Planning Commission - Special Meeting

I'll call this session to order. Commissioner Miglis, will you lead us in the flag salute? Roll call, please.

Commissioner Sangha? Here. Commissioner Rhodes?

Here.

Commissioner Milas? Here. Commissioner Ruestaller? Here.

All right, that takes us to the next item, which is minutes from hearings of 4-3-25 and 3-5-26. Do I hear a motion to accept the minutes? as presented, or are there any additions or corrections that need to be made?

I wasn't here for the 20-25 minutes.

So we could take them individually then, and then you could abstain. So do I have a motion for the 4-3, 20-25 minutes?

I'll make a motion to accept it.

I'll second. Move to second, I'll call for the vote. Commissioner Rhodes?

Abstain.

Abstain.

Commissioner Meles? Yes. Commissioner Sangha?

Yes.

Commissioner Rustaller? Yes.

That'll take us to the next minutes from a hearing on 3-5-26. Someone make a motion, or are there any additions or corrections that need to be made to those minutes?

I'll make a motion that we approve.

I'll second. Moved and seconded. Commissioner Mules? Yes. Commissioner Sangha?

Yes.

Commissioner Rhodes?

Yes.

Commissioner Ruessler? Yes. Motion passes 4-0.

OK. At this time, are there any actions on request for continuances or withdrawals?

No, Chair. There are no.

OK. So I will give an explanation of the hearing procedures for those who haven't attended one of these commission meetings. We'll have public hearings on items. And first, there will be the staff report, and the recommendations are presented, and then the applicant may provide oral arguments limited to 20 minutes or written testimony. Other project proponents may provide testimony in person or on Microsoft via Teams, and they're limited to five minutes, and they also may provide email. Project opponents may provide testimony in person or via Microsoft Teams, and they're limited to five minutes. the applicant and then the opponents and the applicant can do a rebuttal for about 10 minutes and time limits do not apply to questions from the Planning Commission or staff. And then I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the Commission for discussion and decision. At this time, 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 anyone here would like to speak on item not on the agenda? Is there anyone online who would like to speak on items not on the agenda? No, okay. So the next action item are non-contested agenda items. and we have two tonight, items one and two. So items calendared for non-contested agenda will be approved in one motion without a separate public hearing unless a member of the planning commission or the audience requests the item be removed from the non-contested calendar and heard separately. Anyone on the commission? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to remove these from non-contested? Anyone online? All right. I'll entertain a motion to accept items one and two as non-contested. Items for approval. I'll make a motion.

Second.

Move and second.

I'll call for the vote. Commissioner Rhodes?

Yes.

Commissioner Sangha?

Yes.

Commissioner Rustaller? Yes. Commissioner Milas? Yes. Both should pass as 4-0.

Okay. That takes us to item three on the agenda tonight, general plan and development title text amendment number PA2600004 of San Joaquin County. And so I will open the public hearing and staff, you're on.

Thank you, Chair. Jennifer Jolly, Director for Community Development. I'd like to introduce Megan Aguirre, Principal Planner, who will do the presentation.

Good evening, chair and commissioners general plan and development title text amendment. Number PA 26, four is a text amendment for updates to the warehouse industrial land use designation to allow parcels smaller than two acres in size to be considered for the designation while also proposing additional review criteria for all proposed warehouse industrial projects. While the most recent comprehensive update to the general plan was in 2016, the subsequent update to the development title was not completed until the end of 22. As such, by the time the development title was updated, there were several general plan amendments that were also processed at the same time to ensure consistency between the documents and address items that came up during that time. It was anticipated that staff would process additional future text amendments as part of an adjustment period. In the several years following approval of the development title update, the Board of Supervisors has approved several text amendments for various cleanups as well as a comprehensive update to the existing sign ordinance chapter and a new chapter for commercial industrial design guidelines. These changes were all made with a recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission. The current project represents another text amendment to improve county policy. Proposed changes to the general plan include a requirement for a pre-application for all general plan map amendments and zone reclassifications to ensure early review of potential compatibility issues. New land use goals for the warehouse industrial designation are also proposed and these include a requirement to review compatibility with agricultural properties and properties designated for residential development in a city's sphere of influence and to send a referral to any potentially impacted city when a warehouse industrial project is located within or half a mile from a city sphere of influence. Additionally, a new land use goal is proposed to allow parcels smaller than two acres in size to be considered for the warehouse industrial designation if they are already developed for a legally established commercial or industrial purpose and meet all county standards, which is determined by the Community Development Department, Environmental Health Department, and the Department of Public Works. Proposed changes to the development title include elevating the level of review for projects that are located within or half a mile of a city sphere of influence and adding a note that parcels less than two acres in size may be considered in the corresponding warehouse industrial zone if all general plan policies are met. Additional minor text cleanups are proposed for clarification and organizational purposes. Several letters were received in opposition to the project from various cities in the county as well as LAFCO and the San Joaquin Farm Bureau Federation. A primary topic was lack of project notification and concern about future coordination for projects that could result from approval of the text amendment. As an unintentional oversight, county staff only noticed the city of Lodi with the original project referrals since the related project PA 25411 and 412 for a traffic control business is located within the City of Lodi sphere of influence. Once this error was identified, county staff made sure to include all cities on project notification for the text amendment. In regards to coordination, the general plan currently requires that county staff consider city plans when reviewing a project and provide notification. The proposed text amendment further strengthens this language and as noted, the city of Lodi was notified regarding the specific project in their sphere of influence and that same would be done for other cities. Another topic of concern was potential impacts to future residential development. All of the cities in the county are obligated to ensure that land is provided for future residential development to meet the state's housing goals as identified through the local regional housing needs allocation process. Because the proposed text amendment requires a pre-application for all general plan map amendments and zone reclassifications in coordination with cities when projects are located within or near their sphere of influence, Concerns about potential impacts to future residential development can be identified early on in the process to ensure projects are consistent with city plans. Several comments also indicate that the Texas Amendment should not be environmentally exempted and cited specific concerns about traffic, trucks, and air quality. The Texas Amendment itself will not result in development and all projects proposing to be redesignated to warehouse industrial will be required to be reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act. As such, staff recommends that a notice of exemption is the appropriate level of review for environmental determination.

Any questions? Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, sorry. Just a little bit more. Stepped on your conclusion.

Almost there. In order to process the general plan or development title text amendment, several findings must be made in the affirmative. These findings include that the proposed text amendments are consistent with the general plan, will benefit the public and have been reviewed in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. General plan text amendments are also required to retain the internal consistency of the general plan and other adopted plans unless a concurrent amendment is proposed for consistency. The changes as proposed are consistent with the general plan goals and policies requiring coordination with the cities, which will benefit the public by ensuring that land use compatibility is considered beyond just county properties and plans. while also providing additional development opportunities for parcels meeting specific criteria. Additionally, the project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Any proposed project as a result of the text changes would be reviewed on an individual basis to ensure that all potential environmental impacts are addressed. Changes are also proposed to retain consistency within and between the general plan and the development title. As a result, staff recommends that the findings can be made in the affirmative. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward the project with the recommendations shown on this slide and included in the staff report. Thank you, this concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you. Does anyone on the Commission have questions at this time?

I have a question for the council, if I may, please. So my question is, I obviously live in Tracy. I represent District 5. I was on the planning commission for the city of Tracy for two terms, and I'm a resident there for over 25 years. We dealt with something like this while I was on the planning commission. Am I allowed to make a comment as a private citizen, or because I'm sitting here, that's a conflict of interest?

Yes. Yes, I would advise you to only make a comment as a commissioner.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else? I have something. I just want to add, we just got a letter from the city of Lathrop too. That makes five cities that submitted letters. We didn't hear from Escalon, Stockton, or Mountain House.

So all of the cities were involved in a coordination meeting, but not all of them submitted written comments.

Okay, thank you.

If I could, through the chair, I'd also like to clarify that we received letters of opposition to the first attempt at the text amendment, and the second version has only resulted in letters of opposition from three of the cities, which is Lathrop, Tracy, and Ripon. Thank you.

Okay, so... Just wanted to make sure. At this time, is there any, since you are presenting this, I would assume now we move to anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this? Is that correct?

That's correct.

So is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor of this item? And please state your name and your address for the record.

Good evening, Commissioners. Good to see you again. My name is Robert Beatles. I own the property at 5440 East Harney Lane. It's 1.01 acres. I'm the applicant on number four, speaking in support of number three right now. Before I address the, I guess it's three opposition letters that were submitted today, like the 11th hour again, especially when they had the meeting on the 16th for the letters to come in right before the hearing. It's kind of unprofessional, but it is what it is. know the county held this coordinated meeting with the city planning directors the text amendment language has been revised to apply only to specific cases and to include coordination with cities during the review process so The county listened, the cities were heard, the revised language already addressed much of what was originally requested. The city of Ripon's May 21st letter confirms Ripon's participation in that coordination meeting. The letter then offers the commission to pass in its own conclusions, continue the item or recommend approval to the board with direction that the board incorporate framework development into its final motion. and that's basically what the other cities said as well i respectfully ask the commission to take ripon's second path tonight recommend approval include direction to continue developing the coordination framework if needed hopefully not both can happen in parallel they are not mutually exclusive this path ripping itself offers The San Joaquin Farm Bureau's May 21st letter raises agricultural concerns and asks for a denial or continuance. Two responses. First, the Farm Bureau's central concern is spot conversion of farmland. With respect, my parcel is not farmland and has not been for nearly 50 years. It was legally created in 1976 under the parcel map PM760219 specifically for commercial office used to support the surrounding operations. It has held an existing almost 5,500 square foot commercial building since then. It is an existing legally established commercial site, not active farmland. Second, the Farm Bureau itself provides the alternative path in point four of its letter. They state, and I quote, the more appropriate path is a project specific request or finding, not permanent removal of a protective standard. I would accept that alternative if you don't pass it as is. If the Commission has any concern about the broader text amendment, direct staff to bringing forward a project-specific finding for my parcel. The Farm Bureau cannot oppose the path without contradicting its own letter. On CEQA, the Farm Bureau's argument is directed at the countywide text amendment. My site-specific application qualifies for the 15061 exemption on its own facts. Existing developed parcel, no significant ground disturbance. Staff analysis confirms it. to address city's core concerns, fear of influence protection. I continue to support the city written consent language in any final amendment. Lodi has already provided that it's consent on the record. My project qualifies under any version that respects city consent. For the commissioners for the Commission's awareness if item 3 is continued tonight I will be asking during number 4 for my project to be forwarded along with conditional findings tied to the board's later adoption or alternatively with a project specific finding consistent with the Farm Bureau's own suggestive alternative staff recommends approval the record supports approval please move this forward tonight under ripens option two with framework development direction in the recommendation or as is so legitimate small business projects are not held hostage to the regional dialogue that can continue in parallel and i understand that a lot of people worry about truck parking and i would be too mine is not truck parking it's traffic control companies literally just overflow signs that go in a metal building I believe that they've addressed all the language to make sure that you wouldn't just have truck parking popping up all over the place and dirt going in people's roads and all that stuff that would be horrible. I believe they've fixed that. And I believe the county has done a good job at changing the text to address the people's concerns of things like that. So thank you very much, commissioners. Commission.

