Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

You can still say good evening.

Recording in progress.

Good evening, everyone. Welcome to our regular Planning Commission meeting. August 12 is 7.01. So let's have a roll call.

Commissioner Deal?

Present.

Commissioner Lydon?

Present.

Vice Chair Singh?

Here.

Chair Hicks is not present. Commissioner Will?

Here.

Commissioner McNichol is not present. We do have a quorum.

Okay, so everybody had the meeting minutes? So, like, who's going to make a motion? I'll make a motion to approve the prior minutes.

Hey, I apologize. I think we need five to have a full quorum.

Okay, so I'll pass that item. So maybe next, okay, the next meeting. Okay, comments for the public non-agenda items?

You can also table that item until I believe Commissioner McNichols coming in right now.

All right, then let's move to public hearing. Request for the Planning Commission to adopt resolution recommending that City Council amend Lodi Municipal Code Title 15, Buildings and Construction, by adding Chapters 15.69, Agriculture Mitigation Fee, and Chapter 15.70, Parkland Dedication and In-Lieu Fees. amend Title 17 Development Code, Article 2, Zoning District Land Use and Development Standards, Section 17.28.040, Plan Development PD, Overlay Zoning District, and amend Title 17, Article 6, Development Code Administration. by adding Chapter 17.77, Boundary Changes, and Chapter 17.78, Williamson Act Regulations, Applicant City of Lodi CEQA Status Exempt for Section 15061B3- General Rule Exemption and Section 15378 as the audience is not a project. So request for the Planning Commission to adopt resolution recommending following that the City Council adopt resolution authorizing the filling of any actions request to annex 19.3 acres PL2024-203A, a land south of West Wine Street, north of West Kettleman Lane and west of South Sacramento, Lower Sacramento Roads, and that the City Council adopt a resolution to detach site from Woodbridge Fire Protection District. Number two, that the City Council adopt ordinance to pre-zone approximately 9.2 acre to general commercial, GEC 19.1 acres to a mixed-use corridor, 59.8 acres to residential low density and 7.2 acres to residential medium density. Within the site applicant Dobbins property incorporated PL2024-02A secret determination section 1583 project is consistent with the development intensity established by a general plan of zoning for which an environmental impact report, EIR, has been certified. DEC staff to prepare and submit an actions application to the San Joaquin Local Agency for Mission Commission LAFCO. So who's gonna make a presentation, Cynthia? You ready?

