Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I would like to call the regular meeting for the Planning Commission for August 26, 2026 to order. If I could have the roll call, please.

Commissioner Deal is not present. Commissioner Lydon is not present. Vice Chair Singh?

Here.

Chair Hicks? Here. Commissioner Whale?

Here.

Commissioner McNichol? Here. We do have a quorum.

Thank you. We'll move on to the minutes for June 10 and August 12.

Move to approve.

Second. There's a motion and a second. Can we have the vote, please? Vice Chair Singh?

Yes.

Chair Hicks? Yes. Commissioner Will?

Yes.

Commissioner McNichol? Yes. Passes 4-0.

Thank you. Comments by the public on non-agenda items. Okay. We'll move on to public hearings. Request for the Planning Commission to adopt a resolution approving a tentative parcel map to divide one parcel into two parcels at 2001 South Stockton Street. Applicant Dillon and Murphy, file number PL2026-008, CEQA determination, categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15315. Cynthia.

Yes, good evening, Chair and Commissioners. Cynthia Marsh, Interim Community Development Director. The item before you, as you mentioned, was an application for a tentative parcel map to split one parcel into two different parcels. The address is located at 2001 South Stockton Street. As you may recall, this is the site north of the Salus Park site that will be a proposed affordable housing development via the San Joaquin Housing Authority for senior and veterans housing and that project is moving forward on a separate track for funding through the state of California's tax credit system so the site will include it's been rezoned previously to residential high density as you may recall from last year the site is currently vacant surrounding uses to the north include a storage facility and single-family homes to the east, Union Pacific Railroad tracks to the west, and Salus Park to the south. As you can see here are the both zoning and general plan map designations. Both show that the site, which was previously a Excessive leftover right-of-way site that was rezoned by Planning Commission in the last year or two is zoned residential high density or RHD and general plan map designation as high density residential. Here you can see the proposed tentative parcel map. You have, I think, a different larger version in your packet. But if you need me to separately open this and zoom in on it, you can. But it's pretty straightforward. It's splitting one parcel into two parcels. The project that, if you recall, was previously before you was going to be developed into two phases with, I believe, 110 units in each of the two phases. Here you can see the street view from the street looking west towards the railroad tracks. The first parcel is proposed to be subdivided into a little bit over 56,000 square feet. That's gonna be the rear parcel closer to the railroad. And the parcel to the front there is closest to us in this image will be a little bit over 87,000 square feet. And that's closer to the intersection of South Stockton Street and Century Boulevard. Here are the development standards which apply to parcel maps. As you can see, the minimums are well exceeded. Threshold for minimum parcel size in the zoning district for high density is 8,000 square feet with a lot width of 60 60 feet sorry excuse me and a depth that is Not required in the code. They meet all the requirements for each of the two parcels in the code requirements and The project as evaluated under CEQA is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, guideline section 15315, class 15. Because it's a minor land division, we're just going from one to two parcels here. The property is an infill site. located in an urbanized area for residential uses the division is consistent with zoning code general plan as we have shown you there are no variances or exceptions required utility services and all those connections are directly located up at the parcel and will serve the parcel and the property has not previously been divided in the two years prior And the property has an average slope of less than 20%. So none of the other exceptions identified in CEQA guidelines 15300.2 apply in this situation. therefore staff recommends you find the project exempt. So this is a pretty short presentation. Your options are to approve as recommended or with revised conditions of approval, deny the request for the tenant parcel map or continue the item. We have a motion before you and we do have applicants from the Housing Authority and Donna Murphy here if you have any questions for them. Thank you.

Thank you very much for the presentation. Excuse me, do any of the commissioners have questions of staff?

might be staff, might be applicant. But can you talk a little bit about how access will be to parcel one? Because this is a new project to me. Obviously, I wasn't in there previously. And so it just sort of looks like we're creating a little bit of an island between the park and the railroad.

I think if I could ask the applicant to come up and discuss a little bit, they might be able to provide you with a little bit better details here. If I pull the map up, let me see if I can zoom in.

Yeah, just because the road ends.

Should we open it for the public then first?

Yes. Sorry, one second.

Does anybody have any other questions of staff at this point? Okay, we'll do that.

We'll be right to you, sir. To add that, I mean, they do show asphalt pavement right there. Also, too, they're showing the gravel, pretty much, and also one they have where they're developing that proposed building. Is there any sound wall required on the back because of the railroad traffic?

yes yes there will be a wall in the rear side and the the throat of the entry there will maintain the access to the many storage facility to the north and so the very front of the parcel will be maintained as a right-of-way for the city of Lodi Gary both I'll ask the applicant question

OK, then we're going to open up the public portion of the hearing. And if the applicant would like to come up and answer the previous question. Thank you.

Good evening, I'm Joe Murphy with Dillon & Murphy, PO Box 2180 in Lodi, representing Delta Community Developers Corporation or the Housing Authority. First, I'd like to thank staff for all their assistance on this project. I think we have a real nice project here and a need for it. In response to your question, I've got a small display, but basically the easterly portion we developed first. The buildings are along the northerly property line. The parking is along the southerly. There'll be crossover agreements to serve the back parcel through the front parcel. Same with utilities. I've got a small picture if you'd like to see it, but it's kind of that concept where you cross one parcel to get to the other through an access easement.

Okay. Thank you.

Sure.

So right now it's one parcel. Yes. Why are we going to have requesting for two?

Oh, they build it in phases, financing purposes. They're building approximately 60 units in the first phase and 50 units in the second phase.