Thank you. Are there any other questions? folks who'd like to speak as proponents of this item.

Can you guys hear me fine? Perfect. So I'm Daniel Barnes. I'm the civil engineer on this project going forward. I was contracted by Mr. Beatles. I would just like to acknowledge that we had this very similar issue, circumstance, and item addressed in the last planning commission meeting on the 16th. Again, this last meeting, we had last minute letters from all the local agencies bringing up similar concerns. Again, we have done our best to read these comments to the best of our abilities that were received at 4.50 today. I am out of the Turlock area, so you can understand why that creates difficulties for our project and our team to respond to these comments adequately. Again, following last planning commission meeting, staff and local city attorneys had a meeting together to find resolution to these issues that they reported. I would like to bring up that being that these letters are addressing the same points that the local cities have already had their abilities and their time to commit their comments to the ordinances that staff has such revised. I would personally advocate that similar to Ripon, I would follow Lathrop's letter, conclusion point two, that an amendment can be made for staff to amend the current general plan language prior to the Board of Supervisors hearing. I think that gives all the local cities, again, another chance to input any kind of concerns that they may have on this project, this language that's being revised. In regards to the housing element statements, I think a lot of those statements are kind of a mute point being that the housing element has to be satisfied within the city's actual city limits. And the amendment that we are proposing is not only outside of the sphere of influence or not only outside the city limits, but it's outside the sphere of influence. So it really isn't relevant to that point. Secondly, to any concerns that may be addressed with farming residences and agricultural land surrounding possible properties that could be affected by this amendment, I would just like to highlight out that there is a point in the amendment stating that the developments cannot have any negative impacts on surrounding properties. So there would already be CEQA analysis done on the projects to mitigate any concerns as far as traffic, noise, dust control, things like that. So I do think that there's already been enough work done on this project to help this proceed to the Board of Supervisors and that all the cities have had their chance and that there shouldn't be any more delays on the project, especially to Mr. Beatles here who's just trying to move forward at this point. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who'd like to speak as a proponent of this item? Anybody online? Okay, so at this time, we'll now switch those who are opposed to this item. And is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak? Sir, remember your name and your address, please.

I'M THE PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY OF RIPPON, 259 NORTH WILMA AVENUE IN RIPPON. I DO APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT'S COMMENTS AND RESPONSES. JUST RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO THEIR PROJECT AT ALL. I wouldn't wanna be stopping their project from moving forward. We did have a coordinated meeting with county staff and appreciate that opportunity. As the city of Ripon feels though, and I think some of the other cities that you've seen in the letters, we don't necessarily think it goes far enough. There is goals and policies within the adopted county's general plan that require coordination and meeting with cities when they are in the spheres of influences of cities to make sure there's compatibility. I think what we're asking for is a little bit more formalized process. We'd like to see this codified in some sort of ordinance that requires kind of appropriate steps and gives a little more, I guess, teeth to this coordination. I think it's better for both the county and cities and a long-term planning for both. So that's what we're asking tonight. I do think the applicant did agree with our second recommendation on there. If you guys wanna move forward with the project tonight, we would ask that you would add that condition of approval as a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors that directs staff at the county to meet with the cities to come up with a more, I guess, codified process for when a project is within a city sphere of influence. I understand that all sites aren't equal. Obviously, this one's already developed, probably not a big issue for many jurisdictions. But when there are sites that are vacant and maybe going to be developed with some impactful uses, I think there's some merit to getting together and having that coordination in a meaningful manner and very detailed process. So that's what we're asking for tonight from the commission. And we just thank you for your time this evening consideration. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak in opposition to this item? Sir.

Hi, Andrew Genesee, San Joaquin Farm Bureau, 3290 North Addart Road in Stockton. First, I will say I have no problem with the underlying project we're looking at, 411 and 412. I think it's the proper use of a variance to take a property that's already surrounded by industrial that is for all intents and purposes, industrial already and just change the zoning on that. I have no problem with that. Farm Bureau doesn't have a problem with that. Our concern is with the general plan amendment. We'd like to see some more guardrails, maybe something that limits this to properties that are already adjacent or surrounded by industrial properties. We just would like to just make sure that farmland is protected where it can be. There are a number of smaller parcels out within the unincorporated areas of the county, and we just want to make sure that this is very specifically tailored to products like this project that's being proposed, that it's very specifically tailored to that. So we just like to see a little stronger language, just make sure that the guardrails are a little higher and a little tougher on that. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in the audience like to speak? Anyone online?

No, Commissioner.

Okay. So, do you have a rebuttal?

Through the Chair, I have a few things I'd like to say, if that's okay. I think it's important to kind of recognize why we're doing what we're doing. And to acknowledge the Farm Bureau's comment that this appears that we're doing this policy change because of this project, there's some truth to that. The county is initiating this because the county wants to retain control of policy in the county. An applicant can propose a text amendment, but it's not best practice. We want it to be something that staff has more say in. So there is a need to process this text amendment in order for the other project to go forward. However, when we started looking at the issue that Mr. Beatles had with his property of having an under two acre parcel with a developed previous commercial project, We started looking at the policies and we thought, well, I don't think there's an issue with going under two acres for existing developed properties. So one thing I do think is important to clarify, and I don't know if Mr. Zyderbart saw the new language, but parcels under two acres need to have already been developed with commercial or industrial type uses. Now they're gonna be likely agriculturally related industrial type uses, such as Mr. Beadle's property. He had a former, I believe it was, an office that was used for like a nursery or agricultural operation. So that is one of the requirements that, because we did have a good meeting with the cities. We did listen to them. We were very thoughtful about the changes that we were recommending. And we really feel like we tightened up So under two acres, you've got to already have it developed. We already have very strong general plan policies that have always been in our general plan to coordinate with the cities. I do not believe there's any additional need for formal codified coordination. We already do that. People keep wanting to talk about the mistake, the human error that happened. We apologized. We made a mistake on our notice, but that is not something that happens frequently. That was definitely not something that happens a lot. So we made changes. We want to coordinate with the cities. We have no intention of affecting housing. We want to coordinate with what they have planned for the future, even outside, within a half a mile of their sphere of influence. So we have gone above and beyond to make sure that we're coordinating with the cities for these types of requests. They are not something we receive a lot of requests and we do frequently meet with the public and talk about policies and recommend against even applying for applications. Not every site is appropriate. So if this text amendment were approved, that doesn't mean that every parcel under two acres in the sphere of influence of every city is going to turn into industrial. There's still discretion, there's still CEQA review, there's still authority that is required by the Board of Supervisors. So we can't I know it sometimes gets mentioned, I think Mr. Beatles mentioned it, and the cities would like for us to just let them say that a project can happen in the county, but it's the county's authority. We have to retain the authority in our jurisdiction. It is under the Board of Supervisors, just like the city limits are under the city council. but we do want to work with cities. And I think we have historically, at least since I've worked there, we have historically shown that we do coordinate with them. So I don't believe that there's any other need for a formal codified workflow, if you will. I mean, we wanna, we're actually also requiring a pre-application. This is a policy change for the county and it's countywide and it's for all general plan amendments. We're now requiring a general plan pre-application for any change of general plan or zoning, and that's so that you can early on get ahead of the issues and coordinate with the agencies that would be affected, including the Farm Bureau, including the cities, water districts, et cetera. So I just kind of wanted to lay that information out there. Some of the requirements that we've added to the text have really, in my opinion, in my staff's opinion, tightened up the regulations. Thank you.

Thank you. So at this time, I'm going to close the public hearing on item number three and bring it back to the commission for questions and discussion.

I have something brief. So we met with the cities on the 15th.

Maybe the 16th. I don't remember exactly the date. It was about a month ago. Oh, the 22nd. April 22nd. Six days off.

April 22nd. Okay. Okay. No problem. No, just because of the fact that we did get a letter recently. I read it really quickly, so I just want to make sure. I know you guys probably read it much better than I did. It doesn't seem to me that any of the letters are actually saying don't move forward. They just want to be talked to, which we do. Maybe we had a snafu here, but that happens to even the cities. And thank you for clarifying, because I was a little bit concerned when I saw five out of eight cities, but even in the previous letters, I don't see where it's a don't do it. It's more like we just want to be included. It'd be nice if the cities include us too when they did their general plan amendments. But anyway, with that, I don't have anything else. I just wanted to make sure I didn't, in my reading quickly of the last letter, miss something.

Anyone else? Commissioner?