That would be me. I will be presenting on item 4A, which are the code amendments, and our consultant, Matt Diaz, will be presenting on item 4B. So I'll begin with the first item, which you have on the screen before you here, which is lovingly referred to as the phase four incremental zoning code amendments. As you can see, it's item number 2025-01Z. It's our first zoning code amendment. We've been working on it for about a year and a half. For some reason, you cannot see my slide advancing. There it goes. I know there's a lot on this page, but this is basically a summary of the phase four development code update, just high level. It's all related to annexation and orderly growth. within the sphere of influence and standards for amending the sphere of influence. These are primarily codification of existing policies. The most important point about the phase four code updates, with one exception, is with that being the merit hearing process, is that these are amendments that are not creating new annexation policies. Phase four primarily takes requirements that already exist from the 2010 general plan, our existing growth management ordinance, state law, LAFCO threshold requirements for annexations, and longstanding city practices, and then it formally codifies those into the development code. In fact, the development code is essentially silent on annexation. There are no procedures or anything in the development code related to an annexation process, even though the 2010 general plan contains detailed policies governing annexation and growth and directs the city to implement applicable general plan policies through development code amendment. That was never done, so we are doing that now. There's a practical reason why there was such a gap and that this has existed for so long without those amendments taking place. is that there has been very little annexation activity for the last couple of decades. So without active annexation proposals occurring until recently in the last couple years, there is simply not a pressing operational need to amend the code or develop a comprehensive annexation chapter because we just weren't receiving requests for annexation. That has now changed. We've seen an increase in interest in annexation and development within the Lodi sphere of influence, making this an appropriate time to put these longstanding requirements into one clear regulatory framework. The fact that the city anticipates updating its general plan in the next two to three years does not change that need. The 2010 general plan remains as the city's adopted plan today, and it continues to govern land uses and growth decisions until it is amended in the future. Likewise, the city completed our general plan environmental impact report update in 2025. to address the BMT requirements at the state level based on this existing 2010 land use framework that's currently in effect. So we do have to plan under the general plan we have today, not the general plan that we will have tomorrow or we may have changes to. Once the general plan is amended, this code may be brought back for additional changes at that time. But annexation proposals are coming forward today, and so while we wait for the next general plan update, we need a process for staff to follow and for transparency and for developers to know what the process is and be transparent about it. So the phase four doesn't lock the city into anything indefinitely. And when that general plan is updated, we will be updating this code at that time. So this is a normal part of a general plan implementation. And the goal is, of course, clarity, consistency and predictability. We want the applicants to know expectations before they're investing substantial time and money into an annexation proposal. And then on the staff side, we also want there to be clear standards that we can apply consistently, objectively, and also for evaluation at your planning commission level, city council, property owners, and we want the public to really understand the process. Really, the phase four development code update has kind of five overarching areas. And then the item on agenda item 4B tonight is the west side annexation, which we refer to as an F shape because it is an F shaped area. So these kind of five overarching areas include an ag mitigation fee or an low fee. which is not new. We currently require this. We are just including in the development code a process. Then the parkland dedication and in lieu fees under the Quimby Act, those are already required with certain developments. And so we are just including that in the development code. And then we are amending the plan development section to align with these new amendments that's existing. We've amended it a couple of times in the last few rounds, or a couple rounds of phase two or phase three code amendments. And then there's a new section, boundary changes, in chapter 17.77. And then a new chapter, and that includes the process of boundary changes, and then new chapter 17.78, which relate to Williamson Act regulations. Those Williamson Act regulations follow state law, but by codifying them into the development code, that allows us to assume certain Williamson Act contracts which allow folks to continue farming and receiving property tax breaks on those parcels, even while they are annexed into the city until at the time that they develop. For the F annexation area, or the west side annexation, They are relying or their approval is contingent on the Williamson Act regulations and the city's ability to assume the contracts from the county and to allow those tax breaks to continue. There are a couple of things that will not apply to the annexation item tonight, including the merit hearing because They submitted their application over a year and a half ago. So there's other items that don't really relate to the annexation specifically that's before you tonight. So as far as the agriculture mitigation fee, this code amendment section would establish a formal program. The city currently requires ag medication. It is a requirement in the general plan. There is a one-to-one mitigation ratio for the conversion of prime farmland. That prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance and unique farmland are mapped out. We currently enforce this, but there is not a standard way of implementing or administering or monitoring the program. The consultant who we bring forward, should this be approved, there is a California Farmland Trust administers programs for every agency in San Joaquin County and including multiple counties surrounding us. They administer an ag mitigation program for every city in San Joaquin County except for Lodi at this time. So we would propose to bring them on board should the proposal be approved and they would administer the program for us. Those fees are determined through a nexus study and they would be the same fees that are administered throughout the county. So that would be a future item tied to how the program is administered. The AG fee program has flexible mitigation options which would allow either a payment of an in lieu fee. That fee is based on a nexus study and would be based on what the replacement parcels are worth or an option to provide the land directly to be preserved for AG mitigation purposes. And again, we would rely on the consultant to administer that program for us. Mitigation fees or in lieu fees would not be due on a development project until the time that the permits are issued, building permits. And so that allows a little bit more flexibility with these annexations, so they would not be due upon annexation, but at a later date when building permits are issued. Here you can see there are existing general plan policies which are mentioned in your staff report. You can find those in the 2010 existing general plan policies under chapter seven. Here's a screenshot where you can see policy number C-P7 of the 16 year old general plan. has required for quite some time a one-to-one ratio. There are other jurisdictions that have more stringent requirements, some of them up to a three-to-one ratio, but Lodi's has been for quite some time a one-to-one ratio. So this code section would merely amend or add a chapter in the development code establishing how the program is administered. But again, this is something in practice that we're already doing. Another section that in practice we are already implementing is parkland and dedication and loo fees, otherwise known as the Quimby Act at the state level. This would also codify our existing parks dedication or and loo fee requirements consistent with the Quimby Act and also the general plan. It would require parkland dedications or in-lude fees or a combination. There's multiple ways those can be structured. Those would be determined upon development, not at time of annexation. The park standards that are existing in the general plan, which are five acres per thousand residents and a minimum of area, it would be eight acres, sorry, eight acres per 1,000 residents with five acres of that being parkland. And those are likewise established in the general plan. Here you can see the table from the general plan chapter 6 which includes those park standards which have also been enacted and enforced since the 2010 general plan likewise here's a screenshot showing on the right side Quimby Act requirements and that's a state law which is specific to certain types of developments there's exemptions for infill commercial or non-residential projects so there's a minimum state ratio And then we have implemented a little bit higher ratio within the existing general plan from 2010. So again, these are existing policies. They're just being included in the development code amendment proposed for you because we have so many annexations coming down the pipeline and this would just create a clearer process. The section that I mentioned that we're amending is already existing in the development code is section 17.28.040. That's our planned development overlay district section. The amendments to this section would just clarify how those planned developments or PDs are related or tie into the growth management policies of the general plan and the master planning requirements to ensure that PD projects provide either greater or equal public benefit so that PDs can't be used as a way to get out of some of those requirements. So it is consistent with general plan policies, growth management ordinance, and the master planning requirements that are in the general plan from 2010. The flexibility allowed by plan developments would not override criteria or mitigation required through the annexation amendments. And then, as I mentioned, deviations would require an equal or greater public benefit and design quality. And this would just ensure accountability and transparency in plan development projects. The next section would be a new chapter 17.77 related to boundary changes, known as annexations. This would establish the city's first process for annexations, detachments, or reorganizations, and also sphere of influence amendments. We have not previously, since I've been with the city for about four years, we hadn't really received a lot of interest in sphere of influence amendments. And now we have developers coming forward who are wanting to not just annex within the sphere of influence, but also amend the sphere of influence to annex outside of the existing sphere of influence. So this would create a process and codify our existing general plan criteria. And the main thing here is it would create a new two-stage annexation process. Annexations cost developers hundreds of thousands of dollars. There's a lot of studies involved, planning involved, and a lot of staff time. And so since we've received such an interest recently in annexations and SOI amendments, This would create a process in the code, but it would also create an extra kind of two-step analysis for a merit hearing that would be sort of like a pre-development application or a pre-annexation application. So let's say a developer or a property owner comes to the city and says, hey, I wanna apply, I'm gonna pay the $300,000 to do an EIR, and I'm gonna do all this work, and I wanna annex this, and it's not really the direction that council or planning commission wants to go. This two-step process would create a more upfront, simplified merit hearing, so we would go to the planning commission first, and then city council, and you could say, yeah, we agree, this sounds good, they've got a good plan here, and we want it to move forward, or it meets all of our requirements, and there's a checklist and it's more objective, and yes, council maybe wants staff to spend time on this. And then they come back with their full application. And then they actually start spending the time and the money and the analysis on their formal application. So as part of that two stage would be the preliminary, just do you check the boxes, yes, move forward, or no. And then the full application would follow And that would be the full-blown annexation with CEQA analysis under California Environmental Quality Act and all of the other requirements such as traffic studies if needed and that sort of thing. All of the elements that are included in the provisions of 1777 are consistent with the 2010 General Plan. The 2025 General Plan EIR, which was adopted last summer, which included targeted updates to the General Plan, it would include elements such as transportation, stormwater, and infrastructure capacity. Let's say a developer wants to amend the sphere of influence and there's really no infrastructure to serve that area, we don't want to have them go through the process to submit a formal application if we find that, you know, there's not enough electrical capacity to serve that site or it's in a different direction. For example, the city wants to move east or west and they're wanting to annex to the north. So those analysis would be included for infrastructure as well as fiscal impacts and municipal services. For example, is there a new fire station required for that area? And would LAFCO even support this annexation? So the city doesn't unilaterally annex parcels. LAFCO is the Local Agency Formation Commission, which is LAFCO for short, LAFCO. And so once an annexation comes forward to the city at first, goes through a review at a staff level, And staff reviews it to determine if a project has the infrastructure capabilities. Is it going to be served? Is it part of our master planning for infrastructure capacity for stormwater, sewer, those sorts of things, electrical? What are the fiscal impacts to the city? Are we going to need to build a new fire station or a police station or substation? What other services might be required? So those would be codified in these changes and those are all included in the general plan. And I just did a screenshot on this page of several of the policies. There are dozens and dozens of policies within the general plan that are longstanding from the 2010 general plan. and the 1991 general plan, basically every general plan that the city has ever had. You can find those, there's too many to list, but I just did a screenshot of a lot of them so you could just see that there's a lot of policies that were integrated into these code sections Many of these were discussed our former at our workshop on June 9th with counsel with former interim city manager Aaron Bush did a workshop with counsel and these were a lot of the policies that he referred to and discussed in that workshop with council including the merit hearing process and doing this two-step process in that workshop There was also discussion of what the annexation areas are and what would be required for each of those so this code amendment would lay out the process and really make a transparent process available for the public and decision makers and developers to make sure that everything's kind of aligned, we're all on the same page, and we can move forward in an objective manner. But you can find all this information on planlodi.com. The final piece is the Williamson Act regulations, which I mentioned are directly tied to the F or Westside annexation area. We didn't previously have a section in the city code at all for Williamson Act. It didn't allow us the ability to assume contracts from the county. In the F annexation area, we have three parcels that require potential Williamson Act assumptions. So options for Williamson Act, typically when you're annexing, you would just cancel the contract and pay a fee. That can be sometimes a very, very large fee. And sometimes farm owners who are maybe phasing out of growing grapes aren't in a financial position to pay that fee, but they still wanna annex. So this would give them another option, and that would be that until their property is developable, they can continue to farm their grapes or whatever they're farming while they're in the city limits, and they will also receive the benefit of the city allowing them to receive the property tax breaks through the Williamson Act. So this would create a process for that. It would be a decision that goes to council. They would have to approve at that time the contract. So a lot of these are just creating a process that would then come back once the process is laid out. So the decision makers would see these things again. So the planning commission would see these and city council would absolutely see these when those items are coming forward. So kind of in summary, most of these requirements included in these phase four code amendments are not new. They're more clarifications or they're codifying existing policies. They're establishing practices and laying out a clear process that is predictable. Numerous topics included here were, as I mentioned, discussed at the June 9th workshop. That was on annexation and growth management. And out of that workshop, the principal new element in this code amendment is the merit hearing process. So that two-step process where applicants come in and get an initial kind of yay or nay, should we move forward? So that would be included in this code amendment All other requirements are generally not new policies. They reflect policies already adopted in the general plan, which there are numerous including also our growth management ordinance the city does have a Growth management ordinance that regulates the percentage in which we can grow annually So this recognizes that recognizes state law again LAFCO requirements We recently, as you know, when we still haven't processed the Maverick related annexation over on the east side of 99 and And we found out through that process with LAFCO that there are a lot of pieces that we're missing. So it would be desirable for staff and the developers and the community to have a transparent process that is objective and that these requirements be codified to allow everyone to be on the same page. And it's really important right now because we have a lot of interest in these annexations. And that will help us process items more clearly and more quickly. And so we would be able to give applicants early direction and not waste their time. The item here before you is merely a code amendment. Any projects tied to those would be analyzed under CEQA at a future date. So the code amendment itself is exempt under 15061B3. And one 5378 which tears off of the general planning ir which was adopted and certified by Council and 2025 and it is our recommendation that the code amendments would not have any effect on the environment on their own. Therefore, staff has a recommendation for you, I am available for questions, and I can pull up red lines of the code, if you want to look at any of them or have general questions, thank you.