So the first phase will be parcel one? It's actually parcel two. First phase will be parcel two? It's the easterly parcel, the larger parcel. Because we have other projects in the city of Lodi that require multiple... Facilities and they're not breaking it into parcels, so I was just wondering why we test here. I do a lot of work You're all at the same time.

Yeah, I think it has to do with financing You know they get tax credits and so forth and does that have something to do with the tax credits breaking it into two parcels I Can let Jennifer who represents the Housing Authority speak on behalf of that if you like? Okay, thank you Anything else for me while I'm here?

Angie, do you have any questions of the applicant right now? Mr. Murphy, do you have any questions for him right now?

No, we're good. Thank you.

Did you want me to answer the question? Yes. Yeah. It does have to do with tax credits and the financing. You split it into two phases because it makes the project more feasible to get off the ground sooner. And you split it into two phases because you have an investor that comes in. So there's two different owners in the partnerships that are in separate phases.

So parcel two will be worked on first?

Yes, that's correct.

So you'll have occupants, and then you're going to go through and do the furthest parcel last.

That's correct.

Just kind of working backwards a little bit, I would think.

It's kind of just like other subdivisions I've seen. They always kind of go phase by phase, and they work their way out. It's kind of similar to that.

Okay. Because there's only access through the first parcel, too.

Just like FCB subdivisions or anything, they always start closer, and then they kind of work their way out as people live there. okay I could see that at least and I'm also a developer thank you you're welcome thank you very much does anybody else from the public want to come and comment on this oh I'm sorry go ahead I have one more question just to confirm the intent is that these are going to be income restricted affordable housing fabulous thank you now does anybody else have any thing to come and comment about.

Sorry. I got to remember to look that way.

Most everybody's over here. All right. Then I will close the public portion, and we'll bring it back to the commission for comments, questions, a motion.

REMIND ME WHAT OUR ARENA GOAL IS FOR LOW INCOME.

RENA would be Regional Housing Needs Allocation, or RHNA for short. Our eight-year allocation for the entire eight years for all income levels is 3,909 units. I think about a quarter of those or more are extremely low income. Then there's a variety of income levels after that, with the smallest portion of them being above, like, 80% AMI. But probably half or more of those are less than 80% AMI. Okay.

And the intent is this project will hopefully be developed within the next few years.

Hopefully. If they get tax credits, they applied for the last round of tax credits and didn't get them. I think we have a pretty strong application this time. So fingers crossed, if we get them, then construction would start within the next year or so?

It would start. If we get tax credits, it would start around March.

March. March. Yeah, she doesn't have a microphone. So construction would start around March. So we're moving forward with these items, such as the tinned up parcel map. This project's been in the pipeline for a couple of years. If you're not familiar with it, this used to be a public right-of-way that was anticipated to be an overpass over the railroad in conjunction with Public Works and multiple other agencies they decided to bump that overpass down to Harney Lane and then this right-of-way became available so the city worked in conjunction with the housing authority to create this as a housing element site and so that's kind of how we there's a lot of steps involved including making it a parcel which is taken I've probably worked on this since the last four years I've been with the city so it's been in the pipeline for a while yeah thank you Cindy I appreciate the background it's great to see this moving forward oh I should turn that on does anybody would anybody like to make a motion of one way or

Okay, I move that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution finding the project categorically exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to SECO guideline section 15315 and approving the request by Dillon and Murphy for a tentative parcel map subdividing the parcel at 2001 south stockton street into two parcels subject to the condition of approval contained in the draft resolution i'll second we have a motion and a second could we please have the vote vice chair singh yes chair hicks yes commissioner will yes commissioner mcnichol yes passes 4-0 thank you congratulations

Hopefully you'll get your tax credits and we can see something going soon. We'll keep our fingers crossed. We're gonna move on to the next public hearing, request for the Planning Commission to adopt a resolution approving a use permit for the installation, maintenance, and operation of electronic message signs on city property by Rogers Media Company, CEQA determination exempt per section 15061B3. Cynthia.

