirm on the record that Circle K76 is not on that map on
Joyce A which is by the 711 headed towards the
99 has Jamba Juice attached to it.
Oh, I've Heen. >> He burned in. Yes.
» Oh, the one that's supposed to be to the left of the two dots there. Okay.
» So, confirming that one is not on the map.
» There's Chevron. There's the 76. That is not on there.
» Okay. And confirming George's Gas 76 on Central A is not on that map.
I stand correct. You stand yes. It is not on here.
» SC Fuels on East Whitmore is not on that map as well. And Triple R on Whitmore is
not on that map. >> Triple R is not because it's not a gas
station that's in service. So it's an abandoned gas station.
» It is a gas station though, right? >> But it's not an operated gas station. So
the site is it's a dead site. So due to circumstances that are beyond our
control, that is a dead sight. Um so it it's not a gas station. It was at one
time a gas station, but it's not an active gas station, so it is not on
here. Um what was the other one that you said?
» Um SC Fuels. Um >> one in front of Rockefeller.
» No, it headed towards Crows Landing. I don't believe that's Rockefeller.
It would be past flyers if you're headed toward down
» on the right hand side. That is a county gas station. That is not in the city of
Series. >> Okay. It It's in It's in our city
limits. I mean, it's in district two. >> It's not in our district.
» No. >> In front of Gallow.
» No, not at Well, yeah, I believe that is Gallow across the street. Yes.
» Yes. So, that is county. >> Okay.
So, we're missing you two I I believe three with triple R
but two gas stations off of that list. Okay,
» thank you. >> Yep. Thank you. Um so again I I'm going
to revert back to we we are way over the state average and local average. Um
Modesto has 3.62,
Tracy has 2.6, Stockton has 2.9. And these are cities with populations
well well uh more than more than ours. Um and it's it's oversaturation of of
gas stations and and there should be more studies done on car washes as well.
But I'm going to make a motion. Um I would like to separate these two items.
Um and I'm again however staff decides to take it back to city council. It is
what it is. this process has been um whatever the right term for it is. But
um I'm going to make a motion to recommend to the Siri City Council to
put a temporary moratorium on fueling stations in the city of series for one
year revisiting the moratorum after one calendar year passes due to the
inconsistencies with the general plan oversaturation data and local state
averages while changing the findings to those stated.
Just to jump in there, I apologize. They can only implement a 45day moratorum,
but then it would have to be extended. >> I will change it to 45 days to do that.
» I'll go ahead and second that. >> We got a first and a second. Can we get
a roll call?
» Commissioner Global. >> Hi,
» Commissioner Morales. Hi, >> Commissioner Perez.
» Nay. >> Chairperson Condid.
» Hi. >> Okay. Motion passes. Um 31.
» Okay. And second, I will make a motion to recommend to the Siri city council to
put a temporary moratorium on car washes in the city of series for 45 days
revisiting the moratorium after those 45 days passes due to the inconsistencies
of the general plan, oversaturation, public concern, and data. while changing
the findings to those stated. >> Second that first and a second. Can we
go to roll call?
» That was Global that second. >> Yeah.
» I
» uh Commissioner Goel >> I
» Commissioner Morales >> I
» Commissioner Perez. >> Chairperson Condit.
» I motion passes 3 to one with one absent.
Okay, moving on. Unfinished business, none. New business, none. Ma matters
initiated by planning commission and staff. I would like the city manager at
our next um planning commission meeting to discuss um the municipal code section
2.05.040F 040F
and a um explanation for why this process on item six was uh turned out
the way it did and reports. Anybody have any reports?
Seeing none, we'll go ahead and adjourn to our next meeting on Yeah, I have to
adjourn this though. adjourn to August 3rd, 2026 at 6 p.m. and we are going to
convene to the series downtown revitalization area board um right now.
So go ahead and adjourn this one. Yeah, we'll go and take a 5m minute
break.
All righty, folks. We're going to get started here. I'm going to call this uh
meeting to order and we get a roll call.
» Let's see. Commissioner Global.
Commissioner Morales >> present.
» Commissioner Jamu absent. Commissioner Perez.
Chairperson cond. Conflict of interest. Anybody having a
conflict of interest? No. Consent calendar. All matters list on the
consent calendar considered routine in nature uh and will be enacted by a
single motion unless otherwise requested by an individual commissioner or the
public for special consideration. Otherwise, the recommendation of staff
will be to accept accepted and act upon by roll call vote. I'm going to turn it
over to Mr. Giri here.
So, good evening, planning commission chair.