Thank you, Cynthia. Well presented anyway, nice presentation. So any planning questions? Oh, go ahead.

My big concern, at least right now, has to do with 17.78, particularly the city succession pathway. If I understand it right, there will be times that the city assumes the Williamson Act contract, and then when the development is ready, obviously somebody is still paying to get out a Williamson Act. Does that suggest that the city would be the one paying to get out?

That is correct. No, the city would not. Is it incorrect? The city would not be paying. The applicant would be paying. So at time they applied for their development or they could phase out. So you can apply for either cancellation, which is immediate and you pay the fee, or you can cancel. phase out your contract i believe it's over a nine or ten year period yeah and it ramps up over that period so in the first couple years your property taxes go up slightly and then you buy your way out or pay it out over time but if the city assumes the contract it will not be responsible for canceling absolutely not so the city would just allow the contract to continue so that the app the property owner who is continuing to farm would continue to receive the break in property taxes for farming.

So we're never going to have an applicant that doesn't try for that, right? The city would not. Well, I mean, we wouldn't have an applicant that would buy their way out early or phase out. They would always ask for that then.

Potentially. And this would only apply to prime farmland. So in the F annexation, it only applies to three of the 20 parcels.

Okay. Okay. Well, I was more concerned about who was paying that bill.

Yes, it would be on the applicant or developer.

Thank you. Go ahead.

Two quick questions. The ag mitigation fee, that's not related in any way to the habitat conservation program that SJCOG administers, right? It's a separate?

Correct. Two different things, yes. So SJCOG administers a separate program for all the jurisdictions in the county or the Council of Governments. And then California Farmland Trust, which is a nonprofit entity, administers the ag mitigation fee or in lieu fee program. So California Farmland Trust has a whole existing program which they administer for including the county.

Okay, great, thank you. And then the second, just to make sure I am reading correctly. So the merit hearing, what that will entail is what's defined in 17.77.060. Is that correct?

I believe so. I don't have the number off the top of my head.

I only have it because I'm looking at it.

So it's the two stage, the preliminary hearing and then followed by a formal application.

And so that preliminary hearing would still involve sort of a light touch review of those main kind of dozen or so topic areas that typically need to be addressed.

correct yeah like thresholds you know do they meet basic thresholds then you know let's present that to commission and council and they can decide do they meet those basic thresholds then yes you can move forward to the next stage for a formal application okay i think that answers my question thank you

Yeah, on the Williamson Act, if a farmer's land has been annexed into the city and he no longer farms, is the Williamson Act still in effect?

There are requirements under the Williamson Act that could trigger. The state law would still apply. All of the Williamson Act regulations that fall under state law would all still apply. The only change here would be the ability for the city to assume the contract from the county. So nothing would change as to how they've applied before. It's just the city would allow the city at our option, if council approves, to assume the contract. Because the city, once it's annexed, would receive less property taxes on that parcel versus others. However, sometimes it might be worth it. For example, in the F-shaped annexation area, that's our last really kind of infill annexation area in the city. It's surrounded primarily on three sides by city limits. So in that case, council may find, yes, this is reasonable. We would like to get this in. It's in the interest of the greater good. We're out of land to develop additional housing. And so we all agree that this is the best choice for the city. Or they could say, hey, this isn't really the best choice for whatever reason. Maybe the threshold requirements aren't met or something. So there would be an analysis tied to that to determine the best path forward.

Then another question I have is on the parkland. Sections fifteen point seven zero Lodi has been known to put storm water basins and parks together cracked There was a couple projects lately in the West that are not together. They're separate so what's the city's policy or direction on for the developers to put them together the storm crack water basin in the park and

This is a public works and a policy question, but it's my understanding that there was a temporary for several years kind of separation between basins and parks, and there is a desire to go back in that direction, given the state of some of the basins, for example, at Reynolds Ranch. I don't think folks who bought into the neighborhood anticipated that the area would be just brown grass that's not maintained, not realizing that it's just nearly a basin. So I think the direction from what I've heard from Public Works and from just neighborhoods who are interested in annexation is combining those again and going back to the combination parks basin. But that would be analyzed at the time the development is proposed, so that wouldn't be predetermined at this stage.

Thank you.

When you do the land swap for the farmland and it's one to one, does that new preserved land stay in San Joaquin County or is it anywhere in the state?