I had a comment, and like I said, I will go with the project specific with the gentleman who's been coming here for his project. I have no questions that that's something that doesn't make a difference in the bigger picture. Again, with my experience, not that I'm saying that this may or may not affect the way it is, I have never seen anybody coming and asking for a zone change from industrial or residential and making it agriculture. I agree with the gentleman from Farm Bureau because there should be some guardrails. I don't see that anybody's saying that, you know, just shut this thing down and totally don't do anything about it. Just for the record, I wanna mention it for transparency that I did talk to my city of Tracy's assistant city manager, Arturo Sanchez, who wrote the letter, and I was asking what seems to be the concern, and the concern is, again, not necessarily, but it's always good when somebody's going into the sphere of influence, that this county, which you guys do, I do understand, appreciate your time, but somehow the city has a say in that. I'll just give you a small quick example of what happened in Tracy. In Tracy on Coral Hollow, we have spots. There is county, there is city, there is county and there is city. And the people who have the county land, they don't want Coral Hollow to extend because that's their land and they go with what the county wants or however the county wants. So it creates like there can be a warehouse and there can be homes or there could be, industrial something else, we don't have the infrastructure for that. Again, that's the city's problem. If the city doesn't have, I'm not blaming the county. What I'm saying is if the language could somehow say, again, not saying that you guys don't listen, but somehow the city feels like, you know, if it's fear of influence, we are not having warehouses popping up in a two-acre land, which is agriculture, because we are not making any more land. That's one thing that's going to stay there. When the rezoning happens, people change agriculture to industrial or retail or residential. I have never seen anybody saying, okay, let's change the industrial back into agriculture. That's my main concern coming from as a commissioner, as someone who has seen the other side of what happens. City of Tracy is also doing general plan amendment. I hope, like I'm asking you, that county talks to the city. The city will talk to the county when they do something like that. It's really concerning that seeing what I have seen in my district, or at least in my city, things have affected in a very bad way. something has popped up because that's county and they were authorized to do that and the city said that, okay, we can control it because it's county. As long as it's a language that is mutually acceptable, of course, the county will have the jurisdiction because it's their land under their jurisdiction. I'm a strong believer that the farmland should be maintained, saved, and if there is project specific, like with Mr. Beadle's project, that should be considered separately. We cannot just put every... for lack of a better word, every Tom, Dick, and Harry into the same thing and say that everybody should be treated the same. My only request as a commissioner would be that if we can add a little language in there where it says that when something does come up like that, the cities will be notified or at least worked with. I appreciate that. Thank you.

Okay. I think that's already in the language that they do speak to the cities. I don't think we should vote this down tonight. I think actually we should move it on. And I would say I really appreciate those who came to speak, Ripon and the Farm Bureau. I think we all hear what you say, but I think the way this has been written, you still have a say. But the county has to have the authority over county lands. but they will definitely speak to you when it's needed. And so I'm going to vote in favor of this. I just want everybody to know that. And is there any further discussion?

Through the chair, if the commissioners don't have further comments, may I add something? The gentleman from Ripon mentioned perhaps this could be codified or included in your zoning general plan, but there is a limit to what we can do. There are legal constraints. The county, just like the cities, you can never give away your police power. We have to apply what's in our ordinance, our rules, we can't apply the city's development standards in place of what we have, but that doesn't mean we can't coordinate with you, notify you and discuss this and see if the parties and the applicant and the city can't come to an agreement, but there are legal constraints to what the county can do. And there's case law on that. So we cannot give away our police power and our authority. And I think the commissioners understand that, but I just wanted to share that. And of course you have your own legal counsel and you can confer with your counsel, but just wanted to put that on the record. Thank you.

Thank you very much. So this time the chair will entertain a motion.

I'll motion that we approve item three.

Okay. I'll second it.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded. We accept item three, general plan and development title, text amendment number PA2600004 of the San Joaquin County. And we will now call for the vote.

Commissioner Mules? Yes. Commissioner Sangha?

Yes.

Commissioner Rhodes?

Yes.

Commissioner Rustaller? Yes. Motion passes 4-0.

Okay, we'll now move on to item four. Thank you.

We will continue on with Megan Aguirre.

Oh, hold it. I have to be formal. The public hearing is open. I don't get to use this very often, so I just want to...

Good evening again. This project is comprised of two applications, a general plan map amendment and zone reclassification to redesignate an approximately one acre parcel from general agriculture to warehouse industrial and administrative use permit to develop the parcel with the traffic control business. The project is located on the south side of East Harney Lane, east of the city of Lodi and within the city sphere of influence. The parcel has a general plan designation and zoning of general agriculture and is 1.01 acres in size. The surrounding area is primarily comprised of agricultural operations with scattered residences. There is an existing nursery facility on the parcel that surrounds the project site to the south, east, and west. There's also a large cemetery approximately half mile west of the project site at the corner of East Harney Lane and Beckman Road, and commercial and residential properties in the city of Lodi just beyond the cemetery and State Route 99. This is the site plan submitted by the applicant. The existing building in the southwest corner of the property would be converted to an office for the proposed traffic control business while the proposed new storage building is located along the eastern property line. The existing access driveway would remain in place but the existing parking area would be reconfigured to allow for a fence and gate to be installed for security purposes. This is a picture of the project site taken from the north side of East Harney Lane looking southeast towards the project site. On the right is the existing developed area. The proposed equipment storage building would be located to the left. Greenhouses from the surrounding nursery facility are visible in the background. In 1976, a parcel map created the subject parcel to construct an office for the surrounding nursery parcel. In 2021, this office was converted to a farm services facility for the testing and propagation of plants. The current project includes a general plan map amendment and zone reclassification from general agriculture to warehouse industrial. This requested change cannot be approved under the current general plan and development title, which require warehouse industrial parcels to be a minimum of two acres in size. As such, this project is tied to the general plan and development title text amendment that was just reviewed by the Planning Commission, PA 26-4. The proposed text amendment includes new criteria that must be met for all warehouse industrial projects and additional requirements to allow for redesignation of parcels less than two acres in size. Because the text amendment was approved, this project meets the minimum criteria to be redesignated to warehouse industrial. The applicant also submitted the underlying project for an administrative use permit to establish a traffic control business by converting the existing farm services building and constructing an additional building for storage. This use is not permitted under the current general plan designation and zoning, but is a permitted use if the property is re-designated to warehouse industrial. In order to approve a general plan map amendment, zonering classification, and administrative use permit, several findings must be made in the affirmative. These findings are attached to the staff report and staff recommends that they can be made in the affirmative. It is recommended that the Planning Commission forward the project to the Board of Supervisors with the recommendations shown on this slide and included in the staff report. Thank you, this concludes staff's presentation.

Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff? Okay, so at this time we'll move to the proponent if they'd like to speak on this item. You're good? I think we heard it. Can we replay what he said about item number three? Okay, are there any other folks who would like to speak in favor of item number four? Anyone online? Okay, so now, is there anyone who is opposed to item number four? This is the time to come forward and speak if you wish. Is there anyone online? No, Commissioner. Okay. I'm going to close the hearing. We're going to bring it back to the commission for questions and discussion. All right. And then I'll ask the chair, I'll entertain a motion to accept item number four.

I make the motion that we accept item number four with staff recommendations. Second.

It's been moved and seconded that we accept item number four, general plan. General Plan Map Amendment Zone Reclassification and Administration Use Permit for number PA2500441 and PA2500412 of the Robert D. Beatles Family Trust. I did 441. It is? It's 411. Oh, thank you for correcting me. My faux pas. So it's 4-1-1. Thank you. So at this time, I'll call for the vote.

Commissioner Sangha? Yes. Commissioner Milas? Yes. Commissioner Rhodes?

Yes.

Commissioner Rustaller? Yes. Thank you for that correction. Motion passes 4-0.

All right. At this time, we'll now move to item number five on the agenda. Conditional use permit for PA 2 6 6 2 6 0 0 2 7 the Jordan W Jones Cal solar Thank You chair, yeah, we're gonna do a little switch here Okay, but I will introduce Jacob who leaves our associate planner and he will actually be doing the next two items.

I

Good evening chair and commissioners. This project includes a conditional use permit application for a ground mounted solar energy system occupying approximately 10.59 acres of a 20.07 acre parcel. The project site is currently developed with single family residents. The property has a general plan and zoning designation of general agriculture. The surrounding area consists primarily of agricultural land with scattered residences. This is a site plan submitted by the applicant. The project proposes development of approximately 10.59 acres of the existing parcel while maintaining approximately 9.48 acres available for continued agricultural use. Pursuant to the development title, utility-scale solar energy systems located on an agricultural parcel are generally limited to 15% of the parcel area or five acres, whichever is less, unless the review authority can make specific farmland protection findings that the larger site area would not adversely affect agricultural production on the parcel. The proposed project exceeds that standard limitation as the solar facility would occupy approximately 52.8% of the parcel. As a result, the project requires adoption of the farmland protection findings included in the staff report. Staff determined those findings as well as the findings for the conditional use permit can be made in the affirmative. Approximately 9.48 acres of the parcel would remain available for continued agricultural use during operation of the project. In addition, the solar facility has been designed to minimize permanent impacts to agricultural soils through the use of driven pile foundations and limited grading activities. The conditions of approval also require future decommissioning of the facility and restoration of the project area to a condition suitable for agricultural use upon termination of the solar operation. The Community Development Department received approximately 30 comment letters and one petition from neighboring property owners expressing opposition to the proposed project for various reasons. The first being Williamson Act conflicts associated with the proposed project. During the initial referral process, county referral materials incorrectly identified the subject parcel as being enrolled under a Williamson Act contract. However, staff has since verified that the parcel is not enrolled in an active contract. Therefore, the project is not subject to the Williamson Act and its restraints. The proposed project is zoned general agriculture, 40 acre minimum, and a solar facility is permitted with an approved conditional use permit. additional concerns related to biological resources, including potential impacts to various species. The project site consists primarily of actively farmed agricultural land and does not contain wetlands, riparian habitats, or sensitive natural communities. The applicant is also required to participate in the San Joaquin Multispecies Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan and comply with all applicable mitigation requirements prior to permit issuance. As a result, impacts to biological resources will be reduced to less than significant. Several neighboring property owners also expressed concerns regarding land use compatibility and potential impacts to surrounding rural character. Potential impacts to property values are not a specific criterion for evaluation under CEQA or the development title. The county's review focuses on land use compatibility, infrastructure adequacy, and compliance with applicable regulations. The project includes low profile panels, perimeter fencing, and required landscape screening intended to reduce visibility of the facility from adjacent properties and roadways. Concerns regarding fire access and emergency access were also reviewed as part of the environmental analysis. The project site is not located within a state responsibility area or very high fire hazard severity zone. The project includes perimeter fire access roads, access gates, vegetation management requirements, and electrical safety measures consistent with applicable fire code requirements. Commenters additionally raised concerns regarding temporary construction traffic and roadway impacts. Construction-related traffic would occur only during the temporary construction phase, which is expected to last three to four months, while long-term operational traffic associated with the facility would be limited to occasional visit by maintenance staff approximately once or twice a year. This photo shown was taken on the west side of South Harold Avenue facing east. The existing single family residence is shown to the right and the proposed solar array area is located to the left. This photo was taken on the north side of Levin Avenue facing south at the proposed development area for solar. It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the project with the recommendations contained on this slide and in the staff report. Thank you, and this concludes staff's presentation. Thank you. Thank you.

