Ripon Planning Commission Minutes
MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2026 – 6:00 PM
REGULAR MEETING
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
This meeting was called to order at 6:02 P.M. with Commissioner Verver leading the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ROLL CALL:
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
George Saljian Commissioner Present
Dave Collins Commissioner Present
Steven Verver Commissioner Present
Debra Van Essen Commissioner Present
Jeff Veilleux Commissioner Present
Lori Bunnell Commissioner Absent
Others Present: Planning Director Ken Zuidervaart, City Attorney Tom Terpstra Jr., Planning Secretary Michael Winters, Information Systems Elizabeth Farnam.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
No one from the public wished to speak at this time.
REORGANIZATION:
Commissioners will appoint a new Chairman and Vice Chairman.
Motion to appoint Commissioner Van Essen as Chairman (Veilleux/Saljian) and carried by a 5-0 vote.
Motion to appoint Commissioner Collins as Vice Chairman (Veilleux/Saljian) and carried by a 5-0 vote.
Van Essen assumed the role of Chairman.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Motion to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 17, 2025.
RESULT: ADOPTED [4 TO 0]
MOVER: George Saljian, Commissioner
SECONDER: Steven Verver, Commissioner
AYES: Saljian, Verver, Van Essen, Veilleux
ABSTAIN: Collins
A. PLANNING COMMISSION - REGULAR MEETING - NOV 17, 2025 6:00 PM Planning Commission Page 2 April 20, 2026
1. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. IONNA DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Planning Commission review and
recommendation of the Development
Agreement with Ionna LLC for the
development of an Electric Vehicle
Charging Station at 1504 West Colony
Road.
Should the Planning Commission agree
with staff’s recommendation, the
following motion would be appropriate:
“The Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council
approve the Development
Agreement with Ionna LLC for the
Electric Vehicle Charging Station
project located at 1504 West
Colony Road.”
Planning Director Zuidervaart introduced the staff report into record.
Zuidervaart explained that in October of last year, the Planning Commission approved an electric vehicle charging station at 1504 W. Colony Road, and that one of the conditions of approval required the applicant to enter into a development agreement with the City of Ripon prior to receiving a building permit. He explained that the applicant reviewed and signed the proposed development agreement, and that the Planning Commission’s recommendation would be forwarded to the City Council, which would take final action on the item.
Chairman Van Essen asked Zuidervaart whether the City enters into a development agreement for all projects.
Zuidervaart said no, the City does not currently use development agreements for all projects. He stated that development agreements are used for most residential projects, but that the City is beginning to use development agreements for certain types of development projects.
Commissioner Veilleux asked Zuidervaart to explain the need for development agreements.
Zuidervaart explained that development agreements ensure all conditions of approval will be met and provide clear direction to the applicant regarding project requirements.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Proponents: No one wished to speak in favor of this agenda item.
Opponents: No one wished to speak against this agenda item.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Planning Commission Page 3 April 20, 2026
Motion to recommend the City Council approve the Development Agreement with Ionna LLC for the Electric Vehicle Charging Station located at 1504 W. Colony Road.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: George Saljian, Commissioner
SECONDER: Dave Collins, Commissioner
AYES: Saljian, Collins, Verver, Van Essen, Veilleux
B. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TAZ26-38 - ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS TAZ26-38 pertaining to new regulations
for Accessory Dwelling Units
Should the Planning Commission agree
with staff’s recommendation, the
following motion would be appropriate:
“The Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council
approve the amendments to Chapter
16.86 – Accessory Dwelling Unit
Ordinance based on the findings in the
staff report.”
Planning Director Zuidervaart introduced the staff report into record.
Zuidervaart presented a PowerPoint on the proposed municipal code text amendments for Chapter 16.86, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s), noting that the revisions are necessary to bring the City's current municipal code into compliance with state law. He explained that the existing ADU code, adopted in 2021, no longer meets updated state requirements due to several bills passed between 2021 and 2026, including Assembly Bills 462 and 1154, as well as Senate Bill 543, which passed in 2025.
Zuidervaart introduced the new state laws and explained that they created two distinct categories for Accessory Dwelling Units: state-exempt, also known as Section 66323 units, and non-state-exempt units. He further explained the State-Exempt ADU guidelines and outlined the differences between Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs), nonstate-exempt ADUs, and Section 66323 (state-exempt) units, including all applicable design standards and application processing steps. Zuidervaart outlined the legally permitted number of units a property owner may place on a single parcel and noted that all ADUs must be reviewed ministerially.
Commissioner Saljian asked Zuidervaart to clarify whether the City may require stateexempt units to meet local design standards.