There are policies within our general plan that not just require it to be in the county, but as close to Lodi as possible. So if they can find parcels available. Generally, California Farmland Trust has relationships with a lot of the property owners in the county already. Sometimes they might be government entities. For example, SJCOG, the Council of Governments, might own land and they're purchasing it from SJCOG. maybe they couldn't use it for habitat purpose um so they have a whole network already uh kind of established uh so they they kind of go through that that this is what they do the the non-profit california farmland trust does uh and uh for this you know it's their it's their primary uh you know task that they they do is find land and administer these programs through their trust thank you

Cynthia, just a clarification to that farmland mitigation. So is that a total land we're going to develop that's the mitigation we have to do it? To buy that farmland one to one ratio or just like? is excluded park and maybe the retention basin, retention basin, whatever it is.

Yeah, there are requirements. If Matt wants to jump in, Matt is a farmland mitigation via expert, not expert, but he knows more than I do, so I'll let him.

So for the AG mitigation there to clarify early it is separate from the habitat conservation fee but it operates in a similar manner in that if a project comes forward that is proposing to remove prime AG land as part of the mitigation so it doesn't result in significant impact and have to go through a sequel process is that they can pay an AG mitigation fee for the loss of that acre. Let's just come up with a number and say it's 1 million per 1 acre. We agree to it. We have a farm banking. At the time of permits, as far as the mitigation goes, they would make that payment to the city. The city would take that money into the farm bank, and then that bank would use that money to purchase easements, properties somewhere else to conserve it elsewhere. So it's really the applicant paying to avoid this significant impact, which is a loss of ag land. So it goes into our fee. We put it in the bank, and then the bank makes the purchase for us, kind of like the Habitat Conservation does, where we collect the fees. It goes to the COG. The COG makes the determination on the property. We get to vote yes or no on it, and then we get a record up at each year. So it operates very similar if you're familiar with the Habitat fee.

Thank you. The other question is overall, I mean, all the infrastructure improvement part of the intersection. So is that... is gonna be bared by applicant or is gonna be thrown like, you know, previously asked, raise the property taxes. A lot of developers, they come with the mellow rules or they, not property taxes anymore, they start adding those, all the subdivision costs to them. So what is City of Florida, you know, is that something pretty standard or the cost is gonna be bared by all the property owners later down the line?

We have an existing impact fee program that is administered by Public Works, and it's updated from time to time. There were discussions at that June 9th workshop about possibly updating some of those fee programs and looking how they're administered, such as CFDs and public Melrose programs. That is not tied to this project. Those would come at a future date, probably with the next general plan amendment, which you should probably anticipate to see in the next couple of years.

I was surprised that there was no written opposition from the Farm Bureau. It was the Farm Bureau. I expect they've been prepared. They've been involved as things have been. I would have expected some written opposition with respect to making it a little easier to get out of Williamson Act.

Farm.

We're not per se making it easier to get out of the Williamson Act. This would be very specific instances. For example, adjacent to an urban area, an area that was anticipated for many years to be annexed into the city. So it's not like we're going out into areas to allow annexations and skipping over. It still requires orderly growth and analysis tied to that.

No, I appreciate it. They would still have to be adjoining or within the sphere. That'll work for now.

Go ahead. So to clarify, too, on the Williamson Act, a typical process, because it is mostly tax purposes tied to land use, not a land use decision. So the typical process for a Williamson Act cancellation, should the holder of that tax benefit wish to cancel it, they'd file a notice of non-renewal, either to close out in that cycle so they don't have to pay anymore once the 10 years is done, or to pay out early, let's say they're at a two-year out of 10-year cycle. Once they issue that notice of non-renewable to the county and the state and the city, then it goes through a formal process in which a tentative cancellation has to happen at the city council. So when the annexation occurs, it's going from county approval on the contract to city approval on the contract. And once they initiate the cancellation request, then it's a tentative cancellation with the Lodi City Council in terms of here's the annexation, or here's the, excuse me, cancellation of the Williamson Act tax purposes. We are a holder of that agreement. Here is an estimated appraisal and fee amount that'll be paid for the Board of Equalization, for other items out there for tax purposes, and then here's a variety of things we'll have to do. Once the council blesses that tentative cancellation, then it has to go through a series of process, almost like conditions of approval, to close that out, and then it's a final cancellation. So from a city standpoint, you really don't have to do much other than to file the notice of non-renewal and move forward. Other than that, it's a legal non-conforming use that can continue on to perpetuity with that tax benefit because it'll just roll into the next cycle. It's really up to the applicant to tell the city when they'd like to cancel it to use the use for something else.

but if they can start the process while also getting approval, tentative approval for the annexation, or at least a little more confidence that it's gonna get approved, they're gonna be more likely to do that, file that notice of non-renewal, as opposed to a farmer that just decides in hopes that an annexation is gonna take place at some point, where they have to invest a lot of money ahead of time.

Well, what you've seen too with certain property owners, and I have an example of when Cindy and I worked together first in Stockton, there was a project or a vacant parcel in Weston Ranch, south of Stockton, and it was designated for low density residential for, I don't know, 1970s, and it just sat there. They anticipated development, it never happened. It was still receiving Williamson act tax benefits from that early mine, even though it was low density residential, it was row crops. They were using it only until recently did they actually file a cancellation request because they had a viable partner to build that site into the single family home. So we could do the annexation request. We can designate it for residential. They would still need attentive map approval. They need all of these different things. But before we could have complete any of the agreement, we would need to see that cancellation requests on the Williamson act. So it really is up to them in the market. when they want to develop and when they want to cancel that tax break. Because to a gentleman's point earlier, I forgot who mentioned it, it could be a sizable amount to pay. And so sometimes people will just wait the four or five years if there is no market rush to get out of that cycle and to avoid that large payment that needs to be made. And that payment can be a contentious payment depending on who takes the appraisal value with the county.

Understood. Thank you.

If you don't have any more questions, you could open it up for public hearing, comments.

So I will open to the public questions. So if anyone would like to come on the podium speak, you have five minutes. Say your name and address. Please come forward.

No.

Make sure she states her name.

Lisa Craig. I'm not here as a council member tonight, but I am here as somebody who's interested in, obviously, the general plan update. Great information. We had a great workshop. So many of the people here in the room came to that workshop. I think, Gary, you were there too. So this is really important to move forward. I, in particular, appreciate the fact that we are going to do a merit hearing approach. So council gets kind of a first understanding, along with the public, who has the opportunity to come in and comment. before the developer or the property owner spends a lot more money going forward on the project. So I think that's a real strength. A couple of things I want to point out. There are fiscal implications here. We currently have a $3.9 million structural deficit. We have to think about things like how much parkland we can take in. And while I understand we're looking at a five to one ratio, the state does allow us to do a three to one ratio. And I would be interested in hearing from the development community what that means in terms of the cost for housing and the like. So I think some of this we need to look at relative to our structure or our financial issues right now. And that's something that I'm gonna be asking questions about when I'm seeing this move forward to the council. So the decisions we make on this have financial implications for the city. So there's probably more questions I have than there are answers for this evening. But I appreciate the fact that we are moving forward with something to clean up this process and to keep it moving. I just question Are we really getting ourselves deeper into debt, so to speak, by adopting some of these with no potential for changes? So that's all I'd say. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else, please? Come forward. Going once, twice. All right. Thank you. Close for the public session.