Uh this evening, um I'll give you a little history on the downtown
revitalization board for the new uh planning commissioners. So, the series
downtown revitalization area was established um pursuant to the parking
and business improvement area of 1979 and adopted an ordinance in 1988
uh by the Siri City Council um for the purpose of the district was to provide a
funding mechanism through business assessments to support activities
improvements that would enhance and promote the downtown area. In 1995, the
city council adopted an ordinance which expanded the flexibility of how
assessments could be utilized for programs and projects specifically for
the downtown area.
The state law requires that the city council establish an advisory board for
the district. The advisory board is responsible for making recommendations
to the city council regarding expenditures of assessments revenues and
may also provide recommendations concerning the method and basis of
leving assessments within the district. When initially established, the advisory
board was compri comprised of business owners located within the boundaries of
the downtown revitalization area. So that boundary is from
El Camino north to Magnolia. The business is just north of Magnolia
um to the
east side um of six uh all the way east to sixth street. um only those
businesses to the west and then all the way from Al
Camino to Magnolia where it meets on the intersection by Polar Street.
U to ensure continued administr uh the boundaries over time participation by
business owners had declined um resulting in reoccurring difficulties in
maintaining a quorum necessary to conduct official business.
So in 1998 the planning commission was appointed as
the advisory uh board and the planning commission has contain continued to
fulfill this role since that time providing recommendations to city
council regarding the downtown revitalization. So this evening um we're
here one um first, second, third and fourth quarter
are presented. These should be coming to you quarterly um due to staff um
we had an overturn in the finance department and then in our department.
So we apologize for them coming to you all at one time, but normally they would
come um after each quarter to present to you a report um and also to indicate the
expenses and what assessments were collected during those quarters.
So the last two years unfortunately the city council has
uh voted not to levy the assessments. So, as you can see on the quarter
reports, there's zero assessments that were uh collected, but we did have a
significant um expenditures that we had to pay out through in this account. So,
tonight um to we're just asking for the advisory board to approve the quarterly
reports and then also to approve the annual report for the 2627 year. in that
report. Basically, it's the improvements and activities to be proposed is to
continue with um if granted the assessments to come in and then
utilizing that funding that's in this set aside separate account. It's a
standalone budget account for the downtown businesses uh to utilize that
to pay for the lighting. Um the landscaping contract has been
cancelled due to there is there was no funding into that account. Um to improve
uh they I think they want to do like way science to help um kind of emphasize the
downtown businesses and stuff. So that is just a placeholder. So part of it is
we have to present to the advisory board any ex expenditures that we this
um bid would like to expend during the
year. Um so basically we have placeholders. So as you can see on the
it's uh the attachment sorry
It's exhibit D, which is the proposed um budget for 2627.
The projected revenue we anticipate to collect approximately $7,000 from
businesses. The expend expenditures for this year is roughly 2,750.
that it will include electricity where the downtown lighting. Um we put
advertisement in there. This is just if there was like a major event that they
wanted to hold and the businesses wanted to advertise it, they would be allowed
to pull from this funding to do large advertisement outside of what like the
city or any other would do. And then contract services, it was discussed that
they wanted to do like Christmas lighting on the trees downtown during
Christmas time. So, we had to put a placeholder in there for approximately
$1,000. Not sure if that's what it was going to cost, but these are just
placeholders in there. As you can see, wayfinding signs, downtown incentive
programs, and FCOD um renovation, those are just on holding
back in 20, I believe 17. Um they were approved as expenditures.
Um the funding has we've had a lot of funding in there, but over time it has
deplened. The last two years it really deplenished because there was no
assessment. And so we're asking for the the board to approve the the
expenditures, approve the yearly report, and then this would then go to city
council for approval and then for them to set a public hearing 30 days from the
approval. um to vote on the levy assessment. And
the levy assessment then the businesses would be notified
um by mail or the public hearing to come in either oppose or agree with the the
assessment at the time. or the council could wish to not collect the assessment
and then um either vote to disband the bid or
continue the assessment until the funding is replenished. Um right now
we're looking at going into 2027 with approximately a little bit over $2,000
um in that account.
Okay, >> that's it.
» Okay. Any any questions of uh of Julian? >> Yeah, I've got a couple questions for
you, Julian. On exhibit A, you're showing
all four quarters.
um
with what I can't figure out is you're showing an ending cash balance of
20,127. So yes, and I do apologize because
that's when the quarter report was created at the end of
where's the end of June, but we still had outstanding invoices from the Grover
landscaping that had not been processed yet.
So if you look at the bottom contract services, Grover was 1820 per month. So,
we were we still needed um their invoices to come in and get
cleared. >> So, you're saying that ending cash
balance is 2,000? >> Yes.
» Okay. >> Has that been updated on online or
» that has that was just on the budget. If you look at the exhibit D, it just says
approximately balance rollover is 231159.