Yes, as you mentioned, this item before you is for electronic signs on three city-owned properties. Here you can see the existing conditions where the first of the three sites is proposed on South Hutchins Street in the median. This is a little bit under 300 feet from the intersection at Hardy Lane. If you may recall, the development agreement for this project came to you twice before and the location for this site was adjusted to move north a little bit to reduce conflicts with the intersection signal at the intersection to the south here. And as you can see, there's a planned development mostly surrounding this area. The site itself, because it's in the median, is not actually zoned. It's within the right of way. And then there's a mixed use parcel that's vacant to the southwest there. And then to the south, sorry, to the southeast, is a vacant land and former cherry farm, which is in the county, not yet in the city limits. Here you can see the second proposed site is at the city's soon-to-be former animal shelter on Kettleman Lane. The grass area, that's the strip adjacent to the wall there, would be the location. You can see in the zoning map that the site is zoned public, quasi-public, because it's owned by the city and is part of the animal shelter site. To the north there, the green area, is Kofu Park. To the south across the street is a planned development which includes a shopping center There's to the east a nursing home and a community services center and the West single-family homes The third location would be near the intersection of Kettleman Lane and Westgate Drive which is across from the Chevron there and This site is near the Walmart on the west side of town. This site is a zoned quasi public quad quasi public and quasi public and public and it is the future site of the Electrical substation it will be a pretty large substation with substantially tall block walls There will be a 10-foot landscaped setback behind between the wall and the rear of sidewalk and so that is where the sign would be located it wouldn't be as you can see in the graphic here the red star located right at the corner it wouldn't be right up at the corner it'd be probably bumped back here the exact location would be dictated by public works and where the public utilities are and where the exact wall will be located so it will be bumped back a little bit further as you can see there's a chevron fueling station Just to the east of the project site. There are single-family homes to the south And the plan development that is directly to the west will have a multi-family project built and then across the street to the north is a vacant parcels that are still within the county and are within the area of that we lovingly call the F annexation area in which you heard at a prior hearing I Here you can see in the aerial where the three locations are located. The use permit, which would be to approve, to install, maintain, and operate the three electronic message signs are on these three properties owned by the city. All three signs would be 78 square feet for each sign, a little bit larger than the size of a piece of plywood if you're at Home Depot picturing a piece of plywood, which is about eight by 12. It would be a little bit larger than those, but for reference, I like to mention that. The signs would all be single-sided, pole-mounted signs, averaging 14 1⁄2 to 16 feet. Total and as you can see here the proposed locations are two of them are along Kettleman Lane one on the west side of town and then the animal shelter kind of in the center of Kettleman and then the southern site is Harney and Hutchins where it turns from West Lane into Hutchins. Here you can see the graphic of the median. If you recall, or if you were not on the planning commission previously when the development agreement was approved, the initial project proposed to have this location closer to the intersection. After further review with Public Works, there was some conflict with the signals at the intersection of Harney and West, where it turns into Hutchins. So this site was suggested by Public Works to move up into the median. There was some analysis with the electric utility to see if there could get electricity into this center area because these are essentially a TV that is going to show off-site advertising. The sign here is 16 feet in overall height and would be center-mounted with a 9-inch support pole. The second location at the animal shelter, as you can see in the graphic in the center, is on the right side here. And you can see what the pool looks like. It's shifted to the side. This sign would be behind the fence at the animal shelter in the grass kind of run area on the side of the building here. This one would be flag mounted because there are public utility easements that run underneath it, causing the pool to be shifted here. over to make room for the public utility easement. The third location, which originally was not in the initial development agreement and was added back in later, but was part of the request for proposals by the city, locates the sign near the, closer to the intersection of Kettleman and Westgate, and is approximately 40 feet southwest of Westgate Drive. This would be a single-sided pole sign, also 78 square feet, about 16 feet in height with a center-mounted nine inch support pole. This site would be landscaped in accordance with Public Works requirements because this would be in that area where the future block wall and that landscape setback would be built around that electric utility site where the facility will be built. Here's a site plan showing the Hutchins Center site. As you can see, there's planned development with homes to the east across the street, and then the area to the left or the west is an existing shopping center. Again, to the south that you can't really see in this site plan is two vacant parcels. Here's the site plan for the city animal shelter. You can see that the sign would be situated back in that kind of dog run area where it's a grass area behind the fence. And this area is located west of the Chevron that's on the corner of Ham Lane and Kettleman. The third site, which is a little bit in flux because of the future wall and landscaping to be constructed here, so it could move slightly back from here, would be at the corner of Westgate and Kettleman. Here, you can't really tell in this site plan, but to the east is the Chevron with the Walmart shopping center, SunWest shopping center, and then to the south, on Gala Drive are single family residences. And then to the west of the project is a multi-family project, 12 west apartments. And you can roughly see the site here where there are water utility uses on the west side of the project and the remainder of the site will be built out with a transmission facility for electric utility expansion in the future. For background, this project or these signs have been in the pipeline for a while. Back in 2022, the applicant asked the city to allow electronic signs and there was no mechanism at that time. So staff proposed to amend the development code. That was approved in 2022-23 by Planning Commission and City Council. In March of 2024, the city issued a request for proposals for electronic signs on these three sites. Rogers Media was the only responsive bidder to that RFP and they were selected to move forward. In January of 2025 the Planning Commission first considered the original proposal Included only two of the three locations with a development agreement That was approved at the time However, the proposal was revised by the applicant to add in the third sign location and so March and June of this year The Planning Commission approved the development agreement via ordinance. And then in June, the City Council approved that development agreement via ordinance. Just wanted to note, the development agreement will be coming back to you at a future date and to City Council again. It has not been executed. There are additional negotiations and red lines requested by the developer. So that is in process and will be coming to you on another future date. Earlier this evening, SPARC did review the site plan and architecture review design of the three proposed signs, and they recommended denial. That is a separate action from Planning Commission, which tonight you're just considering the use permit. So you do not have to take the same action as them. That denial can be appealed in the future to Planning Commission and City Council. As far as project analysis goes, the signs are all located on city-owned properties. They're all three located on major arterial roadway corridors. Staff believes that their placement, orientation, lighting controls, and operational standards will minimize impacts on surrounding residences and areas. And the project, we do not feel, alters underlying land use designations. These findings are required by the code The South Hutchins sign as I mentioned was relocated to about 300 feet north a recommendation of Public Works due to conflicts with the The lighting there they were concerned that someone may come up to the light a red light and see The sign and be distracted and you know or think a green light is red or so what have you so? That's why that location was adjusted All locations were reviewed for traffic operations and safety by the city's Public Works Department. And the applicant has worked with Caltrans on other sites. The two sites on Kettleman would be subject to Caltrans review. As far as design and visual impact goes, all three of them are single-sided displays. There are reduced pull widths that staff suggest approved with an administrative deviation. For one reason or another, we didn't feel that the larger structures to hold up the signs worked, either because of public utility easements or because their location unique to where they were, so staff supports the pole sign proposal. Those administrative deviations would result in a less intrusive design. The signs will provide a platform for emergency notifications. The city, per the development agreement, which would be, the development agreement execution would be contingent, this approval would be contingent on execution of the development agreement. That development agreement does describe public service announcements where the city gets a certain number of terms within each of those ads that are running through. The city, per the RFP response and the development agreement, which references the RFP, would receive $25,000 per year for all three signs or 25% of ad revenue, whichever is greater. So the community messaging opportunity is there also for the city to take control of the signs. For example, if there is an evacuation, a flood event, active shooter, those sorts of things, the city would have the ability for the public information officer to work with the applicant and go in and take over the signs for a certain period of time. For example, in other jurisdictions when they've had evacuations due to fires, they've used them for similar scenarios. As far as operational standards or conditions of approval, there are requirements within the development code, which was improved in 2022 23 so messages do have to remain static for a period of minimum eight seconds transitions must be instantaneous there can't be any flashing blinking fading scrolling. anything that's extra distracting. And there are maximum brightness levels of foot candles and automatic brightness controls at certain times of the day. The signs would be limited to these three locations. The any changes to the sign locations or in dimensions of them or operation would require them to come back if they were required as a condition of approval to the planning commission and they must get the signs must comply with all other city or public works requirements. And I'll add also Caltrans requirements too. Building permits, of course, would be required prior to installation. The signs must operate in compliance with the development agreement, which is still pending. So the development agreement does establish terms for how they are maintained and installed and revenue sharing. The development agreement also provides that the city would have that, as I mentioned, eight-second public service message per minimum per one minute at no charge. So for example, if we wanted to advertise events at Parks and Rec or a great festival, that sort of thing, the city would have the opportunity to do so. The development agreement must be fully executed within one year of the use permit, or the use permit becomes void per our standard development code sections. The Planning Commission has certain findings that use permits require in the development code. The proposal staff finds is consistent with the general plan zoning regulations and other city standards. There is the reference sign section which was amended about four years ago. The proposed use are allowed with the use permit. The signs as conditioned will be compatible with surrounding uses given that they will have automatic reductions in foot candles or LED lights in certain times of the day. The project cannot be found to be detrimental to public health and safety and the proposed locations we fill with operational controls address safety issues including lighting and glare and maintenance issues. The project has also been reviewed and found to be in compliance with CEQA. Per CEQA, under the environmental assessment, the project is exempt under the common sense exemption 15061 . The project consists of the three signs on city-owned properties. The signs, as I mentioned, will use automatic ambient light adjustments and comply with the applicable brightness requirements of the development code and the development agreement. The messages, as I mentioned, have a static requirement where they remain static for eight seconds and the transitions cannot have any flashing or scrolling or fading. And also for consideration, the South Hutchins Street sign was relocated approximately 300 feet north. to address safety concerns. With all these operational controls, staff feels that the project has no impact on the environment. Your options are to approve as recommended, approve with revised conditions of approval, deny the request for the use permit, or continue the item to a future meeting. I'm available for questions, and we also have the applicant available for questions too.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Commissioners, any questions of staff at this time?