We would first need a motion on this item.

Who would like to make a motion?

I'm happy to move. Nope, go back, I need to read that, okay. I didn't memorize it. I move that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution recommending that the City Council determine the proposed ordinance is not subject to CEQA pursuant to sections 15061B3 and 15378 of the CEQA guidelines and recommend approval of amendments to Title 15 and Title 17 of the Lodi Municipal Code, including Chapters 15.69 and 15.70, amendments to Section 17.28.040, Plan Development, PD Overlay Zoning District, and the addition of Chapters 17.77 and 17.78. Second. I'll second that. OK.

Commissioner Deal?

Yes.

Commissioner Lydon?

Yes.

Vice Chair Singh?

Yes.

Commissioner Will?

Yes.

Commissioner McNichol? Yes. Passes 5-0.

OK. Congratulations. So let's now move to the next agenda item for B.

You're gonna present actually me good evening everyone Matt Diaz contract planner Working with the city the item before you tonight is the west side F annexation project Now a little about this project. The location is west of South Lower Sacramento Road, as you see in the yellow item on the right. The project consists of about 95 acres or consisting of 20 parcels. There is a portion of the property next to the project site that will remain in county, as you can see in white, and I'll discuss that a little bit later in this presentation. But the recommendation before you today is to find no further environmental review is required. and then forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the annexation, adopt an ordinance to prezone the site, and direct staff to submit to LAFCO. So what you see in this slide right here is an aerial of the project site. It consists mostly of ag uses, some residential, and some undeveloped property. The image on the top right is south from West Vine Street. You can see the agricultural uses. The image on the bottom left is facing north from Kettleman Lane showing some undeveloped property. And then you see another image on the bottom right looking east from the property to the residential just north of the existing Lowe's Shopping Center. Now, a little bit of context into this site. About 2025, the city completed a variety of general plan amendments, both policy and map amendments, and that resulted in a supplemental EIR. As part of those amendments, this site was redesignated to what you see before you in the slide, consisting of low density residential, commercial, medium density residential, open space and public facility use in green, and then mixed use corridor on Kettleman Lane. The applicant is not proposing any changes to that proposed use, so we'll remain the same for processing. Now, the Commission may be aware, but folks watching at home, the general plan is the vision and the zone is the tool to implement that vision. And since this area is in the county, it is under county zoning. And so what we're doing with this one with the pre-zone is we're re-designating these areas from county zoning designations to city designations commercial mixed use residential and what you see right there is the kind of breakdown that kind of implements that general plan vision i just showed you in the slide before as i mentioned earlier there is a portion of the site to the east that will remain san joaquin county but again i'll touch on that a little bit later in this presentation There we go. So in addition to general plan map compliance, what we'd like to do is general plan policy and goal compliance. And with this site, it was identified in the 2010 general plan as being what's called as a phase one priority site. That means the area was anticipated for likely development in the short term, along with the various other infill properties within the city. And I think you can see it in the image, the dark orange highlighted in red. So since 2010, this site has been a phase one site. It has been anticipated for development or likely annexation in multiple meetings as far back as I think even, not far back, but as recently as June of this year when the council had a workshop on growth management. This was highlighted as a phase one site anticipating development, much like the Maverick project that was recently approved. There we go. So this table kind of highlights the service changes. What you see on the left is the category. What you see in the middle column is the current service provider for the site. And what you see on the right is the future service provider for various services for this project site, again. These changes were anticipated as part of the general plan and the general plan municipal service report which analyzes service changes within the general plan. So these were anticipated moving forward and have been in place. The staff report addresses some of these and they will be addressed even further when we get to the local agency formation commission meeting LAFCO to discuss specific impacts for these areas. As far as general plan compliance, the project's within our sphere, it's within our municipal service review, MSR, and it has been anticipated for development and annexation since 2010. Because the project was included in the general plan amendments in 2025, in addition to the supplemental EIR, this project does not require any additional environmental review to move forward in its current shape. Now, consistent with LAFCO policies, excuse me, this site needed to conduct a mail survey to express whether residents oppose, support this project. And as part of that discussion, in coordination with LAFCO, the current boundary line was drawn because if you receive too much opposition for a project, it could actually sink the project into an opposition hearing and therefore lead to a denial. So an agreement was made with LAFCO to pursue the annexation in its current form so that the future annexation areas, the priority areas that we show in that phase one general plan don't get held up and that the residents who wish to remain county residents will remain county residents in that area. You can see the results of the survey in that area and this is what we will use in LAFCO moving forward on the application. Public outreach, community meeting was held March 31st, 2026, attended by about 15 individuals, residents, city staff, the applicant. A lot of questions were raised on the project and then the next steps of the project. As far as additional noticing, we have this meeting, we have the city council meeting, and then if the city council approves, likely LAFCO hearing, which will result in additional notices for hearing. Now the next steps, you're asked to make a recommendation to the city council. Should the city council, and this recommendation will allow the city to either approve or deny the request. Should the council approve, it would forward a recommendation of approval to LAFCO for their consideration. The LAFCO committee will then approve or deny the project moving forward. If LAFCO approves the project, there are a variety of things that the applicant need to do prior to completion, but essentially the project will be part of the city at that standpoint, and we will now be able to process entitlements for this area. Again, currently it's county, and we have no authority over it. Now, approval of the annexation is a big step for the project. Most annexations can take eight to 12 months of time due process. So approval of this would open the door for maybe say it's more streamlined review of other projects. But having said that, there are a variety of work that this project still needs to do. It still needs to submit a tentative subdivision map for design and layout. This shows how many lots, the street size, the design, landscaping. the amount of the detention base and the amount of parkland needed. These are all things that we would review and bring before the planning commission for approval or denial at a later date. Once that's approved, you have final subdivision maps with subdivision agreements. Those typically go to council and would be the nitty gritty details of the actual subdivision. At that time, you also have service annexations and formal detachments, if not already done by LAFCO. Those service annexations are community facility districts that help pay for the maintenance of these areas. You'd also have park and civic use planning in terms of what actually would go within those civic areas, the green areas that were shown on that land use map. You'd have design review for the homes and the non-residential uses. That's pretty self-explanatory. I think some of them you can go to the Planning Commission for approval. And then finally, you'd have construction permits consisting of grading, improvement plans, and building permits. So there's a lot of work that needs to be done for this, but we believe the annexation, as directed by the general plan, clears a lot of the hurdles in going through the annexation process to allow the city to coordinate with future entitlements. Having said that, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending the Lodi City Council find out the further environmental reviews required, approve the annexation, adopt an ordinance pre-zoning the site and directing staff to make a submittal to LAFCO. City staff is here to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you. Well done. Quick question. Go ahead.

