Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Alright. I'll call the meeting to order. We'll start with the flag salute.

Please join me in saluting the flag.

Roll call, please.

Commissioner Rhodes?

Here.

Commissioner Sangha? Here. Commissioner Milas?

Here.

Commissioner Roostahler? Here. Thank you, chair. We have quorum.

Thank you. Next item on the agenda is minutes from hearings on 08/1524 and 02/05/2026. Do I hear a motion to approve the minutes as submitted or if there's

any need to abstain from

one from from 2024. Okay. Alright. So we'll take we'll take them as one minute at a time. Sorry. So for 08/1524, do I have a motion to accept as presented or if there are any corrections, this is time to make them.

I'll make a motion to accept it.

I'll second.

Oh, call for the vote.

Commissioner Seng Yes. Commissioner Milas? Yes. Commissioner Roosteller?

Yes. The second set of minutes is from two 05:26. Do I hear a motion to accept as presented or any corrections that need to be made at this time?

I'll make a motion.

Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Okay. I call for the vote. Commissioner Rhodes?

Yes.

Commissioner Sangha?

Yes.

Commissioner Milas? Yes. Commissioner Rufsteller?

Yes. Next item, actions on request for continuous or withdrawals.

Yes. Thank you. The department is requesting a continuance for items number three and four to allow us to discuss and coordinate with the cities on item number three. And then item number four is kinda dependent on item number three for the amendment to the general plan to then be item number four be consistent with the general plan. So we're asking for continued to undate specific. Thank you.

I have a motion. Excuse me. Somebody

made it? I'll make it.

Okay. Second?

Second.

Moved and second. Call for the vote to remove items three and four.

Commissioner Milas? Yes. Commissioner Rhodes?

Yes.

Commissioner Seng Yes. Commissioner Rufstaller? Yes. Motion passes. Four zero.

Okay. That takes us to the public here public comment. And so the public is welcome to address the Planning Commission on items of interest to the public that are not listed on the agenda. Comments to the commission are limited to a maximum of five minutes. Is there anybody who'd like to speak to the commission on items not on the agenda? You can in a minute. We'll come back and let you. Do we have anybody on line

tonight? Yes, just one person.

Okay. Would they like to speak to the commission or is it for another item? No. Next item on the agenda or action items, non contested agenda items, and they're in two, number one and two, that are calendar for non contested agenda will be approved in one motion without separate public hearings unless a member of the planning commission or the audience requests the item be removed from the non contested calendar and heard separately. At this time, is there any anyone on the commission who would like to remove items either one or two?

I'll ask anybody in the audience if they're wanting to request removal for the non contested items. Seeing or hearing none, I will ask for someone to make a motion to accept the two items.

All

motion. I'll second it.

It's been moved and seconded to accept non contested items one and two as listed on the agenda. I'll call for the vote.

Commissioner Seng Yes. Commissioner Milas? Yes. Commissioner Rhodes?

Yes.

Commissioner Rufstaller?

Yes.

Motion passes four zero. Thank you.

Okay.

So we're gonna come back. At this time, you can sir, if you wanna speak on item, I believe it's number four, continuance. Three and four are being continued. So you can talk about the continuance, not the project itself.

Good evening commissioners. My name is Robert Beatles. I own the 1.1 acre parcel at 5440 East Harney Lane, And on the applicant on number four, I'd like you guys to reconsider postponing it because obviously when you postpone three, four can't move forward and I can't move forward without them. The city of Lodi filed a letter today saying that my parcel is within Lodi's sphere of influence, and Lodi is the only city with jurisdictional standing over this property. The Lodi's letter states that the city does not oppose my project.

Lodi's own general plan already designates my site as a business park, which allows office, light industrial, and production oriented uses. That is decisive. Tracy, Rippon, Stockton, and Lodi itself has raised concerns about the broader text amendment. I take those concerns seriously, but the core worry is the sphere the sphere of influence encroachment has a clean solution that you can put on the record tonight. You guys can modify item three if you bring it back so that the provision allowing parcels smaller than two acres to be redesignated warehouse industrial applies only where either the parcel is within the city's sphere of influence, and that city has provided written consent to the redesignation or the parcel is not within the city's sphere of influence.

That modification answers every city on the record. It gives them veto power over their own spheres. It honors Lodi's written consent to my project already in the record. It preserves county flexibility for rural parcels, no city claims, and it lets you forward item three to the board of County Supervisors tonight with a clean recommendation. A continuance is not harmless.