Any questions for staff? I just have a really dumb question, because it's unmanned, which makes sense, but is there some sort of an alarm or something if somebody vandalizes it or something happens?

So through the chair, sorry. It might be best for the applicant to respond to that.

Yeah, thank you.

Any other questions? All right, so if the proponent would like to come forward this time.

Mr. Chair? Yes. The proponent is online.

Oh, okay. And we'll link and ask that question. Okay. Robert?

Good evening. On behalf of Jordan Jones tonight, I just want to speak real quickly to why that is. Jordan and his wife were married during the COVID outbreak and travel restrictions, and so they unfortunately didn't get to take a honeymoon during that, after that. And so they had this date circled for many, many months to finally take that honeymoon. And so they took it, and Jordan left a day early to come back to be here to present tonight, and unfortunately has become very ill upon his return. So his wife traveled home today. He was taken by ambulance to hospital. He is in a hospital tonight, so he can't present and I'm presenting on his behalf. So my name is Robert Chandler. Jordan apologizes for not being present. However, I do have some, I think, good discussion topics to present in support of this, obviously. And do I need to address the question now that was just asked or should I wait till the question answer period?

It doesn't matter to me, and it's kind of a dumb question. I'm just very curious.

Yeah, absolutely. No, it's not a dumb question at all. It is remotely monitored, so we do monitor. We have redundancy and alarms and notifications, so if there's an issue with the system, we get notification directly. we definitely will know if there's an issue with the system, uh, vandalizing, et cetera, that causes, you know, an, an normal, uh, you know, response with the system.

Thank you. You may present now. Okay.

All right. Thank you very much. Uh, so good evening chair, uh, commissioners and staff. Um, I do want to, uh, discuss several things, uh, particularly with relate relation to this project, uh, in response to the letters. Uh, I do want to thank, The staff, particularly Jacob, for careful professional and balanced review, they've given this application. Jordan does also want to thank the neighbors who submitted comment letters. I can assure you that Jordan and his brother, JJ, and our team has read every one of them. Your concerns are valid. sincere and we're going to address them directly. But I do want to remind the Commission of what this project actually is and what it is. As Jacob mentioned, is a 4.2 megawatt ground mounted photovoltaic solar facility. It will sit on just over 10 acres of existing 20 acre parcel. And almost half of the parcel will remain in agricultural use during operation of this system. I do want to be very clear about something the Commission has already heard from the staff, but I think it bears repeating that this project does not result in a permanent loss of farmland. It sits on, the system will sit on driven piles into the ground. There's no concrete pad under those. There's no permanent foundations, no paved industrial site appearance or requirements there. At the end of this project's operational life, we will return it to new again or as found again. And that's in approximately 25 to 30 years. The panels will come down, the racking will come down, the fencing comes down, the electrical equipment comes down, and the land returns to agricultural production again. This is not a promise. This is a condition of our approval. It is binding on Jordan and his brother and team at Cal Solar and any future owner of the property should that occur. That single fact alone answers the deepest concern in every opposition letter that we have ever read. This is not an industrial conversion of farmland. It's a temporary, reversible, agricultural compatible use. As Jacob mentioned, a significant portion of opposition letters reference the Williamson Act, and I need to address that head on because it again, it's a factual mistake in the initial the initial findings. This property is not under the Williamson Act contract. County records do confirm that. Your staff confirms that in writing on page five of the staff report. And the reason it shows up, as Jacob mentioned, is the early mistake in the agency referral. That means the compatibility to the Williamson Act is not applicable here. Those authorities that govern the parcels that are under that contract, DO NOT APPLY TO THIS PROPERTY OR THIS PROJECT. I DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE SOMETHING THAT AS YOU GUYS HAVE PASSED EARLIER WE DO HAVE A SEPARATE PROJECT IN THE AREA JONES BROTHERS SOLID FARM NUMBER ONE AND YOU GUYS PASSED THAT OVER ON EAST LONG TREE ROAD THAT ONE IS UNDER WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT FOR THAT PROJECT COMPATIBILITY FINDINGS 0.060 D are required and we've submitted those findings for this project and they're not required because no contract exists. Several of the letters do reference the agricultural compatibility, specifically the Bellino letter. I hope I pronounced that incorrectly, which we read carefully and raised it raised specific concerns about how a solar facility may affect adjacent farming operations. And I want to address those one by one because they're the kind of questions that I would ask if I had the property adjacent to this project, as well as any farmer should ask. On the topic of pollination, we are committed to incorporating pollinator-friendly ground cover under and around the panels, consistent with the CDFW's recommendations and the Bees Love Solar program. That increases, not decreases, foraging resources for the bee colonies that pollinate the surrounding almond orchards. On construction dust and spider mite flare-ups, our standard dust control during construction is required by the Air District and by our stormwater pollution prevention plan. Watering of disturbed soils during construction along with truck covers, vehicle speed limits, stabilized construction entrances. These are not optional. They protect the construction workers and our neighbors' orchards. On the photovoltaic heat island effect, the peer review science does not support measurable offsite heat island effects from a 10-acre installation, particularly with the perimeter setbacks that we'll have on our project. and the dense landscape screening that we've agreed to. Localized plant surface or panel surface heating does exist, but the offsite thermal damage to neighboring orchards is not what the sign shows. On the drip line runoff, the design incorporates areas of vegetated ground cover beneath and between panel rows, which actually reduces erosion compared to a bare soil baseline. public works has reviewed our stormwater design and condition the project for retention basic capacity capacity if needed on the weeds pest and vegetation ongoing vegetation management is a condition of approval the site will be actively managed throughout its life that is the opposite of the abandoned industrial lot concept that the opposition later described on fire risk the deputy fire warden has reviewed the project We have a 20-foot wide perimeter access road, multiple gates, electrical safety shutoffs in compliance with code requirements, and vegetation management that reduces fuel loading. This site is on flat agricultural land outside any very high fire hazard severity zones. Speak a moment on the visual character of construction traffic. On the visual impact, we won't pretend that a solar facility looks like an almond orchard in bloom. It doesn't. But the legal question for this commission is not whether it's pretty or everyone prefers the visual change, but it's whether this project produces a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or substantially degrades the visual character of the area. The staff has concluded that it doesn't, given that we are using low profile panels. the perimeter security fencing required and the dense landscape screening that we have accepted again as a condition of approval. The anti-reflective panel coating required by the section and I won't reference the number but we will have those and want to emphasize that we have accepted landscape screening conditions. It's our condition now. On the construction traffic, The heavy truck phase is very short. Jacob mentioned a few months. It's actually probably closer to a few weeks, definitely not years, definitely not long term. Once the facility is operational, our traffic generation is really going to be very minor. A maintenance truck every now and again throughout the month is to check on things and make sure there's no issues, any ground or vegetation maintenance that we have to do, etc., And then we are happy to commit scheduling deliveries during construction around school bus times and certainly around harvest tree traffic peaks. So we don't impact any of our neighbors during those efforts. Related to the CEQA and the MND, the Munoz letter argues that the environmental impact report is required. Respectfully, that's not what the CEQA says. And the CEQA requires mitigated negative declaration when the initial study identifies potentially significant impacts that can be reduced to less than significant levels through enforceable mitigation measures. That's exactly what the initial study does here. The MMRP makes every mitigation measure binding, and the mitigation includes participation in the San Joaquin County Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan. for biological resources at a regional scale, including the Swainson's hawk, burrowing owl, and the San Joaquin kit fox. After mitigation, there was substantial evidence of unmitigated significant impact, or if after mitigation there was substantial evidence of unmitigated impact, an EIR would then be required. The initial study does not find any such impact, and neither do the numerous referral responses of other other organizations. The MND is the legally appropriate document. Public benefits is huge here. I want to take one quick minute to talk about what this project actually delivers because the opposition does focus on cost and doesn't mention the benefits. California has committed by law SB 100 to 100% zero carbon electricity by 2045. that's going to be tough to do. That commitment will not be met by wishful thinking. It only can be met by one project at a time, one parcel at a time, and by people such as Jonathan and Jordan that are willing to put generation on the ground where the grid actually needs it. This project delivers 4.2 megawatts of clean, in-state, distribution-level, renewable energy close to the load, close to where it's needed, and close to existing PG&E infrastructure. That will reduce transmission losses, improve the local grid resilience, and support California's climate goals. It will also deliver local economic activity. Local construction crews, including our own, permit fees, traffic impact fees, regional transportation impact fees, all of those fund the county's infrastructure. and then through the life of the project, continued property tax payments on the parcel itself. And it does all of that while preserving the underlying farmland. When this project is decommissioned, 25, 30 years, whatever the case may be, the land underneath it, underneath these panels, returns to agriculture production. The soils are protected by tile foundations and limited grading, and the remainder of the parcel will stay in agriculture during the entire life of this project. There's no other land use that you could make on this parcel that offers that combination. Significant clean energy production, no permanent loss of farmland, a local economic benefit, and a binding restoration obligation. You can compare that to the alternative, a subdivision, a commercial development, paved industrial use. All of those are permanent. Our solar project, our solar field is not. I do want to close on something personal on behalf of the Jones brothers. They built their business in this county. They built their business in the local area. They were both born and raised not far from there and are raising their children in the community. So, you know, we don't take the decision lightly. We certainly don't take our neighbors' concerns lightly. We don't propose to build something that would harm the community where they live and also they raise their children. The conditions of approval that the staff has recommended, we have accepted them all, and they bind us. The decommissioning binds us. The final assurance bound to that decommissioning binds us. The vegetation management, the landscape screening, they all bind us. We've not asked for any of those to be reduced or weakened in any way. We signed up for them. To our neighbors that submitted the opposition letters, we certainly hear you. We understand that change is hard. It's different, especially changing the community that has had agriculture use for generations. We share that history with you. The reason we are doing this on our own family's land or their own family's land, not somebody else's land, is because we believe solar or a portion of working agriculture partial with the farmland preserved underneath is the most agriculturally compatible form of renewable energy that is available. We would propose, we would not propose it if we don't believe in it. And we respectfully ask the commission to accept the mitigated negative declaration, adopt the MMRP and the findings, and approve the conditional use permit PA 2600027, subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Thank you very much.