» Okay. because you're showing contract services of 36.40 a month that were
subtracted. So why is there another Grover
invoices?
You put it in there. Hang on. You're showing that we paid for over
$14,560 for the year.
So, Grover's account should be 21,840 for 12 months.
So, if you look at year to date, 14,560. And I apologize if it didn't get I think
it didn't get calculated correctly. So, I do apologize and we can make that
correction and bring it back. So, does Grover come weekly or
» So, Grover would come once a week on Fridays, but they no longer will come as
effective June 30th. They're no longer contracted with the city.
» So, they were coming once a week basically.
» They were coming once a week. Yes. >> Okay. Mhm.
» And who is doing that service now? >> That service will fall back on the city
of Syri.
» Okay. Well, I'll go ahead and open it up to the public. Any members of the public
that would like to uh speak on this item,
Mr. Warren? >> Wait. Um, have we voted on the Is this
for the consent item still or the annual report?
» I think we're still on the consent. >> Okay. Just
» that can be open up to the public or >> I think we skipped over the consent. So,
can we vote on the consent, please? >> Hold on one second, Mr. Warren. I'll go
ahead and motion to approve item uh seven and then we'll take it to the
public hearing.
» I'll second that. >> Okay, we got a first and second on
consent. We get a roll call. >> Commissioner Global
» I. >> Commissioner Morales,
» I. >> Commissioner Perez,
» hi. >> Chairperson Condan.
» Hi. Okay, now we will open the public
hearing.
» Good evening, commissioners. John Warren, city of Siri. I remember there
was some discussion on the assessment and
the cost of doing business, landscaping and the lighting and stuff previously.
And there was some question as to if there was a mechanism in place to
collect the
money that the that the levies or the uh city would charge the revitalization
board would approve for who's going to collect the uh the dollars and what
account it would go into. And has that been resolved as to whether
the business downtown actually have to pay these levies
and who collects them and what mechanism is in place to make those collections.
» We will have staff answer that. That would be my question that I remember
that from before that there was no mechanism to collect the revenues of the
that were going into the fund and that some of the businesses down there are
not paying basically their fair share which makes it hard on the ones that are
and also whether the city can afford to hire uh or
have a outside agency come in and take care of the uh landscaping. being
reverses the city staff. >> Thank you.
Any other members of the public that would like to comment on this item?
» Yep. Yep. Come on up. State your name. >> I am Freedom by God above America. Um by
Brown Act. I don't need to tell you my name. Okay.
» So, I'm using a fictitious name. Um, since I'm here, um, I just want to share
with you that if I were ever going to want to come to seriesir and I did a
little bit of a research on your city, you are a very young city. The average
age of your community is about 30ome years old. So, um there's a lot of um
activities that perhaps uh you can provide for the families to come because
uh once you revital lies your downtown, you still want people to come, right? So
I think uh like what you were talking about and by the way I really respect
and admire uh that you pointed out uh at the previous meeting that the order of
that particular um agendaized item was done in a backwards way. So I feel that
uh this topic also when you want to revitalize and I was hoping to hear your
objectives um perhaps those need to be pinpointed
first and then um you know it's easier then for the public to be able to
participate because then we know oh they have revitalized certain things and then
we can come and spend money and that's how you are able to get more of tax
dollars because we spend money and that therefore uh the revitalization is not
just a point in time but it will be uh perpetual. Thank you.
» Thank you. Anybody else for public comment?
» All right. Anybody on Zoom?
» No hands raised. >> Okay. Bring it go ahead and close the
public uh hearing process and bring it back to the commission for action.
Um Julian, can we answer Mr. Warren's question as far as is there something
set up to collect the levy.
» So we are looking at utilizing um HDL who does the quarterly mil tax.
So it would be linked to their quarterly mil tax to ensure that the businesses
are submitting their quarterly assessments.
um where before our third party collector was not doing their due
diligence. So we would do have something in place.
» Okay. Any other questions of uh the commission?
An action is required. Correct. This goes back to the city council.
» That is correct. is just to accept the annual plan and then for it to go to
city council for approval for the annual uh report and then for them to set a
public hearing 30 days from that for a levy assessment
which will be uh a public hearing noted and each business will have a letter
sent to them for that public hearing.
I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve.
» Go ahead and second. >> Okay, we got a first and a second. Can
we get a roll call?
» Commissioner Global >> I.
» Commissioner Morales. >> I.
» Commissioner Perez. >> I.
» Chairperson Condent. >> Hi.
» Motion passes 4 Z with one absent. >> Okay. New business none. And we will
adjourn the series downtown revitalization area