It tells every applicant in this county that a proper a properly drafted project with full staff support can be stopped by letters filed in the eleventh hour without a single concern being raised about the project itself. That is bad public policy. The Commission's role tonight is advisory. The Board of Supervisors has a final decision authority. Every city raising concerns will have additional opportunity to engage with the county before the board votes.

Nothing irreversible happens if you forward item three with the consent modification. For the commission's awareness, if item three is continued tonight, I will be asking during item four for my project to be forwarded with conditional findings tied to the board's later adoption of item number three. That option preserves my project without requiring this commission to resolve the contingency tonight. Staff recommends approval. The report or the record supports approval.

Please recommend item three to the board tonight. Please bring it back with the sphere of influence consent modification so that county wide dialogue that cities have requested can continue at the board level without halting projects that are already ready now. I ask you to please bring it back for consideration. Can I speak to four now or you want me to come back?

Go ahead.

Okay.

5.

Gotcha. So this speaks a little bit to my project, but I'll keep it tight because the record kinda speaks for itself. The the project converts an existing 5,500 square foot building to an administrative office. It adds one new 4,000 square foot storage building for equipment. It installs dense landscaping and a screen fence along the north property line to protect conforming residents.

There's only 13 employees, approximately one delivery per day, eight to four is the hours Monday through Friday. It has an existing well and existing septic with a nitrate loading study approved by the environmental health on 10/28/2025. It has an existing driveway on a minor arterial with a direct State Route 99 access. The business is state certified traffic control and flagging, lane closures, detours, and work zone safety plans for public and private construction across the region. When work is being done on a road, drivers and workers go home safely because of companies like ours.

That is a public benefit staff identified under land use goal LU six. Every referral agency responded on the record. SJCOG, United Auburn Indian Community, p PG and E twice, environmental health, public works, the fire prevention. Every condition in attachment g is accepted. Agricultural mitigation at a one to one ratio will be provided at a building permit or with the building permit.

SJMSCP compliance will be satisfied before any ground disturbance. Most importantly, the city of Lodi, whose sphere of Influence actually contains my parcel, filed a letter today stating Lodi does not oppose this project. The Lodi's own general plan designates my site as a business park, which allows exactly the uses that I'm proposing. No city with jurisdictional standing over this parcel opposes it. My request has three tracks in order of preference.

First, the commission has just approved or if the commission approves item three with or without the sphere of influence consent modification I proposed, please forward 411412 to the board of supervisors with a recommendation to approve. Second, if item three gets continued, I respectfully ask that the commission forward my application with conditional findings recommending approval contingent on the board's later adoption of PA 260,004. The findings in the staff report are staff's proposed findings. The commission has authority to supplement them. A conditional recommendation preserves the board's final authority without halting a project that has been cleared every substantive test.

Third, if conditional findings are not adopted, I respectfully ask that my item four be continued to the same hearing date as item three with my application status, public noticing, and fee payment preserved so I did not have to restart the application process. Staff recommends approval. Every referral is complete. Lodi supports the project. The record is clean. Please forward PA 2 500411 and PA 25 00412 to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation to approve. I urge you guys to please reconsider postponing and move forward with rainfore. Thank you commissioners.

Okay. At this time, I'll bring it back to the commission. Would you like to speak, sir?

Yes, sir. I would.

Alright. It is about the continuance. Is

that correct? Yes. Thank

you. Please state your name and your address for the record.

Yes. Thank you. My name is Tom Terpstra. I am the city attorney for the city of Ripon. And, yeah, I appreciate the applicant's thoughts on this matter. And I get I guess what I wanna reiterate on behalf of the city of Ripon and based on what I've seen on some of the comment letters, I have not seen all of them. I think there were some other cities. I I've only seen Ripon and me Ripon and Tracy's letters on this matter, but if there's other cities that have contributed their thoughts on this, I have not seen those. But based on what I have seen, the cities do not have any opposition to item number four. They have no opposition to your project, sir.

What the cities have opposition to is just the process by which this text amendment was brought before this commission. And really, for us, we have no concerns about the project. And like the applicant says, we have no jurisdiction over that. We have no we have no we have no arguments on that front. But this is a text amendment that has ripple effects that circulate countywide, and they do circulate into our spheres of influence.