Thank you. At this time, is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this item? Anybody on the phone?

No, Commissioner.

No? Okay, so those who are opposed to this item, who would like to speak? Again, please give us your name and your address.

My name is Frank Bellino. I live at 27850 Owens Road, which is, as a crow flies, about a mile from the proposed site. The pictures Jacob took were from my property. of the proposed property. That's how close I am to this. I too was born and raised in the area, but much closer. I was born and raised right in the town of Esquon, lived there my entire life, and our family has farmed there our entire life. This isn't gonna change, this solar project isn't gonna change the entire landscape of our community. But it's different, like the gentleman said, and it's not consistent with farming. It doesn't belong out here. It took a prime $50,000 an acre farm ground to build this project. Why didn't it go to farm land in the range land that's worth 10,000 an acre? That's where these kinds of projects belong, not on our prime farm ground. It also devalues my property. I have several small parcels right across the street from this. Who was gonna wanna build a house on a piece of property that looks at that solar farm? None of you would and I wouldn't. And neither is the property owner. He doesn't live on this property and nor will he ever live here. This is very hard to take and I know he has done his due diligence. It really sounds like he's done what CEQA and this board has asked of him, but it doesn't make the project right. It doesn't belong in our neighborhood. Jacob mentioned farming, that this is gonna take up 52%, was that right? Okay, how are they gonna farm the balance of this property? Have you guys looked at the property? Can you bring up that picture, Jacob, of the map, please? The map shows... Yes, thank you. So the panels would be sitting at the far north end of the project, right, of the property. So the remaining balance of the property would be at the south end around the residence. How is that farmland gonna be farmed? I'd like to know. You just stated it would be, I'd like to know how it will be farmed. It takes water to farm. The only water on this property is gonna be at the north end of that property. And South San Joaquin Irrigation Pipeline there, only source of water. They're not gonna run that water through those solar panels because of sinkage and they will not, it'll do damage to the panels and underground structures. So the rest of that property is deemed useless. That's taking farm ground away from us and from the county. So that comment was not accurate. And I wanted to make that comment clear and show you visually how they cannot irrigate that. I'm passionate about what we do. We make a living farming. And my daughters farm with my wife and I. We're a family run business, like a lot of other people that are here in opposition. Not one supporter is here this evening. 35 letters, I think you said were sent. It's more like 86 letters in opposition signatures. Maybe it belongs somewhere else, but it doesn't belong right here. Thank you for your time and consideration in listening. Thank you, sir.

Is there anyone else who'd like to speak in opposition to item number five? Hello.

Good afternoon. I'm Alexis Munoz. I live at 19522 South Harold Avenue. I have lived in Escalon since 1996. My family moved out there. We moved out there to live in the country. If you guys can see, here's the city of Escalon, the book. This is my house. I have a Victorian historical home. I'm 10 acres away from this property, and I have 100 more petitions. that I went out and I had signed today, yesterday, and a couple of days. I am working nonstop these last couple of weeks and the timeframe that you guys have given us to be able to get more petitions is crazy. When we moved to this property, we moved out there because we love this Victorian house. We are the third owners. Harold Johnson is the original owner when he had 8,000 acres. Then the Johnsons bought that house with 800 acres. Then we moved into this house with three acres. Eventually, we decided that we wanted to use this house to have venues for weddings, but the county denied us because it's agricultural. Fine. If this project that this person is doing is not agricultural, We have owls, we have hawks that live in that area. What's going to happen to those animals there? What's going to happen to all of us there? This is our quality of life. One of our neighbors, the one where they took the picture, where the solar panels, they have a five-year-old child. Can you imagine living there and opening the door and you're less than five feet away from this? Five feet and listening to a buzzing sound morning, night, and day. I understand we live in ranches and we hear the train, we hear the tractors, but we get used to that. We also have a soldier that has post-traumatic stress syndrome. How do you think he's going to feel about that? His wife just passed away. His daughter's there taking care of that. Not all of the neighbors received letters. Only the five neighbors that live around there were the ones that received a letter. And that is incorrect, because all of us on Harold, all of us on Lemon should have received a letter. When we need help from you guys, we call 911. 30 minutes later, nothing comes. 40 minutes later, nobody comes. An hour later, nobody comes. Yes, we are part of Escalon, but we're county. So we have to wait for county to come. And when there's a sheriff out in Stockton, how long does it take to get to Escalon? We have to have shotguns out there because we don't know who's going to come into our properties. And this is incorrect. We live out there for our quality of life. We pay more for taxes. We pay more for PG&E. How much do you pay for your life and your PG&E bill? I'm asking one of all of you guys. Can you please tell me what you guys pay for PG&E? Can any of you guys tell me how much you pay a month for PG&E?

Well, you can continue.

I pay $2,000 a month. And this person who's making this project is lining his pocket with PG&E. This is the fourth property that he has bought in San Joaquin County. If I'm not allowed to put a venue for weddings, then why is this person allowed to put this here? That is my concern. And it's also my concern about my neighbors that live there. We bought to live out in the country. If they want a solar farm, that's fine. Have your solar farm. Put it in the city. Would the people like to live around it? Because I don't like to live around it. I can open my windows and I can see it. I'm going to be hearing this noise constantly. And this is not right. We went to the city of Escalon and they told us, oh no, sorry, we can't help you because you're out of city limits. Now we're here asking you guys to help us because we do not want this. We understand it's cleaner air and all these things for the electricity for California, that's fine. But this does not belong where we live. This is the fourth property that this person has bought in San Joaquin County. And this is not correct that he is doing this to our farmlands and to where people live. I don't think any of you guys would like to open the door five feet away and see solar panels all around you. Correct? Can I get an answer from you guys? Can any of you guys answer me that?

That's not how this works.

No, I understand that, but I would like to know, would you guys like, how would you like to feel? You open the door and you see solar panels right there, right there at your property. You open the window and it's right there. Even about the fencing. You guys have a thing that he's going to put a fence. When I tried to put a fence at my house, I was also denied because it had to be a certain regulation. I can't have a fence that's eight feet tall because you guys won't allow it. But this person is going to have a fence that's between eight to 10 feet. So how is that possible as well? Not just my property that have been wanting to do venues at their houses. There's a lot of neighbors. And we have been denied. And it's our quality of life. And that's what you guys need to think about before accepting this person. He's not even here. And my question is, is he sleeping with somebody here? Because that's four properties.

Thank you. All right. Next. And please keep your comments, um, We want some decorum here, please.

I'm Dave Berg. I've lived adjacent to the property all my life. And I believe that it should be retained in agriculture, changing it. is not not right it can be put somewhere else on cheaper land and still make the same profit for for the owner of it and another uh concern of mine is the heat that these panels create i understand that they can go up to about 150 degrees and where does that heat go i'm downwind is that going to flow over my property That will affect me. I've got walnuts. They're very subject to sunburn and stuff. I don't want the temperature to rise any in my orchard. I think it's a sort of deprimant. I don't think it would be a good thing for me. I don't think it's the right thing to do. And that's my comment.

Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition to item five?

Yes, Andrew Genesee, San Joaquin Farm Bureau, 3290 North Addart. I will say personally I drive by this property almost every day on my way home from work, so this one is a little personal to me, but our concerns as a Farm Bureau is with the loss of irrigated acres of lands. There's just Vanishing a small amount of property that has access to water left in the state You don't have to go very far south of us to see properties where? pumping restrictions are beginning to come into effect agricultural land is being lost and While I realize that this is for 25 30 years that is 25 30 years of production and And even with the promise of removal, we all know that once agriculture land is taken out of production, it very rarely goes back into the way it was. There is potential for loss of infrastructure. They talked about the South San Joaquin Irrigation District, Pipelines through there so we'd have concerns with removal of the potential for irrigation further down the road And also that it is irrigated land and we would like to see projects like this We feel are best suited for properties that do not have access to water There are plenty of those here in the county that are very soon going to be falling under the the Sigma requirements Limiting their use because of their lack of access so a loss of property that is irrigated and does have access to that water is does sting, and it's not just this one property. I realize it's 20 acres, but it's cumulative. There are properties like this happening all over, and so it's a cumulative loss of productive ag land. It's a cumulative loss of those jobs going forward. The people that are employed both farming that property, marketing that produce, moving that produce, harvesting, everything that happens there. The construction jobs are, like you said, they're three or four months worth of jobs, and then they're gone, and after that, nobody's on that property. Our concerns are those and we would urge this to be rejected. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak in opposition to Item 5?