That was an impressively concise description of this. I greatly appreciate that. I have what may be an unfair question, though, that I understand this application is not subject to the Lodi Municipal Code as we just amended it. Are you able to tell me how it would be analyzed under the Lodi Municipal Code as we have amended it if it were submitted, or is that just to...

I don't think it would amend too much. You might have the merit hearing if this was early on in the process. But if you approve the annexation, you've pretty much indicated your desire to annex the site. So a merit would be pointless at that point. Considering most of the actual development plans have not been submitted for review, the tentative maps subdivision, I don't anticipate any change in those future submittal requests to come in. I think the only time you would have is if any subsequent code amendments were to occur before that development was to be submitted. That may be subject to it. Because typically what happens is the project submits. It's deemed complete. It moves forward for a hearing. The code can change, but it's vested in the old hearings. We don't know when the development could occur on this facility site. So it could be next year. It could be five years. So we wouldn't know. The standards at the time of submittal is when we kick in. So the phase four stuff would not be. Thank you.

Looking at the map, there's an island for the county sitting in the middle of the annexation. What about public safety? Is the Sheriff's Department and Lodi Police Department gonna work in conjunction with any situation, same thing with the fire? Because Woodbridge Fire District is in charge of that, now Lodi would be, fire department would be in charge of that?

Yeah, they typically do. Okay. Most cases, there's mutual aid agreements moving forward on this one. Oh, and I think we have a commenter.

We have Fire Chief Ken Johnson here. He can answer for you on the fire.

So specific Ken Johnson, Lodi Fire Department Fire Chief, through the chair, we respond to all emergencies that come within our jurisdiction. And we have automatic aid agreements with the Woodbridge Fire Protection District that covers that area. We're moving towards the closest unit based upon an AVL locator for our apparatus to make sure that those responses are appropriate for the closest unit to provide that service. So as of right now, if approved, our Lodi Fire Department has two fire stations closer to that area. than any of the Woodbridge Fire Station. So we would be the closest unit to respond. And the Lodi Police Department would most likely be in that same position. The Sheriff's Department works a little bit differently than the Police Department does. They have more of a roving patrol. And so if an officer is in the area, they might jump that call if they were a closer unit. But typically, depending on how the call would come in, would be who would be the primary dispatch. And that's another part of our 911 system that has to be understood, that if you call 911 and you're outside the geographic area of the city proper, you're gonna talk to the Sheriff's Department. If you're inside the city and you're calling 911, or if you're from a fixed location inside the city of Lodi, you're talking to the Lodi Police Department. So there could be some discrepancy there, depending on where the caller's calling from, as to who's activated first, but for the fire department, all fire resources are dispatched to the same dispatch center, where they'll have the same AVL locator or location for all the apparatus, so the closest unit would respond, and I'm telling you, in that instance, it'll always be the Lodi Fire Department.

Thank you.

Yep. That's my question.

Thank you. Quick question, as far as, when you guys bring other agencies like Caltrans, you have the commercial ride on the Kettleman and what road is that, Cross Street, Westgate Drive. So you guys, they get, oh sorry about that, I'm sorry. So when they get involved, at what point is there any impact from the traffic when all the developments is going to happen? You might have a city model to a traffic model, and they use their own traffic model to generate the trip, all that traffic trip. So I'm just curious.

Yeah, I'd say typically the tentative subdivision map process would actually trigger all of those reviews. So when development is actually submitted to the city to review and analyze, let's say, how many trips it's going to take, the street width, the flow capacity of the tension basins, all of this gets calculated based on the plan that's submitted at the time. So they might have a subdivision map. Here's a 150-unit subdivision map. We would route that to Caltrans. We would route that to the various agencies for review and comment on that project. conceptually I can say that yes they would be involved but to know what their comments would be they would need a development plan just like we would to answer any of those questions especially questions that were raised I think in one of the public comments that were submitted very valid questions we just don't have a development plan right now to answer those

So same as for the local roads, Taylor Road, so that's what the question, pretend the blue sheet too, so that's my.

Yeah, there's a general hierarchy of systems, and public works engineering has those standards, but again, how this flows and that flows, there's a general hierarchy, but the specific details would be ironed out at the time of submittal.

Thank you.

I have another question. So like that island that's on Lower Sac and Taylor, If they wanted to be annexed into the city later on, they'd have to go through the annexation procedures. Again, same thing with that little spot on the west side.

When an island is formed, there's actually a streamlined process to take islands in in the future. So if they wanted to come in in the future, it would be a little bit easier than this process before you.

Thank you.

Anyone from the commission? That's it, okay. Now it's open to the public, any comments? Come to the podium, say your name, five minutes.

My name is Steve Culbertson. And you need more information? Just is that all you need? OK. Anyway, I just I have a couple pieces of property that's hurt in this. Proposed project. Is anybody could ask me if I want to be in the city? Or am I just going to be thrown into this lump and I have no choice? Do you have an answer for that?

So your question is you want to be what? Say it again, please.

If I didn't want to be included in this project. OK. Not saying I do, but I just want to know this is your cities coming at me and saying you're in there, you're in here. Well, what if I don't want to be in there?

Cynthia.

So, LAFCO does not require subprocess annexation with full support of a project. However, LAFCO does require that if you have opposition to the project, it be submitted at the time of the application to LAFCO because if there's enough opposition, it could trigger a protest hearing, which could essentially kill the project if there's too much opposition. So, I would definitely coordinate with the LAFCO representatives moving forward and make sure that your voice is heard with them because it does come into effect when they do their hearing review for that project.

Well, I just think that you ought to come to the property owners before you submit this thing and say, are you behind this? Do you want to come with this? And I haven't had that happen from the city. I think that's kind of unfair. And another thing is I got a letter last Friday. I've been out of town. I made a special effort to come here tonight, see what's going on. That's pretty short notice for a public hearing if you're a property owner.

Steve, are you the area you're referring to, the F section, or you're part of other area? Where you live, though, I mean, part of that, you're saying you don't be part of that, so what area you're in?

Where do I live?

Yeah.

I live in Lodi, but I own property in that section.

Section, okay, okay. Yes. So what is the location of your property, though?

Where the arrow is, somebody just put an arrow up. Right there, those two lots. Move it over to the left a hair. Right there, those two lots.

So Cynthia, normally the process is, it should have been sent later to part of the public hearing before all the sessions, right? So this gentleman was saying he never got any invitations.

Yes, either is you missed or you didn't look at the, you know, I just think a lot of this has been done without the property owners knowing anything. I really think that we've been left out of the picture. And then I do see that block of work. It's going to be an island in the city. And I always thought the city was against making any islands, and yet you're making an island. I don't think enough thought's been put into this. That's all I'm saying. I'm not against it. I would probably go with going into the city, but I think you guys are going the wrong direction. You need to let us be involved. Anyway, that's all I have to say. Anyone else?