Good presentation. You did a lot of work, Cynthia. Thank you. Quick question. There's the signs on Kettleman Lane, the right-of-way zone. by Caltrans, right, the state? Correct. So you guys gonna do the co-op, the city, the maintenance of these signs supposed to be within the right-of-way, or it can be encroached to the public, then you have to get easement, or what is basically planned? Because if you look at the location you have in the West Gate, so you guys gonna have a sound wall coming in that corner. Sound wall height is six feet, so it's gonna be tough install the sign on one post.

Yeah. The sound wall in this location will actually be substantially taller. Don't quote me on this, but I think it's 10 or 12 feet tall because this site will actually have really large...

It's nine and a half feet. Nine and a half, okay. It's almost 10. Yeah. As far as the visibility, if you have a sound wall, it's going to take your... I mean, it's right on the corner. It's very hard to... People can see the site distance, basically, the call when the person is coming at 50 miles per hour. but that's just kind of clarification name is on your other side where Hamlin is seems to be and they're behind sidewalks the sign so if you can't deliver so can't deliver sign You guys are proposing about 12 feet, so it's going to be huge foundation inside. So just curious, I mean, how are you guys going to do the co-op? I mean, it can be done. It's not a big deal.

Yes. When the applicant comes up, they can probably discuss a little bit of their work with Caltrans. They've done these signs in other locations and worked with Caltrans. But as far as the city-owned properties, the signs will be located wholly on Caltrans. the city parcel. The animal shelter sign is located pretty far back, set back from rear of sidewalk in that area behind the fence where it's hard to tell in this graphic in the center from the street view, but there's a whole, there's a grass area there that I think they use presently for dog runs. So it will be located within that area. So it will not hang over the sidewalk at all. No one will be able to jump up and touch it. The site further down Kettleman at Westgate, the exact location of that will probably be adjusted a little bit still. If it substantially changes and you were to approve the use permit and it changes from a location that you requested, they would need to come back to the Planning Commission to amend that use permit. But again, this would be in conjunction with feedback from Public Works. It's my understanding that that block wall is still in the design phase. there will be a pretty large electrical facility there which will provide power to the entire west side of the city and the units that will the electrical lines that will be coming in there are pretty large and substantial with a pretty tall block wall with the landscape 10 foot setback that wall will also comply with the visibility triangle requirements at intersections and so this sign could not be in the visibility triangle area and it would be reviewed ultimately by the city traffic engineer in Caltrans.

Thank you.

Other questions of staff? We're good? I look that way? Okay, we're going to open up the public portion, and if the applicant would like to come. Don't race to it. Don't fight your way over. Welcome back.