I'd like to thank the Commission for having this hearing today. My name is Ernesto Rancagno, 1900 522 South Herald Avenue. I take note when I look at these responses. I find the language curious, that they use this language of saying, has been reduced to less than significant levels. I sit here, sitting there thinking about that, less than significant levels. Not really sure what that means, but I do know this, that any one of us, certainly the commission, if you lived in a home, and 10 acres down, five acres, like the gentleman was saying, he lived there his whole life, have to look over and look at these panels day in and day out. And that's where you live. You live your whole life. I assure you that, and I feel pretty confident every single one of us, even here in this audience, would say the same thing. We don't want that in our community. We don't want that next door. That belongs somewhere else. Escalon is a farming community, Harold and Lemon. I don't know if you've been out there. I encourage you to go out there and take a look at that. It is single-family homes with ranches. There's almonds. There's walnuts. This particular parcel, I think, was being farmed. I think they were doing alfalfa. I mean, forever, as far as I know, they had alfalfa. It was recently purchased. I believe this Mr. Jones is the one who purchased it. The community certainly is, it would serve as a detriment to the community. And I think I urge all of you to go by there, take a look at it. I don't know if you're familiar with that parcel. And I would concur with Mr. Bellino, with Ms. Munoz, and I would urge each and every one of you to deny this petition and this conditional approval. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition to item five? Is there anyone on the phone?

Yes.

To speak in opposition.

Sarah, you may speak.

I'm Sarah. I don't know if I'm the one supposed to speak next because I'm on the team.

Yes.

Okay. My name is Sarah Calpagno. I live at 28536 Lemon Avenue. I have lived on lemon my entire life. I'm here today in strong opposition to the proposed solar project. Our community is a rural for a reason. Families choose to live here because of the open farmland, quiet roads, wildlife, and agriculture that surrounds us. Converting productive farmland and industrial solar facility permanently changes the character of our community and sets a harmful precedent for future farmland in Hamilton County. As far as worked hard for years to protect this rural identity, they only allow, I believe, 75 houses to be built a year. We're trying to keep it small and keep it agricultural. The environmental review stating that Some of the items are still incomplete or deferred until later. I'm curious as to why something would be deferred until after the solar would be put in. That is a little, I'm just curious on that. As far as safety, we're concerned about the increased fire danger impacts to birds, wildlife, DRAINED WEED BROKE LONG-TERM VISUAL IMPACT OF INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE MIDDLE OF AGRICULTURE LAND. OPEN FARMLAND WOULD BECOME FENCE METAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND MAINTENANCE AREAS THAT DO NOT BELONG IN THIS SETTING. I'VE LIVED ON LEMON MY ENTIRE LIFE AND NOW RAISING MY CHILDREN HERE. WE RIDE BIKES NEAR THE FIELD, CLEAN GARBAGE ALONG THE ROAD AND TAKE PRIDE IN CARING FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND OUR FARM. SEEING THE FIELD with no longer wild sunflowers growing along the side and the alfalfa every year. The thought of replacing that landscape with industrial infrastructure is heartbreaking. To many of us this project feels completely out of place in our community. The sight of fog across the field wildlife moving through the farmland and open agricultural land would be replaced with something that needs to be in a parking lot or on the top of a building, not in the middle of our small town community. I'm in opposition, that's it.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in opposition to item five? Okay, this time we'll have rebuttal from the proponent.

Hey, thank you very much. And first of all, I want to just excuse me all those in opposition and neighbors. As I mentioned before, we hear you. We read your letters. They are valuable to us. We understand your sentiments. We understand what it feels like to live in a community your entire life because they too have lived in your community their entire lives. I do want to address a few things in some of the comments that were made. So first and foremost related to the location that we're proposing to put this project. PG&E does numerous studies across their territories and those studies determine a lot of things and one of those things is areas that they are in a deficit that they need enhanced and supported grid margin so that they can bolster their opportunity to provide power to this to this community and and this is one of the locations where we have an opportunity to provide some grid stability to the to um to the local area the community and ultimately to the state of california certainly understand you know the concern related to what this property has been for many many years It was for sale and certainly available to anybody to buy it, but whatever they wanted to, whatever crops they wanted to on it. And alfalfa is what has been growing on it for quite some time and what will continue to grow in the areas that we can grow. And I'm not going to say that's the only crop that we will have. There are numerous things that thrive in minimal water. And so, you know, certainly we will always look to find ways to be not only productive with our agriculture growth, but also beneficial to the community. You know, aside from the immediate adjacent real estate there, nobody will look out of the windows and see panels all around. It's a relatively small footprint for the return, not only to the community, but as I mentioned before, a good stabilization that it will provide. Heat's certainly not a factor. I mentioned that. I think the staff response as well as our response and the studies all support that. Cost of land, you know, I understand. It's high-value land there. But it's still high value land and it's still farmable land and it's always going to be that we're not taking that away. We're not destroying the potential of, you know, agriculture used once this system is no longer in service. Last thing I'll ask the Commission to do is is just evaluate the facts. You know, certainly in motion. is is impactful certainly uh feelings uh you know are intended to be heard but we are well within the guidelines that are have already been established for requirements to utilize this property in this regard we are very supportive of the conditions that have been asked for us to make this as least impactful to the area that we can And we are in support of those and will absolutely do those. It's required. Definitely we want to be good neighbors. We will be good neighbors regardless of the outcome. We will do everything we can to provide the least amount of impact to the area during construction and certainly throughout its use. Again, I'll echo my comments earlier. I asked you guys to accept our mitigated negative declaration, adopt the MMRP and the findings, and approve the conditional use permit for this property. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I have a question for you. Did Mr. Jones make any effort to speak to the residents who we've heard here tonight?

No. I can't see. Say that he has. I know that they've been out to the property several times. I can't speak to that on his behalf. I haven't asked him that question directly, so I apologize. I can't answer that.

Okay. Thank you. I'm going to close the hearing and bring it back to the commission. Excuse me. Sure. You just give it to the gentleman over there. They'll pass it around. Okay, so the hearing is closed. I'm bringing it back to the Commission for questions and discussions.

Yeah. So I made absolutely sure that I looked at all of the staff reports and everything else. As a planning commissioner, all we can do is follow the law and the guidelines for planning commissioners. So regardless of how I feel, that's something for the Board of Supervisors because we can only go by the actual planning law. I looked at the mitigated negative declaration, which is attachment D. I didn't find any problems there. The mitigation monitoring and reporting program, attachment E, I had no problem there. My question to staff would be, but I'm just gonna say it now, but you can answer later. Are you comfortable with the findings and attachment F? And then of course it's a conditional. So this is almost like if you can give me a little bit more background in terms of the process Because the way I see it, would I like to live in front of these panels? Absolutely not. Would I like to look at them? Absolutely not. My dumb question at the beginning was precisely more oriented because of the fact that if they do not farm the land, you're looking at dust, you're looking at... at other issues in terms of fire and everything else. I've looked at every angle, but from what I'm seeing as a planning commissioner, I don't have any basis to reject this project. So, you know, I hate to put you guys in that spot, but if you tell me that the process was flawless, I have no regardless of my feelings, believe me, regardless of my feelings. But there are other avenues. The Board of Supervisors are the ones that can say, no, we don't want this in the county. No, we don't like this in the county. I love Escalon. I moved to Lathrop 43 years ago, but when I saw Escalon a couple of years later, I go, oh, wow, I would have loved to live there. In terms of loss of farmland, There are countries in this world who consider electricity building as farming. So I mean, there's a lot of pieces there. So is it staying in farmland? A lot of countries in this world will tell you yes. They're just farming something else, like Puerto Rico farms coconuts and sand. Other countries farm, but so I mean, I know I'm talking a lot, but this is mostly in terms of everything I saw follows the law, and that's all we can do as Planning Commissioners is follow the law. That's it.

Thank you, Commissioner. Any other comments? Could you answer the question, other Commissioner?

Sure, through the chair. So there are seven findings for a discretionary conditional use permit that have to be made in the affirmative in order for staff to recommend approval. Staff does their best to review all of the information that's submitted and then makes a recommendation. I will say that there are a few findings that are open to a personal interpretation. And I would say that those are number three and number four. Number three is the site is physically suitable for the type of development and for the intensity of development. My staff have provided their professional opinion, but if you disagree, that is something that you have the ability to disagree with. Number four, the location size design and operating characteristics of the proposed use will be compatible with and not adversely affect the livability or appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood. Again, my staff reviewed and gave their professional opinion and were able to make that in the affirmative. But that is also open to interpretation of the commission. And there's nothing that says that commission cannot disagree with what staff is stating. And you are correct. I mean, a discretionary application like this comes to the commission and regardless of how the vote goes is appealable by either side to the Board of Supervisors. So that's just part of the process. But I would state that those are the two findings that are probably the most open to kind of interpretation of the way that you feel about the project and what's been presented. The rest of them, the proposed use complies with applicable provisions of this title, they do. We have made sure that they have met all the ordinance requirements. that one's a little bit harder to say that they don't comply. But if you read each individual finding, there are some that are really open to, you can disagree with staff if you so choose to. Does that answer your question?

It does. At the same time, my question is, I'm not the planning expert. So again, mine is more of an emotional Should it go somewhere else? Absolutely. But again, my finding there would be more emotional and not legitimate in terms of expertise.

I would just probably address that by saying that discretionary applications, you are entitled to use whatever decision-making abilities you would like to use in a project like this. Thank you. I don't know if council wants to add anything to that or if I've addressed the findings adequately. I'm not sure if she has anything.

