List of 2026 Planning Commission Meetings
- Main article: Planning Commission
October 13, 2026
| Agenda |
September 22, 2026
Cancelled — Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Cancelation
September 08, 2026
| Agenda |
August 25, 2026
Cancelled — Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Cancelation
August 11, 2026
Cancelled — Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Cancelation
June 30, 2026
| Planning Commission Special Meeting Agenda |
June 24, 2026
| Special Planning Commission Meeting |
June 23, 2026
| Agenda | Agenda Packet | PC Agenda 062326 |
June 09, 2026
| Agenda | Agenda Packet | Planning Commission Agenda 060926 |
May 26, 2026
| Agenda | Video | Agenda Packet | Planning Commission Agenda 5/26 | Transcript | Video Backup | Video Backup part 2 |
AI summary
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
Item 1: Part 1
The Planning Commission convened for a work session to discuss the process of reviewing development projects and how they are presented to the commission. The session aimed to improve understanding of the workflow, identify areas for refinement, and explore ways to enhance the commission’s ability to evaluate design and impact effectively. The discussion centered on two recent projects: Silver Oak Estates and a large single-family home near one of the commissioners’ residences. These projects were used as case studies to reflect on how information is presented, the timing of reviews, and the commission’s role in assessing design and environmental impacts.
Commissioners expressed concerns about receiving large, complex packages of information all at once, which made it difficult to fully understand and deliberate on the projects. They noted that in past experiences, projects were reviewed in segments, such as the environmental impact report during the comment period, allowing for public and commission input before moving on to design components. The commissioners emphasized the value of breaking projects into smaller, more manageable pieces for review, as this would allow for more thoughtful discussion and the opportunity to ask questions before making decisions.
The use of “story poles” was highlighted as a helpful visual tool to understand the scale and massing of proposed developments. Story poles are 2x4s placed on a site to represent the corners and heights of buildings, providing a tangible way to visualize a project’s design. Commissioners acknowledged the benefits of this approach, particularly for projects that are difficult to interpret from two-dimensional plans. They also discussed the importance of visiting sites in person to better understand a project’s impact on the neighborhood.
The session concluded with a general agreement that the commission should have more input on how projects are presented and that policies should be developed to ensure a more structured and transparent review process. Commissioners also emphasized the need for trust in staff’s ability to evaluate technical aspects of projects before they reach the commission, allowing the commission to focus on design, compatibility with the neighborhood, and public interest.
Keywords: development projects, review process, environmental impact, story poles, project presentation, public input, design evaluation
Item 2: Part 2
Council members discussed the role of the Planning Commission in evaluating development projects, focusing on the importance of visual impact, neighborhood compatibility, and the need for thorough review processes. a speaker emphasized the value of using tools like story poles to help visualize building massing and scale, citing past experiences with projects like Silver Oak Estates where such measures could have improved public and commission understanding. They also highlighted the importance of considering a project’s visual and physical impact on the neighborhood, not just its compliance with technical requirements like traffic and noise studies.
a speaker raised concerns about balancing subjective neighborhood preferences with adherence to municipal codes and the general plan, noting that they had previously voted against a project due to concerns about its fit within the neighborhood. They acknowledged that "no" is a valid decision but questioned whether such decisions were legally permissible in certain cases.
a speaker reiterated that the Planning Commission’s role is to assess whether a project fits within the neighborhood and aligns with city standards, not to dictate design specifics. They also discussed the importance of receiving full sets of drawings and having the opportunity to visit sites before making decisions, noting that this practice had been less common in recent years due to logistical and storage challenges.
a speaker brought up the idea of tracking metrics to evaluate the Planning Commission’s effectiveness, such as the percentage of applications handled administratively versus those requiring commission review. They suggested that analyzing these metrics could help identify inefficiencies and improve the commission’s ability to make informed decisions. However, a speaker expressed reservations about the value of such metrics, emphasizing that the commission’s role is to evaluate projects based on their impact and fit, not to measure administrative performance.
The discussion also touched on the need for clearer policies and procedures for how projects are brought to the commission, including breaking large projects into smaller, more manageable pieces for review. a speaker suggested that developing a flowchart or policy guide for staff and commissioners could help streamline the process and ensure consistency in how projects are evaluated. They also emphasized the importance of maintaining impartiality and avoiding prior involvement with projects to prevent conflicts of interest.