Thank you. Well, as you could see by the earlier graphic there, this this sojourn started in 2022 and actually even before that in 2021. So it's been it's been a long run. First of all, I'd like to apologize that we missed the 515 meeting. We were unaware, somehow unaware of that meeting. Something that was jointly held, so apologies for missing that. Of course, I don't think we got a warm welcome there, so maybe it wasn't too bad that we missed it. But anyway, we're here to answer any questions. This has obviously been a very long process with staff. We've tried to be very thoughtful in the approach, very malleable, very flexible. Each one of these sites has its own unique set of challenges and issues. Mr. Singh, you just mentioned it, you know, on Westgate. That's gonna be one where we have to really be, we have to, I mean, starting there, we're gonna have to have a lot of flexibility. I mean, there's gonna be a wall, there's gonna be electrical facilities, there's gonna be a visibility triangle. More than likely, if we put that sign in to begin with, we're going to be altering it somehow or moving it or whatever else, but this is what we do every day. I mean, this is, you know, drilling foundations, working with Caltrans, working with cities, working with right of ways, working with very tight, tight, very small easements with lots of utilities in them. It is just literally it's literally what we do every day. So we're very used to it. the if i could also speak about the other kettleman site a lot of thought was put into that and i'll i'll credit john della monica who's now retired one of john's really big pet peeves on this was he really wanted to have the sign flagged and flag meaning the pull away from the street for a couple reasons. A, aesthetics, but B, he really felt, after analyzing it, that when you're coming out of Chevron, he didn't want anything underneath the sign to have any visibility issues or blockage or anything else. So when you see that thing there, it really floats. And it floats 100% on city-owned property. It's well behind the sidewalk. We still get visibility, but it really is again. It was very thoughtfully thought out. As far as the visibility goes and what the motorist looks like, not only from the street, but coming out of Chevron. So we really looked at it sort of from a holistic approach. And then with the Hutchins Street site that we had to move, which was not easy, and it's not been easy working with Lodi Electric to try to get power into a median, trust us, that is a lot of soft cost that is added. We added about $40,000 in soft cost into getting power into that median, which is, you know, we're going to have to recoup that.

Where are you guys getting the power? Is it going to be Jack and Borg?

It's going to be it's going to come have to come under the street.

Yeah. Yeah.

It's going to come under the street. So it's yeah, it's extensive. But that that's, you know, that in looking at the public's comments, it's like they didn't want it near the intersection, wanted it moved up, wanted it lowered and wanted it really to hover. so that you really couldn't see anything between the wood sign that is there that does not want to be touched, the hedge, and so that basically it almost literally looks like there is an electronic sign hovering in the median above the infrastructure that's there with the wisteria behind it. That was sort of the effect that we were going for. And that's hopefully what we want to achieve. Um, a lot of thought into every one of these sites, as far as trying to be very, very thoughtful to the neighborhood, trying to make it high enough to be safe, but low enough to be seen. Um, and whatever else I'll talk about, and it might, it might be. It might be reiterated, but I'll say it anyway. These programs are very successful in all the cities that we've done them for a number of reasons. First of all, all the cities that we work with They change these signs on average 100 times a year for different programs, different pieces of art. Think of all the things that you could possibly use it for. They've thought of more. And so our artists are working full time all the time to get all kinds of copy up. And it's a very vigorous program. They really enjoy it. The other thing is, in the case, and Cynthia mentioned it before, we did have a case a couple years ago on a sign that we had in Petaluma where the fires came in fast and the city took over the sign and held it for 72 hours because 101 reversed and the cars had to go the other direction to get people out of town. You know that was you know it was a great thing, because that sign was right at the gore point where the traffic was reversing so it was very, very helpful. But anyway we're here to answer any questions that you have that we that weren't worried that we're not addressed in the in the presentation we're disappointed that spark didn't. didn't approve the signs, but that's probably just an ability for us to come back and be perhaps more thoughtful to try to address some concern that wasn't addressed before. So here to answer any other questions you have.

Thank you. Does anybody have questions?

Yeah, I remember.

Well, I'm concerned about Kettleman and Westgate. Okay. You know, I mean, that location is just, with the signal lights, I was out there this afternoon, cars going eastbound, I saw nine cars running red lights. And I'm saying signage is going to make any difference on that, okay? I'm just concerned that it's so close to the intersection, probably needs to be moved a couple hundred feet west of that intersection, okay?

I just don't think it's a...

I don't think we need any more distractions at intersections, okay? And I think signage is a big distraction, especially if we're posting various things about the city of Lodi. On Hutchins, the very first location on the corner was unacceptable. I really do like the sign that says, welcome to the city of Lodi, and it's by itself. I don't know if the sign is going to add anything to that. Welcome to the City of Lodi. That's my comment. On Ham Lane. Can I respond to that comment? Pardon?

Can I respond to that comment? I think you're going to find out that that sign above will be more informative about the City of Lodi than the one below. Well, that's time will be used by the city effectively for parks and rec for any other event you have. That's the whole idea behind the sign too. We obviously make money off the sign, although that's a much smaller sign than originally planned. In all honesty, we have not changed at all what we're giving the city as far as promised amount of money, but we've taken three spots and taking smaller size signs than we planned. That sign will be very effective for Lodi and I think it will tie into the welcome the city of Lodi very effectively.

Thank you. Ham and Kettleman. There is a beautiful mural on that wall where the animal shelter is. And I don't know if that's going to take away from, that sign's going to take away from that mural. It will not.

And by the way, also right now on that fence, you have two murder signs, two four by eights of people who have been murdered. And they have a mount wanted for that from the city. And I don't know who put those up, but it must be the city of Lodi. They're actually on that existing fence. So.

Thank you.

Manjeet, do you have any questions? Other questions? Thank you very much for your time.