I think Director Jolly addressed it adequately. If you have additional questions, we'd be happy to answer those.

No, that was it.

Any other commissioner?

Okay, well, I agree with Commissioner Rhodes We are obligated to review what staff's given us and make a determination that here's the ordinance, here's the rules. And we say, yes, the applicant satisfied all those criteria. But sometimes, and since this is sort of discretionary, we do have the obligation to listen. Since there was no there was one person who spoke in favor of this item tonight and I counted six plus the petitions that have been Submitted and so I do have a real problem letting this go forward A comment was made and I'm not sure if you know or not Is it true that there's been three other? Parcels because since I've been on the Commission, I never remember hearing Through the chair, I couldn't answer that today.

I'm aware.

Yeah, it may not be in San Joaquin County. Okay, but I This is tough, but I am going to be in opposition Anyone else

I'll just add this. I'm gonna be in opposition too. I just wanted to make sure that my vote could in no way compromise the county. One of the reasons that I asked my dumb question was precisely because I already knew how many people just from what was coming in was against it. And I wanted to make sure that if there was any vandalism or anybody that just was so angry at it, and that's human nature, that at least there was an alarm to get somebody there before anything happened. But my thing is this, and I think that that's where I really made a switch is, The decision of where this goes should not be so much directed by PG&E just because that's a good site for them, but should be directed for what's best for everybody. Yes, Escalon would benefit from not having to worry about blackouts. But at the same time, Escalon is probably one of those communities that still maintains that essence of what San Joaquin County was in the beginning. So I will be in opposition as well.

No, I just was trying to speak in the last, because I have driven by that, not precisely by the location of this particular project, but I know that area in Escalona, it's a beautiful area. It's all green. It's a few homes there, not too close together to each other. I don't know if I should disclose that. I'm looking on buying some land there, so I'll keep my mouth shut on this one because that is personal there. But I try to be very transparent when I'm talking about my decisions. That's not a part of my decision-making because I'm planning on buying some land in Escalon, and that's the whole beauty of Escalon is it's countryside. It's beautiful. You don't see unnecessary warehouses and solar panels popping up in between the beautiful farmhouses. Very well kept, very much giving that country look to the San Joaquin County, what we really are all about in the Central Valley. Again, I would stress on the fact that just because you can do something doesn't mean that it should be done. It's a discretionary matter here and keeping my right to have a discretion here, I would definitely oppose it.

You know what I'm saying? Okay. All right, I'm gonna call for the vote. No, I didn't get a motion, did I? Would someone like to make a motion either in favor or against item number five?

I'll make a motion to deny the...

Chair, if you could excuse me. When you make your motion, if it's a certain finding that you guys think you can't make and therefore it should be denied, if you can specify the specific finding and why as part of your motion. If it's finding number four, whatever the commission thinks.

Could you put three and four up? Because it'll be easier to.

So through the chair, I don't think we have the findings as part of the presentation. We just have a brief discussion, but they're definitely included in your packet as attachment F. Attachment F has all the findings for the conditional use permit, all seven of them.

Jennifer, if I may ask you, I don't know if it's OK to answer. Was it number three and four for our discretion?

Well, they're all at your discretion, all seven of them. I was giving examples of ones that the public and you guys might read as more an opinion as opposed to facts. They're all at your discretion, though. You do have to make all seven in the affirmative. If you find one or more not in the affirmative, then that would support a denial. That make sense?

Or all of them? Or one or whatever you feel like?

You would need to support, have evidence to support why you are denying it. So the, I don't know if evidence is the right term, but you would have to have a justification for the denial letting us know which finding you were unable to make. If it's multiple findings, you're welcome to do that. If it's just one finding, I mean, it's at the discretion of the commission.

Chair, if I may ask a question. That is, if we have to make a motion to deny it, what if we read the motion as it is and just deny it and just say no to it? Is that acceptable? Instead of going, oh, we are doing a motion to deny, read the motion as it is and then just go with the vote. Oh, OK. Go ahead.

I think specify which of the findings cannot be made. So to pass it, right, like if you were going to approve it, you have to make all of the findings. But if you are denying it, there's only one finding, right, that it can be one finding.

OK, so could you read the findings one more time before someone makes a motion?

Sure. Would you like me to read all of the findings or just the number three and four that I used as an example?

Please read number three and four again.

Number three states, the site is physically suitable for the type of development and for the intensity of development. That's number three. Number four states, the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use will be compatible with and not adversely affect the livability, or appropriate development of abutting properties in the surrounding neighborhood.

So, the chair will entertain a motion at this time.

Did you want me to make it then?

Please do.

Yeah. So I make a motion that we reject the motion Item five, which is I want to find the number, say it. The conditional use permit number PA2600027 because of findings three and four. Three being that the site is adequate physically. I didn't open my computer so I can't read it verbatim from there. I do not find that the site is appropriate. And then of course the location with 86 oppositions from the neighbors and the people that spoke here, I do not think that that last part, that it is compatible with, can you read number four one more time? Sure.

As a suggestion, what you can say is a recommendation to deny the project based on the inability to make finding three and four.

Three and four, OK.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, and I'm happy to read that again. No, no, that's fine.

I just know sometimes struggling with the- Yeah, and I don't want it in the motion. I just want people to understand that with everything that we've seen tonight, neither one of those I couldn't make.

OK, I can read it one more time for the record. Three and four.

Please.

Would you like me to, Chair, would you like me to read that one more time?

The hearing's been closed. The commission is now deliberating, and we will hear it one more time.

The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use will be compatible with and will not adversely affect the livability or appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhoods. Can't make that one, yeah.

Me either. Okay, so there's been a motion to deny. Do I have a second?

I'll second it.

I'll call for the vote. Commissioner Milas? Yes. Commissioner Sangha?

Yes.

Commissioner Runtz? Yes. Commissioner Rustaller?

Yes. And just so you know, the applicant has the right to appeal. And the appeal period for this agenda item expires on June 1st, 2026 at 5 p.m. And the appeal fee is $1,027.30. Okay. We'll now move on to item six. Conditional use permit PA 2400506. Staff report, please.

Thank you. We have Jacob Pahuli again with the staff report.

Good evening again, chair and commissioners. This project includes a conditional use permit to establish a religious assembly totaling approximately 7,407 square feet through the conversion of two existing agricultural buildings into a temple and assembly building. The project site contains approximately 9.24 acres and is developed with an existing residence, accessory dwelling unit, and accessory structures. The property has a general plan and zoning designation of general agriculture. The surrounding area consists primarily of agricultural land with scattered residences.

Excuse, I hate to interrupt you. Could we close the door because we're hearing the noise from outside? I apologize.

No worries.

