List of 2026 Planning Commission Meetings

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: Call to Order and Roll Call

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

Item 2: Acceptance of the Agenda

The meeting was called to order by Daniel Richardson, who noted that the roll call was visual and that not all members were present. He mentioned that the agenda was straightforward and not subject to much movement. Richardson then led the group in the Pledge of Allegiance. No further discussion or action was taken on the acceptance of the agenda during this portion of the meeting.

Keywords: roll call visual, agenda straightforward, no further discussion, acceptance agenda

Item 3: Pledge of Allegiance

Pledge of Allegiance at [0:00:40].

Item 5: Public Meeting

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

Item 6: Communications

The Planning Commission convened a work session to discuss the process by which projects come before the Commission, the Commission’s role in reviewing and approving projects, and ways to refine the process for future projects. The discussion was initiated by Chair Daniel Richardson, who expressed a desire to improve the Commission’s understanding of the process and to explore ways to enhance the Commission’s ability to evaluate design and other aspects of projects effectively. He highlighted recent projects, such as Silver Oak Estates and a large private home, as examples of how the Commission could benefit from more structured and segmented review processes.

Senior Planner Craig Chalmers provided an overview of the workflow for projects, including the submission process, CEQA requirements, and the importance of pre-submission conferences. He emphasized the need for the Commission to provide feedback on how projects are presented and suggested that breaking projects into smaller segments for review could be more effective. He also mentioned the use of tools such as story poles to help visualize the scale and massing of buildings, which the Commission had used in the past with positive results.

Commissioners discussed the challenges of reviewing large, complex projects that arrive as single, overwhelming packages, often after the comment period, limiting the Commission’s ability to provide meaningful input. They expressed a preference for segmented reviews, allowing for more thorough discussions and informed decisions. The Commission also discussed the importance of site visits and visual tools, such as 3D models and context plans, to better understand the impact of proposed developments on the surrounding neighborhoods.

Commissioners acknowledged the need for the Commission to develop clear criteria for evaluating design elements, such as size, massing, and visual impact, and to ensure that developers provide the necessary information to support informed decisions. They also discussed the importance of maintaining a policy that allows the Commission to recommend changes or require additional information from developers when necessary.

The discussion concluded with a commitment to continue these conversations in future meetings, with the next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for June 9th. The Commission also agreed to consider holding a special meeting if needed to further refine the process and develop policies for future project reviews.

Keywords: project review process, segmented reviews, CEQA requirements, visual tools, design criteria, pre-submission conferences, policy development

Item 7: Adjournment

Adjournment at [1:33:01].

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: Call to Order

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

Item 2: Roll Call

Roll Call at [0:00:01].

Item 3: Pledge of Allegiance

Pledge of Allegiance at [0:00:12].

Item 4: Acceptance of the Agenda

The Planning Commission meeting began with a brief moment of patriotism as a speaker, Joseph Banchero, invited attendees to join in the Pledge of Allegiance. a speaker, Daniel Richardson, then led the pledge, reciting the full text. No further discussion or action was taken on Agenda Item 4 during this segment of the meeting.

Keywords: Pledge of Allegiance, Joseph Banchero, Daniel Richardson, Agenda Item 4

Item 6: Public Hearing

The Planning Commission convened a public hearing to consider Resolution No. 04-2026, which recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Clayton Municipal Code to allow certain residential developments as "by right" with specific affordable housing requirements. Frank Chow, a senior planner from the City of Naperville, presented the proposal. He explained that the amendment has three key components: allowing sites identified to address shortfalls in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment to be developed by right if at least 20% of the units are affordable to lower-income households; ensuring that minimum density requirements (20 units per acre) take precedence over base zone regulations; and defining "by right" in the municipal code to mean that certain housing developments do not require discretionary approvals such as conditional use permits or plan unit development permits.

Following the presentation, Joseph Banchero moved to approve the resolution, which was seconded by Frank Chow. A vote was taken, with all three commissioners voting in favor. The motion carried unanimously. No further discussion or amendments were proposed, and no additional public comments were received during the hearing. The Planning Commission concluded the meeting without any other business.

Keywords: affordable housing requirements, residential developments, Regional Housing Needs Assessment, minimum density requirements, by right definition, conditional use permits, plan unit development permits

Item 7: Adjournment

Adjournment at [0:11:04].

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: Call to Order

Call to Order at [0:00:21].

Item 2: Roll Call

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

Item 3: Pledge of Allegiance

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

Item 4: Acceptance of the Agenda

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

Item 6: Consent Calendar

This item was not taken up at the meeting.

Item 7: Public Hearing

The Planning Commission continued its public hearing on the Silver Oak Estates Project, focusing on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), vesting tentative subdivision map, and development plan. Staff outlined the CEQA alternative analysis, which included the no project alternative, a reduced development alternative with 20 units, and a base level alternative with 25 units. The no project alternative was deemed inconsistent with the city’s housing element and general plan objectives. The reduced development alternative was considered environmentally superior due to lower vehicle miles traveled (VMT), but it failed to meet the city’s regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) numbers, making it difficult to support findings for reduced density. Staff emphasized that the proposed project aligns with the city’s housing goals and includes measures to preserve Maud Alba Creek and provide buffer areas for neighbors.

Staff also detailed coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Consultation occurred during the initial study, draft EIR, and final EIR stages. CDFW provided limited comments, which were incorporated into the EIR, while the Regional Water Quality Control Board had no comments. Pre-construction requirements, such as a stream alteration agreement and biological surveys, will be conducted in cooperation with CDFW. Additionally, a notice of intent to construct will be required from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Regarding the Homeowners Association (HOA), staff explained that the HOA will be responsible for maintaining private facilities, including streets, street lights, and bioretention systems. Developers must submit a detailed budget for approval, and if the HOA becomes underfunded, it can levy special assessments to ensure solvency. Staff noted that HOA insolvency is rare due to these mechanisms.

Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the project, including certifying the EIR, adopting a mitigation monitoring reporting program, approving the vesting tentative map, and adopting the development plan with subcomponents such as the affordable housing plan and habitat conservation plan. Staff also requested the Commission to adopt findings of fact and conditions of approval for the project.

Keywords: Silver Oak Estates Project, Environmental Impact Report, Regional Housing Needs Allocation, Maud Alba Creek, Homeowners Association, Mitigation Monitoring Program, Affordable Housing Plan

Item 8: Communications

The Planning Commission considered the adoption of Resolution 012-206, which includes the approval of multiple components related to the Silver Oaks Estates project. a speaker moved to approve all items associated with the resolution, including the Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map VTS M9541, the development plan DP-01-10, and the findings of fact and conditions of approval for the project. a speaker affirmed the motion, and a speaker seconded it. Following the motion, a speaker requested the city clerk to call the roll for a vote.

Commissioner Brosevich voted in favor (Aye), Commissioner Casagrande opposed (No), Commissioner Schulman supported (Aye), Vice Chair Banchero voted in favor (Aye), and Chair Richardson also supported the motion (Aye). The resolution was approved with a majority vote.

Keywords: Silver Oaks Estates project, Mitigation and Monitoring, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, Development Plan DP-01-10, Findings of Fact, Conditions of Approval, Resolution 012-206

Item 9: Adjournment

Adjournment at [0:16:55].

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.