I'm going to make a comment.

Sure.

We've been through five city managers. And by the way, this wasn't our original plan. Our city manager approached us in 2021 and discussed electronic science. It wasn't the opposite way. OK. Over those five years, we have gone through so many different iterations of this project. So many times have been turned around. So many times been asked to do different things. And each time, we have done it. OK. The corner of Hutchins and West Lane, I know you think that's really going to be a bad location. That would be a very good location for a billboard. OK. And it'd be very effective for Lodi and would make a lot of money for Lodi and us. I'm not saying we're doing it. We said, no, let's not do that. Okay, we've also agreed with the City of Lodi Electric when they moved the sign, put the wall over on the West Gate area, we will move that sign. So I feel like we're doing quite a bit in our way to get things going. And we're rather disappointed that at this point, the City of Lodi newspaper decides to put out something that looked somewhat like we were just newcomers coming into town. And by the way, with our competition. So you can't tell me that also with a little bit of their own press speaking.

Thank you for your comment. Thank you.

Have you thought of other locations other than? We have. I mean, I'm thinking like the Great Bowl, Great Festival Grounds.

They already have electronic sign there.

They already do. They do from the county.

The county allowed them to put them up right in the middle of the city of Lodi. And they made quite a bit of money off that sign.

At the Great Bowl also? Right.

It's not at the Great Bowl itself.

But at the Great Festival Grounds. Yes.

Yeah. Okay. need somewhat high-traffic areas, obviously city-owned. John, we went through a couple of other places we really liked. These were kind of ones we agreed upon with John and with Cindy.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Anybody else from the public like to come up and speak to this topic? If you'd like to introduce yourself, you're more than welcome.

yeah my name is well good evening commissioners my name is Peter Rosado local community member also an architect I also chair the site plan and architecture review committee I have a vested interest in our community practice architecture here local firm I'm not basing my opinions because they're monetized, but I do have a lot of concerns with this project that I want to bring forward, and I hope you guys consider them. The proposed digital billboards should be evaluated not simply as signs, but as a permanent change to the visual character of Lodi. The question before Planning Commission is not whether the advertising is technically possible, or whether the signs can generate revenue, the more important question is whether large continuous changing commercial advertising displays are consistent with the character of Lodi. That we've worked hard to establish in the city's stated responsibility to protect quality, safety, and value of its neighborhoods. The community has expressed substantial concern about the proposal. Residents have described concerns about bright billboard lights entering homes during nighttime and early morning hours, the potential distraction for motorists, the proliferation of advertising throughout the city's commercial corridors, and the concern that Lodi should not begin to look like a freeway corridor. They reflect a broader community desire to maintain a city that is visually attractive, welcoming, and comfortable to the people that live here. The community does not need another source of messaging in its public environment. The question should therefore be, what public benefit by adding large digital billboards to locations where the community has not asked for them? A digital billboard is fundamentally different than traditional signage designed to capture the attention of passing motorists. This particular concern because several of the proposed locations are highly visible gateways and transportation corridors. At Hutchins and Harney location, the proposed billboard would be immediately adjacent to the roadway and in close proximity to motorists. It would also be located near the city's longstanding Welcome to Lodi monument, a large illuminated digital advertisement. placed next to the community welcome sign risks overwhelming the very civic identity that that monument was established for. The first visual impression of Lodi for people entering the community should communicate Lodi's identity, not the primary message of the next advertiser. The Highway 12 locations raise similar concerns. At the animal shelter, motorists are already contending with challenging driving conditions, including traffic movements, with the sun directly in their vision. This would be happening at sunset and at sunrise. Sunrise would be at the Westgate location. The West Gate location, the proposed sign would be visible in an area that includes future residential development and would extend above a future sound wall. These circumstances warrant careful consideration of the cumulative effects of illumination, visible distraction, and proximity to residential properties. Automatic dimming does not eliminate the impact of illuminated display on neighboring homes. Even dimmed displays can introduce changing light into bedrooms and living spaces, particularly at nighttime. and during the year when the landscape is dormant, such as deciduous trees that previously blocked light entering their homes. The proposed locations also raise an important question regarding precedent. Once the city establishes digital billboards on city-owned property, it becomes substantially more difficult to argue that similar commercial advertising should not be permitted at other prominent public locations. Approval is therefore not simply a decision about a handful of signs. It establishes a precedent for how the public property and major community corridors may be used in the future. You, as Planning Commissioners, should consider whether this direction is what the community wants Lodi to develop. This consideration is particularly important in light of the Planning Commission's role in reviewing development. The municipal code asks you to recognize the independence of land values, aesthetics, encourage the orderly and harmonious appearance of development, ensure that new uses enhance their sites and are compatible with surrounding neighborhoods, better protect values, property values, and the standards of land development, retain and strengthen visual quality of the community, and ensure that development does not adversely affect the community health, safety, and aesthetics. Measured against those responsibilities, the proposed billboards deserve substantial scrutiny. How do large digital billboards enhance the character of Lodi? How do they strengthen the visual quality of the community? And how do they protect existing and future residential properties from light pollution? And how do they enhance public realm rather than simply monetize prominent city-owned locations? The concern is not opposition to advertising, business, or technology. Lodi is a community with a vibrant commercial economy. Businesses need appropriate opportunities to communicate with customers. The issue is whether there's a reasonable limit to the amount of intensity of commercial advertising that should occupy the city's most prominent corridors. The community can support local businesses while still deciding that some forms of advertising are inappropriate in particular locations. Planning Commission and City Council has an opportunity to look beyond immediate revenue opportunities and consider the long-term character of Lodi. Revenue from advertising is temporary and can be generated in many ways. And once large digital billboards become permanent fixtures along low-dise major corridors, their visual presence become a part of the community identity. it's been five minutes if you could please sure finalize wrap it up I get it you know you know the drill I'm all about it the city has articulated the standard through its own municipal code development should enhance surroundings protect land values and strengthen the visual quality To end, Lodi should strive to be a community that welcomes people with its character, its neighborhoods, its trees, and its architecture and its civic identity, and making us livable, lovable Lodi. So I urge you to deny the request for this use permit. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment. Would anybody else like to comment? Yeah, sure. I don't think that's a problem.