But and while I do think that the applicant's suggested revision is well intentioned, and I think it is a very good idea, it doesn't necessarily foreclose every possible solution for every city. And different cities have unique needs and specific needs. City of Tracy actually does come to mind as an example where their sphere of influence is a little bit oddly shaped and doesn't necessarily ref reflect their general plans that may or may not be in the process of being updated now. So these are not one size fits all solutions, though I think that is a great starting point for the discussion. And I think the point being, this does need to be a discussion amongst the cities because this is a countywide amendment that you guys would be considering under this text amendment.

So from from the city of Ripon's perspective, my I would urge this commission to reconsider or to not reconsider and to maintain this continuance for a subsequent date. I I I I truly do feel for you, sir. I do have a private practice where I, you know, represent applicants like yourself. I can understand why this is an extremely frustrating outcome, but this is and if if this continuance holds, but it's nothing personal. It has nothing to do with your project.

It just it just has to do with the long term planning objectives of the city, which I urge this planning commission to carefully consider in this process. And so if you have any questions, I'd be happy to take those at this point. But I thank you for the time to speak on this matter.

Thank you. Anyone else like to speak about the continuance only? Excuse me?

I'm sorry, can I ask him a question?

Sure, ask him a question.

Thank you for that. I was just curious so because you were addressing me several times. What would the city of Ripon be against this going forward if the city of Ripon and all cities they have to provide written consent to do what I'm doing because that gives you guys everything that you're asking for. So it wouldn't be just a blanket text amendment.

Yeah. I'm gonna I'm yes. Please.

All we're saying right now is whether to reconsider the continuance. We're not getting into the merits of the proposed text amendment, and I feel like that's what we're doing right now. So we're not gonna get into the merits on this agendized item. If you wanna speak to the continuance, you've had an opportunity. If there's anything more you wanna add on that front, that would be appropriate.

Yeah, sure. Yeah, me, I just wanted to ask a simple question. If they had the ultimate authority, what are they against? Because they literally nothing would move forward unless they signed off on it. So

Thanks.

Yeah.

We hear you. Okay.

This

If you want.

No. I I think I think our I think counsel summed it up appropriately. This is only the discussion about the continuance.

Sure.

And not the merits of mister Beale's suggestion or anything else. That would be something that comes out of staff and a meeting with the cities later on. So at this time, I'm gonna ring you back to the to the commission and ask if anyone would like to reconsider the decision that's already been made. Okay, I got one. I would like staff to clarify what usually is the the process for for the item number three.

Good evening. Good evening. Jennifer Jolley, Director of Community Development. First, I'd like to apologize to the applicant for the delay. We never intend to delay a project on purpose. There was some oversight on the notice, so the cities did get later notification about the project. As a point of clarification, when we are approving a land use permit, we have findings that we have to make. One of those findings is that the project is consistent with the general plan and zoning codes. And I'm majorly paraphrasing, but that's essentially one of them. Without the Text Amendment Item Number three being approved tonight to forward onto the Board, we would not be able to make findings for the project.

So, it's not to the applicant's benefit to move his project forward because the staff's recommendation would have to change. We cannot make findings if the general plan text is not consistent with the project. The text amendment that we are proposing, we do understand now that the cities have some concerns, and we do intend to address it very quickly. I've talked to multiple directors today from the cities. We are intending to have a meeting next week with them, and we are going to get this flushed out as quickly as possible.

And we will bring this back as quickly as possible, and both of these items will be processed again together. So, I do apologize, but the appropriate thing to do is to wait to bring the text amendment and the land use permit together, because otherwise we cannot recommend approval on the project. And I understand where Mr. Beetle's coming from, saying that it's near the city of Lodi, and they don't have an issue with this. However, when we change general plan policies and zoning codes, it's countywide.

So, it does have to take into consideration how this would affect the rest of the county. So, land use permits are very site specific, but policy applies countywide. So, that's why we have to delay it. And, I apologize. This was not intentional, and we do want to get it right, and we want the cities to be comfortable with the recommendation. We do value the city's input on these things. And, unfortunately, we just got the information. They got our information late, so therefore, we got their information late. And that is so that's why it's our recommendation tonight.

And just to be clear, there will be no additional fees applied to the No.

Not at all.