Hi, my name is Jeannie Williams. We too have some property in this area, a big piece of property actually. I'm concerned about that island issue also because over the years, this has come up over and over in a variety of different ways to us, to the property owners, and they were always saying they would never let an island be like that. I'm just wondering when is the last time all of those people were surveyed or asked? about are they interested, because I know many, 10 years ago or whatever, people were all asked. I don't know how current they've been asked again, so I'm just asking that, if they are currently involved in this, or because in all the last few times we've had meetings and stuff, they've just been put at the side, like they're not a part of it. It's just a concern, yeah. And also, you know, you just passed the thing about the Williamson Act, although those were new amendments or whatever, which I know that's been a concern, but before making any decisions, We would have to know because we're involved in the Williamson Act, so you know that's a big concern for us to owe a lot of money or not. So that's my concern. Thank you.

Hi, how you doing? I got some property there that's been handed down to me. and we've been talking about this annexation since i've been a little kid and you want to talk about an island we're a pocket now right i mean we've got people north south east nobody west that's a pocket you guys don't like pockets either um i'm all for this I'm a younger generation. I think this is great. It's an eyesore coming into Lodi right now. The properties that are out there coming down Highway 12, they don't take care of them. I think it'd be great to do something with that area, clean it up. If the people are ready to sell and do something with it. But I hear a lot of against it. Well, my parents went to the Prop 13. They didn't do the Williamson Act because they could see it was a problem in the long run. Well, now these people are in a problem and I think they need to deal with their problems their way. And pay their due taxes or whatever they have to pay. And get on with life. OK, this is just my opinion, my feelings about it, but. As a younger generation, this is drug on for years. And this time, we can't do anything. I go to the county, I want to build there. I can't build because we're in a fear of influence. Come to the city, I can't build because the county said no. We're in the fear of influence. I can't do anything. I'm handcuffed. It's time we do something with that property out there, that whole area. Let's clean it up. We got the brick wall or cinder block wall right across the street from me. You've got the subdivision, the Van Rudens. I mean, that used to be an eyesore out there, too. You cleaned it up, and it looks good now. You know, all along Lower SAC, you guys got some nice buildings in there, some nice hotel, or not hotels, but food places to eat. Now I think we need to look at getting hotels in some of that area so we can bring people down that nice corridor and let them live and let them see it. You know, we got something to offer here in Lower Dye. Let's do it. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate it for your good comments. Anyone else?

Good evening. I'm Matt Dobbins, Dobbins Properties. Represent one of the properties in the annexation. And to that point, I just want to clarify, my company's listed as the applicant here, but we do only represent the property that we own. You know, there was talk about This certainly is a necessary step for the future development here for all these for several of these properties, but there isn't a conglomeration of properties that are standing at the ready ready to come in with development plans. This is going to be a long process, so I just don't want it to be misinterpreted that this is, you know, 95 acres it's ready to go that's all planned out them and there's, as you can see there's still a lot of property owners that aren't ready to be developed, I do think majority of folks do support the annexation but it's not. As much as as much as i'd like to see the whole thing happen really quick I just don't think that's the way you know there's there's clearly a lot of different of different opinions here. I'm really more here tonight to listen, but I did since I have the opportunity. I want to thank staff, particularly John Delamonica and Cindy Marsh. As you heard, and this thing I don't know that I even realized that it's been slated for development since 2010. That's it's a long time. So and and there has been. A lot of talk over the years, but it's Cindy. You did a great job to finally kind of and John to really see this thing through. It really has been a long time in the works. You know I there has been a lot of outreach. Granted, it's been choppy and it's been broken up over the years, but I, in my opinion, I think I really think staffs done a good job of responding to a lot of the concerns I the Williamson acting I think was really important for people to be able to. even if they're not really on board, but to be able to support BN Annex knowing that they still have the protection of the Williamson Act until they're ready to actually do something. I think that was great. Let's see, I think that's about it. But I'm here, happy to answer any questions on my parcel. And again, just want to thank you for your support.

Thank you. I guess that's what John is sitting there, getting all that appreciation too, right in the last row. Thank you, John. Anyone else?

Hello, I'm really not prepared to ask questions because I wasn't able to do any research on this because actually I just found out last night via Facebook someone had posted something and our family owns a property that's adjacent to the west side of this and there was one slide that showed that it was in the green area. Can you tell me what the green area is? Right there. West side of that black... Do you see that little notch that's right at the end of Taylor Road?

On Taylor Road or where?

Okay, that's right there. Right there. Okay. So our property is to the left of that. So to the west. And I know it's not in the annexation. However, I don't know what it's zoned for or what it's listed in the general plan for.

I'm just curious in the figure we have we have the legend it looks like it's the green is open space if I'm interpreting that correctly Cindy. That's correct.

And that area is actually outside of the sphere of influence at this time. So it's pretty malleable. It does show it has a general plan land use map designation that could very likely change when the general plan is amended again, because it's not even within the sphere of influence. And you said the general plan, they may update that in the next few years. Yes. Yes. So right now it's the county, but this is the general plan map for the city of Lodi. So that is a future future kind of area of interest outside of the SOI or sphere of influence when the general plan is updated. It could potentially change I would anticipate when the general plan is updated in the next probably two to three years. It will be finalized But that process has not even begun yet. They have not even issued an RFP to hire a consultant They'll probably be taking place in the next six months or so I would anticipate and then the work starts and then it'll take probably 18 months to two years to even adopt the plan So okay, I am be a whole public outreach, right?

And I'd also like to know like Do you usually notify people that border the properties that are going to be annexed? Because we weren't notified. I mean, like I said, I saw it on Facebook yesterday by someone asking a question. So I wasn't able to research it. And why is there a little notch in there also?

Would you like me to answer?

Go ahead, Cynthia.

The notches, the parcel owner at the end of Taylor Road adamantly did not want to be included for various reasons. And so at his request, we removed him because he was on the edge and did not need to be Contingent annexations do require parcels to be contingent to the city limits. So there's a reason why Some of them might have to be included versus others. There's a contingent contingency requirement the other question was notification notification we yes we would not typically notify the folks that are outside of this sphere of influence area unless they were being directly affected in that the annexation they were within the annexation area however we do publicly notice all all of the hearings and including the workshops. And we have a mailing list if you go to planlodi.com. You can sign up for the mailing list. So we did email last week over 400 folks who are on our mailing list on planlodi.com who received those notices. I anticipate your Facebook group probably picked up on one of those. But it was also noticed in the Lodi News Sentinel for the public hearing, as all public hearings are. And then we did an additional outreach to the folks who have attended previous workshops, including the March workshop. and any folks who have expressed interest via email. But definitely go to planlodi.com and sign up on there. That's where I can find all this information. Absolutely, yeah. And go to the bottom. You can click sign up, plug your email in, and it will automatically put you into our system. All right. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

And before you leave, can you please state your name for the record?