We also have someone online that would like to speak.

Okay, well let's let the person online speak and then if you need to address more things, you can do it all at one time. Okay, give me one moment and I'm going to allow them to speak.

Mr. Gibson, go ahead. Mr. Gibson, we cannot hear you.

Now, can you hear me?

Yes. Can you please state your name for the record?

Yes. My name's Ernest Gibson. I'm a resident here in Lodi. My concern has to do with how much advertising can we expect to see versus city signage, in other words, things about city events, things that benefit the city and how much advertising would be allowed for businesses and entities outside of Lodi. If this were to go through, my preference would be that, again, we are focused on Lodi, Lodi businesses, and Lodi sites, events, et cetera. And the locations also, as the last speakers stated, I have concerns that are very similar to those as well. So that's my call. What percentage is going to be advertising versus city messaging? And what percentage will be city advertising as opposed to, you know, are we suddenly going to be a billboard for Stockton and Galt and every other entity in the Valley? Thank you.

Thank you very much for your comment. If you would like to come back up.

The first question he had primarily was, who are we going to advertise and how much of this board is actually for the city of Lodi? One-eighth of the board is going to be used for city of Lodi's advertising. We are going to strive to find local advertisers. As it is, between us, we own probably about 80% of the billboards in Lodi presently. I've owned the boards in Lodi for over 35 years, and I'm from Lodi. I live here and have lived here basically my whole life. So I certainly am concerned about Lodi as much as you are. And I should say, too, that these signs I keep describing as big billboards, you have church signs in this town that are basically the same size. He mentions problems with values of homes. You have a church sign, Vinewood Church, on the corner of Vine and Mills that directly reflects into people's homes. It's been there a long time. Have we heard a lot of complaints about those? Or what about the one at St. Peter's, which is probably bigger than the sign we're building? Or the one over at Grace Point, which is also that large? None of those signs went through this kind of process to get approved. Nobody asked for permission basically beyond a variance. So we're being run through something. The description of these signs being so big is they're not much bigger than what you're looking at right now. These are not big boards. In fact, They're 6 by 12. Do you know the size of the sign? Yeah, I'd say that's four by four by four by five.

Right.

Okay, good. That's a great example. It's not even twice that size. In fact, our concern is the signs, especially on Kelvin Lane, will be too small to be seen. Okay. Originally, the plan that the city talked about with this was much larger signs, eight by 16. And we have some of those in other cities. And by all means, reach out to these other cities. And I think you'll find that we've not had the kind of pushback that we're getting here. And it seems to me like there's just a few people pushing back, but it's making it sound like everybody is. In all honesty, we've not really run against that. So, anything else?

Yeah, absolutely. Go ahead. Do you guys do non-profit raids?

We do. We have non-profit raids.

Sorry, I realized I was muted, but the question was, do you do nonprofit rates?

We do. We do have nonprofit rates. And we will try to do nothing but city of Lodi advertising for people for Lodi. I mean, that's going to be our primary. As it is now, if you look around town, almost every sign in town, with a few exceptions, are the city of Lodi, or people have businesses in Lodi or around Lodi. We're not interested in advertising somewhere else. And there are not a lot of opportunities to advertise in Lodi. I know you guys think there is, but drive around and look at all the fences and all the advertising on those fences. We're not just talking about political. We're talking about, and not just nonprofit. We have restaurants in this town now advertising on fences. You have people putting up poles all over town. You have a tree service that probably has a sign on every other corner. None of those are legal, but that's one way they can get to people by advertising because there's not that many opportunities in town. All of our signs presently are sold and have been for a long time.

Thank you very much. Would anybody else like to comment from the public? No? Okay. You're the only one left, so.

I would love to.

Okay, okay. Then I will close the public portion. I'm going to bring it back for, it sounds like a discussion. And we'll get to a motion. Or any other questions of staff? Gary?

You said you've done these signs at other cities. What other cities?

Can you please approach the podium?

Come back you still my you still want him to answer correct if I can find what you can approach the podium Have we done any staff have we done any research for the talk to other cities about signage like this I?

Have not personally talked to the other cities Riverbank is probably the primary example. They have an 8 by 16. They put it in it with city Riverbank on highway 108 they actually put the sign right above their city of city waterfall and been a very successful time for us. In fact, we are talking to them now about bringing a second one in. We also have a couple other cities presently that we're in the process of making a presentation. It looks like that can happen.

Riverbank and Petaluma, any other cities? Well. Sorry to make you. No, no, no, it's good. Get your steps. Get my exercise. Yeah, get your steps.

So we operate in 17 counties and 17 municipalities in the state of California and northern Nevada. We've had digital signs in, let's say, the city of Riverbank, city of Petaluma. We explore digital opportunities in all the places that we do business. But like I said, we operate right now in 17 counties in the state of California.

But you're specifically looking for cities.

well counties and cities yeah very good example so i mean if if you you know this is probably going to sound whatever but um We maintain very high operational standards. So if you go by any of our 130 displays that are throughout the state of California, because our name is on it, we treat a little bit differently. So it's a very high operational standard. You'll not find a city or county that has had anything bad to say about us if you care to do your research. I hope that answers your question.