Keywords: visual impact assessment, story poles usage, neighborhood compatibility, project review process, conflict of interest, policy guide development, administrative metrics
Item 3: Part 3
A discussion about the Planning Commission's role and responsibilities took place during the meeting. a speaker emphasized the importance of the commission being proactive in addressing community concerns and planning for future developments. They mentioned several potential projects, including a development near Endeavor Hall and a project near Peacock Creek, and highlighted the need for the Planning Commission to be involved in updating the downtown-specific plan. a speaker also discussed the lack of a Design Review Commission, which they felt was a gap in the current system, and suggested that the Planning Commission could take on a more active role in reviewing design elements of projects.
a speaker also spoke about the importance of public hearings and the need for the Planning Commission to serve as a hearing body for the City Council. They encouraged more frequent meetings and suggested that the commission could provide recommendations to the City Council on various planning issues. The discussion also touched on the need for better communication tools and materials to help the commission understand and evaluate proposed projects. a speaker and others discussed the use of tools such as story polls, 3D models, and context plans to better visualize the impact of proposed developments.
a speaker summarized the discussion and outlined next steps, including the need to provide staff with guidance on developing and implementing refinements to policies, processes, and communication materials. The Planning Commission also discussed the possibility of holding a special meeting to continue the conversation about upcoming projects and planning issues. The meeting concluded with a reminder about the upcoming Planning Commission meetings and the need to follow the Brown Act for special meetings.
Keywords: Planning Commission role, Future developments, Downtown-specific plan, Design Review Commission gap, Public hearings importance, 3D models visualization, Policy refinements guidance, Special meeting possibility
See the full transcript here.
March 31, 2026
| Video | PC_RegularSession_Agenda_03_31_2026 | Transcript | Video Backup |
AI summary
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
Item 1: Meeting
The meeting began with a roll call, confirming the presence of Chair Richardson, Vice Chair Bonchero, and Commissioner Schulman, with Commissioners Casagrande and Berzovich absent. A quorum was established, and the Pledge of Allegiance was recited. The meeting then moved through procedural items, including the acceptance of the agenda and public comment, which was closed due to no speakers.
The primary discussion centered on a municipal code text amendment, specifically Resolution Number 04-2026, which recommends amending the Clayton Municipal Code to allow certain residential uses by right, provided at least 20% of the units are affordable to lower-income households. Frank Chow, a senior planner, presented the background and details of the amendment. The changes included allowing residential development on sites identified to address housing shortfalls, ensuring minimum density requirements prevail over base zone regulations, and defining "by right" in the code to exclude discretionary approvals typically required under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Following the presentation, a motion was made to approve the resolution. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously by the present commissioners, with no further discussion or opposition. The meeting concluded with no additional business and was adjourned.
Keywords: municipal code amendment, affordable housing units, residential development, minimum density requirements, by right definition, resolution 04-2026, unanimous approval
See the full transcript here.
March 10, 2026
| Agenda | Video | Agenda Packet | PC_RegularSession_Agenda_03_10_2026 | Transcript | Video Backup |
AI summary
The following summary was generated by an AI model from the meeting's transcript, agenda, and agenda packet, and may contain errors.
Item 1: Meeting
The Planning Commission discussed the Silver Oak Estates project, focusing on its environmental review, coordination with agencies, and vesting implications of the tentative map. Staff presented that the project's Environmental Impact Report (EIR) included a statement of overriding considerations in Section 9, as other potential impacts were mitigated to acceptable levels. The EIR considered three alternatives: the no-project alternative, a reduced development alternative with 20 units, and a base-level alternative with 25 units. The no-project alternative was not further considered due to its inconsistency with the city's housing element. The reduced development alternative was deemed environmentally superior due to lower vehicle miles traveled (VMT), but it did not meet the city's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers, making it difficult to support findings for reduced density. The base-level alternative, with 25 units, was consistent with the city's housing element and general plan.
Staff noted that coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Regional Water Quality Control Board occurred during various stages, including early consultation and the draft EIR comment period. No significant comments were received from these agencies, and standard permitting processes would be followed. Regarding the HOA, staff emphasized that the HOA would be responsible for maintaining on-site facilities, and conditions were imposed to ensure solvency and proper management.
Commissioner Brusvich asked if the environmental review and mitigation measures adequately addressed the EIR topics, to which staff confirmed that the project as proposed remained consistent with the EIR analysis. Commissioner Casagrande expressed concerns about bioretention and filtration systems to prevent runoff into Mount Diablo Creek. A motion was made and seconded to approve the project, including the adoption of the EIR, mitigation program, vesting tentative map, development plan, and findings of fact and conditions of approval. The motion passed with a vote of 4-1, with Commissioner Casagrande voting no.
Keywords: Silver Oak Estates project, Environmental Impact Report, Regional Housing Needs Allocation, bioretention systems, vesting tentative map, mitigation program, development plan
See the full transcript here.
February 24, 2026
| Agenda | Video | Agenda Packet | PC_RegularSession_Agenda_02_24_2026 |
No transcript is available: the recording published by the City for this meeting contains no usable audio.
February 10, 2026
| Agenda | Video | Agenda Packet | PC_RegularSession_Agenda_02_10_2026 | Transcript |
AI summary
The following summary is provided by smmry.com.
TBD
See the full transcript here.
January 13, 2026
| Agenda | Video | Agenda Packet | PC_RegularSession_Agenda_01_13_2026 | Transcript |
AI summary
The following summary is provided by smmry.com.
TBD
See the full transcript here.