Zuidervaart stated the City does not have the authority to apply its design criteria to stateexempt units, and clarified that local design standards continue to apply to non-stateexempt units.
Planning Commission Page 4 April 20, 2026
Chairman Van Essen stated she remained unclear on the distinction between state-exempt units and non-state-exempt units and requested further clarification.
Zuidervaart further explained the state laws governing state-exempt units, including applicable development standards such as setback requirements and size limitations. He provided examples illustrating which units qualify as state-exempt and which units qualify as non-state-exempt.
Zuidervaart discussed the City's existing design standards that have changed under the new state laws and outlined what state law precludes regarding the City's local design standards. He explained that the City's current design standards are largely compliant, and that the proposed ordinance revisions are mainly to make clear distinctions between state-exempt and non-state-exempt units, as these terms were not in use when the ordinance was originally adopted in 2021.
Zuidervaart discussed the owner-occupancy clause and explained that the new state laws removed the City's ability to impose this requirement. He outlined the limited circumstances under which the City may still impose an owner-occupancy requirement for JADUs.
Van Essen asked for clarification on JADUs.
Zuidervaart explained that a JADU is a unit of 500 square feet or less, and outlined the applicable sanitation and kitchen requirements.
Zuidervaart explained that state laws have significantly limited the City's ability to require off-street parking and outlined the remaining criteria under which off-street parking may still be required. He further elaborated on the proposed ordinance revisions necessary to achieve compliance with state law.
Commissioner Veilleux expressed concern that increased ADU development could contribute to street parking congestion.
Zuidervaart elaborated on ADU fees, including when fees may be charged, when fees may not be charged, and how such fees are to be applied to applicants.
Saljian asked Zuidervaart about infrastructure capacity, specifically regarding sewer and water treatment. Saljian expressed concern that the increased demand placed on the City's infrastructure by ADU development could strain systems that were not originally designed to accommodate additional dwelling units.
Zuidervaart concurred with Saljian’s concern but indicated that it is not expected to pose a significant issue, as the City of Ripon has historically invested in high quality, and in many cases oversized infrastructure through its comprehensive master planning processes.
Planning Commission Page 5 April 20, 2026
City Attorney Tom Terpstra explained that municipalities throughout the state are explicitly grappling with the issue of overburdened infrastructure, and that the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is the arbitrating body that addresses these concerns with municipalities. He further explained that HCD has been extremely aggressive in its interpretation of the law in favor of state objectives, rather than the needs of municipalities.
Veilleux asked Zuidervaart about the anticipated number of ADU permits and the expected residential growth associated with ADU development.
Zuidervaart stated that while he could not quantify that amount with certainty, the City has seen roughly 60 ADUs permitted over the last five to seven years.
Zuidervaart explained the proposed updates to the Municipal Code regarding the processing of ADU applications.
Zuidervaart explained the addition of an amnesty program for unpermitted ADUs within the Municipal Code, and discussed the standards, objectives, and guidelines of this new program.
Zuidervaart summarized the main proposed changes to the Municipal Code necessary to bring the ADU regulations into compliance with state law.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Proponent: No one wished to speak in favor of this agenda item.
Opponent:
James Lloyd with the California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF) submitted a written comment prior to the meeting stating that he believes the City's proposed ordinance remains out of compliance with state law. Lloyd wrote the City must allow two Section 66323 units per single-family parcel, provided that one is a conversion and one is new construction.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Terpstra responded to Lloyd's written comment, stating that the letter misrepresents the proposed ordinance. Terpstra explained that Lloyd's comment reflects a misreading of the proposed ordinance.
Van Essen asked Terpstra if he will responded to Lloyd’s letter.
Terpstra stated that the City has no obligation to respond to Lloyd's letter, and that state law requires the City to submit the proposed ordinance to HCD for review and approval.
He explained that if HCD returns with comments indicating the proposed ordinance is still out of compliance, the City would either need to revise the ordinance accordingly or defend its position and demonstrate to HCD why their interpretation of the law is Planning Commission Page 6 April 20, 2026
incorrect. Terpstra noted that comments from HCD are very common, and that he would not be surprised if HCD had comments on this ordinance.
Motion to recommend that the City Council approve the amendments to Chapter
16.86, - Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance based on the findings in the staff report.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: George Saljian, Commissioner
SECONDER: Steven Verver, Commissioner
AYES: Saljian, Collins, Verver, Van Essen, Veilleux
REPORTS:
Planning Director Zuidervaart said there will be a May Planning Commission meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
The appeal period for this agenda expires 10 days from the date of the meeting at 5:00 p.m. The appeal fee is $637.00.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:35 PM.