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't. Claudia Itarian.

Thank you. Uh-huh.

Cynthia, just to clarify, how we notify nominees, by mail, postcard, or just by email, or what is the protocols basically?

A variety of ways. So for public notices, there is a mailer, which Jessica, sends out and she can provide a little bit more detail on that but um for the um poll for that we showed the polling before we sent those via certified mail um to make sure that they receive them we sent them certified bill to both the address and then also the property owner's mailing address of record that is supplied by the county so if someone did not receive a certified mail For some reason, it would be because the address was incorrect at the county for the property owner, or perhaps they have a renter on site who received the mail and didn't provide it to the property owner, or maybe they rejected it. So we try to get them from both ways, both the property owner address and the actual address is sent to. And then we also have the email mailing list. We did additional outreach, the folks who attended. We invited all of the parcel owners within this area to the public meeting in March. And the folks who signed up to that email list, both Matt and I reached out to them in this prior week. At that March meeting, we also gave them a heads up that this item was going to be on a council agenda, or sorry, planning commission agenda. in July or August. I believe we had targeted for July, but there was a couple of delays, so that bumped us to the August 12th meeting. But we gave the timeline at that meeting in March. But Jessica, could you expand a tiny bit on who you noticed for this meeting?

All of the property owners within the annexation area and any property owner within 300 feet, that is within city limits, was notified.

So that's within 300 feet from the, what is the radius of that center, I mean just from the center of the project?

No, not the center.

The entire section. Okay, thank you. I just want to clarify that. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Anyone else?

Hi, my name is Shelly Hedrick, and we live next to the Giwicki property, the vacant lot on Highway 12. we need to be annexed in only because well there's numerous reasons but the main one is the traffic we are right there on highway 12 we can't really get it out of our property we can't really get into our property we got people passing right in front of our property on a single line or single lane There's gonna be an accident happening right there in that area. And then also, it's just my husband and I. We have eight and a half acres. We can't keep up with it. It looks like an eyesore. I strongly recommend that we annex in. And I wanna thank everybody for all their assistance and help and all the long ways that we've been coming along. It's been a long journey. And we greatly appreciate everything that has been done with every one of you. So that's my opinion. I really think that we need the annexation to take place. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? All right, so we're going to close the public session.

It might be nice, and I know I could use it, an explanation as to how the island gets carved out instead of it becoming an opposition hearing.

Yes, once you exceed 12 parcels at the LAFCO level, a vote is triggered. And if there's a certain number or percentage of opposition, it triggers an opposition hearing at the LAFCO level. And LAFCO could then, depending on that percentage or the amount of opposition, deny the annexation altogether, even if it's already been approved by Planning Commission. and council and all of the planning has taken place, it could be denied. And then there's also a time limit in which the applicant could not reapply for a certain period of time. So we had for a year probably gone back and forth with LAFCO and really struggled with How to avoid as much as humanly possible creating an island and we could find no way around it our city attorney former city attorney County Council LAFCO Council we kind of went round and round to try to find solutions and The amount of opposition from this poll which was done about 18 months ago showed that there was significant opposition that we could not overcome and and It was not worth it to put in the time. So our solution at the suggestion of LAFCO, which is allowed by state law, is to intentionally carve out this island, which can be brought in through the streamline process in the future at such time as they're ready. But the folks, particularly along Hildy Lane, were adamant, the majority of them were adamant against being annexed. And we didn't want to go through this whole process and get to the point where the entire project is killed because of that. So this was kind of the best solution we could come up with when we put our heads together with LAFCO.

And again, I'll just say that the level of detail, the level of work that went into this whole thing, it's very impressive and very appreciated.

OK.

I have a question. Going back to the island, I see the opposition, but there's two parcels on Lower SAC that are in favor of the annexation. What happens to them? Are they left on the cold?

They will remain part of the island for the time being, unless they wanted to come in in the future. Shifts happen over time, so some folks will see development happening nearby. They may get together and decide, hey, we now want to be part of the city, and they could be brought in through that streamlined process at that time.

Thank you. Okay, I'm done now.

We'd like to make a motion.

Is there a motion? If you pull it up, I'll make it. Yeah. Let's see. I didn't see one. Is that ours? OK. I move that. Well, hang on. I move that the resolution be adopted recommending the Lodi City Council take the following action. First, find no further environmental analysis is required for the proposed project per CEQA section 15183. Adopt a resolution approving the proposed annexation and detachment from the current county services. Three, adopt an ordinance to pre-zone the proposed project site consistent with the general plan land use map. And four, direct staff to submit the proposed annexation application to LAFCO.

Second, please. I'll second.

Board, please.

Commissioner Deal?

Yes.

Commissioner Lydon?

Yes.

Vice Chair Singh?

Yes.

Commissioner Will?

Yes.

Commissioner McNichol? Yes. Passes 5-0.

So let's move to the next agenda item, planning matters, follow-up items.

Yes, we do anticipate having an August 26th meeting for both SPARC and Planning Commission. We will have items at night, so plan to be here. And I don't believe we have anything additional coming up. Thanks.

Announcements and correspondence?

None.

None. Action of the City Council.

I don't believe we have anything recent to report other than the ordinance did go into effect, the food truck ordinance, and we have received a handful of food trucks that were on the waiting list, and so we're starting to process those permits to allow them to operate. Some of them had since moved away and are no longer here who are on the waiting list, so there's not as many as we anticipated. Maybe about half or three quarters of them are still around. So if you see some additional food trucks in town, that will be why permits are starting to be approved this week.

Thank you. Gary? We've had no meetings since March 11th, 26th, but we're scheduled for August 26th for SPARC.

Okay. Comments whether planning any non-agenda items from the staff? I have a question. OK, go ahead.

LAFCO, what's the situation with Beckman Road and Kettleman Lane? I think that was a Maverick project.

As far as the maverick project itself is still under review laugh code will not under review, they had some fixes to make there were some errors in the map on the county side and that took a two or three months to correct those errors on the county map. Those have now been corrected and we are hoping to get a final approval and certification in the coming days. It's been a process. Once that occurs, Maverick will then be moving forward and you will see on an upcoming agenda, they will have design review once LAFCO does approve that for their project, including a use permit, which will be coming to Planning Commission for alcohol sales at the fueling station. In addition to, there will be a parcel map to split the parcel into two that we'll be coming back to.

Thank you. Anyone? That's all I have.

Anything else Cynthia before we? Okay, nice meeting with you. Our city manager, she's sitting here. So welcome aboard, congratulations, and good luck. I guess we already heard some budget deficiencies. I mean, all over is not like the city of Florida, but anyway, good luck. All right, then meeting is adjourned.