Yeah, it does. I just am concerned about the areas. That's all I'm concerned about. I just think we could get better areas.

Well, but can I engage you a little bit there? So if you go back to that graph, 2022, And really, it ought to say 2021. So we've been at this about six years, engaging. I mean, we're talking across the spectrum from the public to staff to you all to back. We've been here, what, four times? I mean, this is a... Arduous long investigative process there have been we've the city we've looked at several sites, some of which work didn't work for various reasons, you know, utility wise. Traffic wise safety wise sensitivity wise so. I understand your point, and it's a well-honed point, and I get that. But I would say that what's come out of this process is three very thoughtful locations that are being thoughtfully done. Now, I do understand what your point is on Westgate. I really do. that is not lost on us at all because of the changing that is what's going to go on there. But if you've got a contractor that's willing to be flexible that we install something and we need to amend it at some point when walls and landscaping and power facilities go in, you have the power to make us do that at our cost. I think that the process has been very thorough in picking locations that everybody can kind of get around and get comment on. Because, like I say, it's been a six-year exhaustive process to go through. That's a long time. You know, it's a long process to go through. A long process to go through for you guys, too, not just for us. So, I mean, it's been very thoughtful. That's all I can say.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Did I... Staff, Cynthia, did I remember reading something in here that if something the public was... commenting or complaining about different things, that the Planning Commission could pull the permit for the signage? Did I see something in here?

In the future, yeah. If you awarded or approved a use permit and there were issues with it in the future, you could potentially bring it back for a hearing to consider revocation?

Right. Correct. Okay. We do have that possibility.

Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

Yeah, and if you were going to make a motion, I would include a specific language if you wanted to recommend approval. Like if you wanted to add extra conditions for consideration, I would make those within your motion. So if you wanted to make a motion, for example, for approval, I would state what the things are that you're requesting to be in that motion. For approval or denial, be specific, basically. If that makes sense.

It does. I have a technical question. So Spark reject or denied the project. And whatever happens here happens here. So the applicant, what recourse Do they have they go back to City Council? Do they appeal?

What's the process for the spark decision? Yes, they can appeal here to Planning Commission. And then if they're still not happy with that decision, then they could appeal to City Council City Council.

Correct. Thank you.

Does anybody else have?

Yeah, just to further clarify on that. So

if we approve the use permit today there's still that hurdle of what happened at spark that they'll have to get past that's correct okay thank you and also keep in mind that the development agreement is also not executed so right it sounds like that's coming there's still something as well yeah does anybody want to make a motion in any

one direction we need to have some resolve here in some some manner i would like to get some feedback from the cities or the counties um so i i think i would propose that we continue to a future meeting i i just just don't like the locations period okay and i just want to get some feedback from other areas as to you know like riverbank you said they have it over there welcome to city riverbank or whatever it is okay i would just like to get some feedback from other agencies or other cities or counties as to what what they feel, that's kind of where I'm coming from. So I would recommend, I would like to continue this to a future meeting.

Typically, we don't usually have public comment after the hearing's closed.

The general manager of Riverbank, Rick Brangham, is in the RFP, and our athletes have been in the city for three years now. We had to see if there were any contestants this time.

If we've already kind of closed public comment, we haven't seen the RFP to see who's commented on it. I would just have to let it go at this point. So are you making a motion to continue this item?

I would make a motion to continue this item.

Do we have a second to continue this item? I'd say the motion fails. Do we have another motion for this item?

All approved as recommended by the staff.

It's up on the screen if you want to read it.

I'll make a motion. I move that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution finding the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA guideline section 15061B3 and approving use permit PL2026-002 for the installation, maintenance, and operation of three programmable electronics message signs on city-owned properties.

subject to findings and condition of approval contained in the resolution I'll make it all second the motion and so with that we will take a vote vice-chair Singh yes chair Hicks yes Commissioner well no Commissioner McNichol yes passes 3-1 thank you

Thank you for your time. You have a road ahead of you still, but you've progressed on one platform tonight. So good luck on that. Thank you for coming. We're going to go next to planning matters and follow up items.

Let's see. We do have some items coming up at future hearings. We will have, let's see, we're at August 26th. Your September 9th meeting will be canceled, but there will be items on September 23rd, and there should be an item on October 14th. So those are the next two. So you do have some coming up in the pipeline. One of those will be a use permit for the Maverick fueling station. which the site where Maverick was previously suggested for annexation by Planning Commission and City Council has formally been approved by LAFCO, the Local Agency Formation Commission. And so you'll see the Maverick fueling station on the east side of Kettleman and 99 will be coming to Planning Commission for use permit for alcohol and then also Spark for design refuel. But that's all I got. Thank you.

When was that? Is it scheduled?

September 23rd. 23rd? Yes. September 9th will be canceled.

OK.

Announcements and correspondence, actions of the city council. You want to just go down anything else that there is that you have, if you have anything?

We do have at the upcoming meeting next week that set the public hearing and then the following meeting in October, the public hearing for the phase four code amendments and the F-shaped west side annexation, which was approved at the prior planning commission hearing. So those will be moving forward to city council within the next month or month and a half or so.

Thank you. Gary, actions of the SPARC committee.

Well, we met tonight.

We met tonight, and we denied the request for the electric signboards. And I think we scheduled the next meeting as September 23rd.

And that was the only thing on your agenda today? That was the only item?

The only item on the agenda.

Thank you very much. Comments by the planning commission and staff on non-agenda items?