[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