And what's the time frame are you thinking? May 7, May 21,

June Ideally, would be the May 21. Now, is only one board meeting in May anyway, so whether we went on the seventh or the twenty first, it didn't really matter because we'd have to go in June to the board. The Board meetings in June have three different dates, so I'm pretty hopeful that we will be able to find an appropriate date. So it will be a delay for them for a few weeks, which, again, I apologize. There's only so many times I can apologize, but I really am sorry that that happened. We do understand that businesses, time is money, and and we we do understand that it was just an unfortunate error. But you have my word that we are going to get this resolved as quickly as possible.

Okay. So I'll bring it back to the commission. Anybody want? Sorry. Yeah. I'm I think we all are. Yeah. And I apologize, but I don't think any of us are gonna reconsider the decision that's been made.

Chair, if I may?

Yes.

I had a question. Isn't there like a time limit when the CT scan respond? Because some of the letters came in at the last moment just like the gentleman was saying. You know, it's like a day before or a couple hours before. We don't even sometimes get enough chance to see what is written in there in detail. I mean, is there some kind of protocol, like how soon or how late they can respond?

Through the chair. There's there's actually two answers to your question. So first of all, I want to clarify that this is not on the cities. This is on the county. We made a mistake in our notification. City of Lodi was the only one that actually got direct notification. The other cities found out, I believe, through the public hearing notice process. So, they did not even know about this project until very recently. So, that is not on the cities. That is on the county.

And then the second question that you have is, we do provide a referral period where we prefer to get the information, but technically, you can submit information on a project going to a public hearing up until the hearing. We just prefer we prefer that not to be the case. So but in this case, this is not the city's doing a bunch of late notices. This is that they did not know that the project was going, and which is why I've had conversations, including Corinne conversations with another city. So, we've talked to multiple cities today and apologized on behalf of the county, and we want to make it right.

Thank you. Thank you.

Any other, commissioner? No. Okay. All right. Again, we're sorry. We're gonna move on to the next item agenda. And that would be other business. Is there any other business with the commission? Alright. Planning commissioner's comments?

Anybody? Alright. Director's report.

Good evening. Oh, let me switch gears here. Well, I just will give you an update on the variance application that you guys heard a few weeks ago for the fence that was built into the right of way on Alpine Road. That was heard by the Board of Supervisors on two days ago, Tuesday. And it was voted three to one to approve the variance, and the defense will be allowed to stand. So

Can can I ask a question?

Mhmm.

Yeah. I think staff did their job. The commission did their job. Mhmm. Which so what's the setup for this a precedent that anyone else can now build on county property?

I'm gonna answer that by saying that every variance application has a unique set of circumstances, and findings need to be made to approve them. Our Board was able to determine that they felt like the findings could be made, which is why they recommended approval. There were some conditions of approval added at that hearing to address a few of the items, such as the insurance rider, and I'm not sure exactly what else there was, but Corinne might recall.

The additional condition we put on was a deed restriction that the fence would have to be removed once the property is sold.

Oh. Yeah.

But what about the neighbors that are suing them in court? Could they sue the county The as

existing case that I'm aware of is a civil issue, so I won't weigh in on that. And then I'm going to defer to counsel on the other answer.

Get into the merits of it, which I won't do here in a public hearing. But anybody can sue for anything. And whether the lawsuit has merit, that's a different issue and a different question.

But through the chair, didn't we discuss that it was a liability issue for the county? Like you said, somebody else can come out and say, if they did it, why can't we do it? So that was the whole reason we were all on the same page to say no. I mean, I know people can go and appeal to the supervisor. Can somebody go and appeal to what supervisor decided? Just a question. Because this is opening like a Pandora's box. Somebody else can come and say the same thing.

The appeal would be to a court. Right? It would be a lawsuit.

Or we can sue. I mean, I'm just saying. I mean, we are just opening up a messy situation because I remember when we discussed, we discussed in detail, and it was a it was a place of discussion where we're coming from was concerned for the county because it's a county property.

But ultimately, the board has a decision, and they made their decision.

Three to

Excuse me. I know it was three to one. We had one commissioner abstain.

At the board, it was three to two. So

Three one.

There's something in there.

It was through the chair. Yeah. One of the board of supervisors abstained.

Oh, he did.

Yeah. So 31.

31. Okay. Just wanted to put it on the record, but it is what it is. So thank you.

Yep.

I think that concludes my Brightening

our day.

I

know I did a really good job tonight brightening your day, so nothing more. Thank you.

Alrighty. Well, that'll be the last word, and this meeting's adjourned.

Thank you.