This is the site plan submitted by the applicant. The plan shows the existing site layout. The proposed area for development is highlighted in orange. The site plan depicts parking areas, internal circulation, and direct access to the religious assembly from Lammers Road. Access from Nancy Amelia Court is restricted to the existing residents and agricultural operations and is not permitted for the religious assembly use. The applicant proposes to modify the required surfacing from asphalt or concrete to aggregate base. The community development department has reviewed this request along with the fire department, public works and building department and recommends the planning commission approves this modification. The project includes regular daily operations with the maximum onsite attendance of 70 persons and people. Daily operations are proposed to occur seven days a week. Additionally, six accessory events are proposed annually. These events are proposed to have a maximum of 600 attendees with a maximum of 150 attendees on site at one time. The project qualifies for streamlined review under CEQA section 15183. The county previously certified an environmental impact report for the 2035 general plan and staff determined the project is consistent with the development density and policies previously analyzed. As a result, no additional environmental review is required. If approved, a notice of exemption will be filed. The Community Development Department received substantial public input regarding the proposed project, including letters of both support and opposition regarding various topics. Concerns were expressed regarding land use compatibility, the proposed religious assembly may be conditionally permitted in the agricultural zone. The Agricultural Commissioner's Office provided comments expressing concerns regarding the location within a production agricultural area and the letter provided recommended design changes that would protect the religious assembly from agricultural conflicts. These included a distance buffer from the southern property line and the installation of large trees along the eastern property line, which have been included in the recommended conditions of approval. Further, based on comments received, the applicant has reduced the proposed frequency of events and proposed restrictions on attendees. Regarding traffic, the proposed development was analyzed through a technical memorandum which found that the project would not result in significant impact with traffic within the vicinity. In response to public comments expressing concern regarding use of the cul-de-sac for project access, the site plan was revised so that religious assembly traffic would access the site exclusively from Lammers Road while Nancy Amelia Court would remain limited to the existing residence and agricultural operations. Staff has determined these revisions adequately address the traffic and circulation concerns raised during project review. The project does not propose to include amplified sound and the proposed religious assembly structures are located approximately 400 feet from the nearest residence. In order to ensure noise does not impact surrounding property owners, a condition of approval has been added that restricts the use of amplified sound. Additionally, several commenters also referenced covenants, conditions and restrictions or CC&Rs associated with the property. CC&Rs are private agreements between property owners and are not enforced by the county. As a result, they are not part of the county's evaluation of the conditional use permit application. The documents were included in the staff report packet for informational purposes only. The top photo depicts a panoramic view of the parcel's frontage along Lammers Road, taken from Lammers Road facing south towards the project site. The bottom photo shows the approximate location of the proposed access from Lammers Road, consistent with the site plan and conditions of approval. This next image was taken from the east side of South Nancy Amelia Court and shows the existing agricultural building proposed to be converted into an assembly building. Pursuant to the conditions of approval, all access associated with the religious assembly facility would be restricted to South Lammers Road while the existing Nancy Amelia Court access would remain limited to residential and agricultural related uses. It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the project with the recommendations contained on this slide and in the staff report with the updated surfacing conditions contained in notes for this evening. Thank you and this concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you, do we have any questions from the Commission? Okay, at this time the proponent or the representative has the floor.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Mike Hakem, 3414 Brookside Road in Stockton, appearing for the applicant for the conditional use permit to establish the religious temple. As staff indicated, the temple will operate seven days a week from 8.30 to 12.30 p.m., and then again from 5.30 to 8.30 in the evenings on Monday through Friday, and from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. The maximum attendance is fixed at 70 persons for the temple. That's for the daily activities and the weekend. That's limited to 70 persons, and that's a maximum condition that's set forth in your staff report. In addition, they're asking for six accessory events, which would allow 600 people per day. Now that sounds like a large number. But remember, it's 150 people maximum at any one time. So throughout the accessory event on any of the given six times a year, you couldn't have more than 150 persons on the premises at the same time. The reason I think that's important is the temple worship program's not like the traditional church that maybe we have all been raised with. They don't have services that start at nine o'clock and end at 10 and start at 10.30 and go to 12 where people come and go at the same time. The temple worship is scattered throughout the day. People basically come, worship, eat, and leave, and that kind of happens throughout the day. So you have that 70 maximum per day on the weekdays and the weekends, and then the six times a year would be for the 150 at maximum at one time. I think it's also very important to point out that the temple is not proposing to build any new buildings. There's no new buildings with this proposal. They're going to reuse the existing Ag building for their temple in phase one and then reuse the second Ag building as a meditation hall in phase two. So you're not going to see the predictable large colored facility that you might see at certain situations in the community. They're gonna reuse the activity and ag buildings that have been on the promises for some time. As staff report indicates, it's consistent with your general plan and it's also consistent with the development title. We have elected to use a 15183 exemption for CEQA and the reason is if you comply with the general plan and all the general plan policies and the environmental document that supports the general plan, then you don't need to make any additional CEQA findings. Those satisfy the exemption requirement and that's been used in this particular matter. The opposition has raised concerns regarding land use compatibility, traffic, services, and noise. Excuse me. Staff has responded to all of these issues in detail in the staff report, and specifically, there was a traffic study done to specifically study the access, ingress, and egress to this particular site. One of the original concerns was using the Amelia Court cul-de-sac and the traffic report recommended otherwise and staff in their conditions of approval and what's before you tonight is they're not going to be using amelia court they'll be using lammers road so all of the traffic in and out of the project will be off of lammers nothing will cause problems for the existing residents on amelia court It's also important to point out there's no outdoor amplified noise, no outdoor amplified noise, and all the regular activities Monday through Sunday will be conducted indoors. There's an onsite well septic and storm, all have to be approved and monitored by San Joaquin County Environmental Health and the Department of Public Works. As staff indicated, there was a specific letter from the Ag Commissioner, and I haven't seen many of those in my career, but we did see one in this particular case, and the Ag Commissioner pointed out some recommended conditions. And specifically, there is a requirement for a large vegetative buffer of large trees, and it calls out for 40 feet in height or higher. So you have to start with trees 40 feet height or higher along the eastern line to create a buffer for the agricultural activities. There's also a second condition from the Ag Commissioner, and that's for a 100-foot buffer between the southern property line and any development or parking. An issue came up in some of the correspondence that the applicant hasn't paid the property taxes on the property. There's a good reason for that. They're a 501c3, they're an exempt religious organization. They don't pay real property taxes. But one of the conditions for the exemption is that you have a use permit from San Joaquin County. So subsequent to hopefully a use permit from San Joaquin County, with your discretion this evening, they'll be entitled to that exemption and the property taxes won't be an issue. There's a right to farm ordinance. We validate it, we respect it, and we will honor it. No question, no differentiation between that. There's a right to farm and we're aware of it and we'll proceed to honor that. We're also gonna participate in the HCP, the Open Space Habitat Plan for mitigation, and that's a pretty hefty price number per acre, but we're gonna go ahead and participate in the HCP without any opposition. In closing, there are 74 conditions on the project, 74 separate different conditions from all the different concerns and issues raised and staff has gone through a lot of trouble to do that. So I think it's important to point that out. The project's been reviewed not only by your staff, not only by your staff, but six other county departments, three state agencies, three federal agencies, seven local agencies, and 12 local districts. And the recommended findings are in your report for the CEQA exemption and for the general plan compliance. We have an architect here tonight that's gonna follow me, Joe Halousek. He's gonna follow me briefly to answer any questions you have about the staff report. I'm gonna respectfully request that you follow your professional staff's recommendation to approve the project. I'm gonna ask our supporters in the audience to quietly, quietly stand up and show support for the project. Thank you, you may sit down. We reserve an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, for a brief rebuttal as that would be appropriate later. I'd like to have Joe come up and present his comments on the site plan and his brief comments in closing. Unless there are questions of me now, I'll sit down and let Joe take the microphone.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Hagan.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. Thank you for hearing our case tonight. First, I'd like to start by thanking staff. They've worked really hard with us. We've gone through a lot of different issues, as Mike pointed out, and I think we've successfully addressed each of those. I'd like to start by saying it's really hard to find temple sites. There are always people in opposition to every single location you may find. However, I happen to think that this is a really good site. It's a great site. It's on a heavily trafficked road that has prime access. It's on a large parcel. It's basically situated at the rear of the property. Temples are really quiet places. You know, there's these assertions that it's going to be noisy and there's going to be thousands of people screaming around. That's just not how they operate. They're usually so quiet you could hear a pin drop. There's occasional meditations that are vocal, but they're indoors and they're non-amplified. We don't think that there's going to be a single impact on the neighbors. In fact, the previous owner of the property was operating this, we found out, as a party venue. It had huge speaker systems within the building. It had a bar. It had a whole sound system to accommodate whatever they did, parties, weddings, I don't know. But that was certainly not a quiet venue and no one complained because it's a long distance between the properties out there. So this will be, in all regards, better suited for the site than the previous owners of the property. And they had no opposition of which I'm aware. So we're also going through a fairly expensive and fairly comprehensive update of all the systems. We're permitting buildings that weren't previously permitted. We've hired lots of consultants, mechanical engineers, plumbing engineers, electrical engineers, civil engineers, instructional engineers, as well as myself, an architect. So we're doing everything that the county has asked us to do to upgrade the facility, to provide human health and safety and welfare, and to make it a good place for, hopefully, a large area to come and worship. So, you know, I don't have any other comments other than that I would welcome any questions from any of the commissioners. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Are there any questions? Not at this time. Okay. So I noticed we've got about 35 to 40 folks. If you would like to come, if you have someone who is... Speaker for all of you who would like to speak in favor of this item now would be the time And the reason I say that is We're all we're very happy you're here. But if you're all going to say the same thing It's probably best just to have it come from one person

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, the panel commissioners chair. It's my honor to represent the community here. So I am a strong proponent for constructing a temple there. So temple, it's not just for a place of worship. So what we believe is, I mean, what would you teach your kids, right? I mean, especially if your kids are going to school, there is a beautiful sunset out there. Would you just say that, hey, you know what, sun is just a shiny, yellow ball that comes in the morning and it goes in the evening. It's not just that. The ancient sacred Turks taught sun as, sun is the one that governs the entire planet, governs the entire solar system. Sun is the one which basically gives all the food, the plants, the living, the entire living creature is because of the sun. And what is moon? Moon is the one that governs your intellect. So you as your human, your evolution and everything is coming from the moon. So where is this knowledge coming from? It is all coming from sacred texts. And those sacred texts are called as Vedas. So who would know those Vedas? There are very few scholars, especially in California or in North America, who basically have mastered those Vedas and who would be able to teach, young and old, about the greatness about all of those Vedas. And Pandit Vishwamji is one of those very rare, gifted, So if you were to go and participate in any of the sessions that he conducts, I mean, we have various different rituals, you would all be having that positive aura where you would feel that you have learned something significant over there. It's not just about, oh, you know what, there is an idol that I'm going to worship and sit for some time, it's not just that. but there is a deeper sense that it basically connects to deepest of your nerves. You try to understand what is the connection between you, each and everything that is there inside your nerves, to the outside cosmos or the outside universe. That is what is we all humans are born to learn and understand, but because we are all so much busy with all of our societal responsibilities, we always put that to, you know what, I'll worry about it when I'm 70 or 80, but then time is too late. But from you, when you are a child, as a father or as a parent, what you really want to teach your children is what is the purpose that you're born on this planet, how you really can be good to your society and so forth. And how we all can enrich or enhance our society in such a way that we all can have a really great living of existence. So temples, Hindu temples, especially this particular temple, is all towards that. We can guarantee that this temple is going to create the positive, what do you call it, positive vibrance within the community. It's all there to enhance each of our, for the betterment of all living beings and so forth. So we kindly request the panel to basically approve this project. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone online who would like to speak in favor of this?

No one has their hands raised, but there are over 30 individuals online in support.

In support. Okay. Duly noted. All right. So now we'll hear those who are opposed to item number six. We have anyone here in opposition who would like to speak against item number six? Again, your name and your address for the record, please.

Good evening. My attorney, George Hartman, would like to speak on Microsoft team before I say my speech.

Absolutely.

Mr. George, you can George, can you speak? Can you hear me? One moment. Your mic is on, but we can't hear you. Are you muted on your end? George, we can't hear you.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Okay. I'm so sorry about that. Good evening, commissioners. And hello to Mike Hakem. I haven't seen him in a long time. My name is George Hartman. I'm appearing on behalf of Nanette Martin. who is the majority landowner at Tracy Garden Farms. I've previously submitted three written comment letters that I asked to be incorporated into the administrative record in their entirety. Before I go further I should disclose to you that I am a an advisory water commissioner for the County of San Joaquin. I don't think that creates a conflict but I think I ought to disclose it. Tonight I want to focus on two mandatory legal requirements that the staff report completely ignores. The first is flood hazard compliance. The April 2nd 2025 Public Works Memorandum confirms that this parcel is in a FEMA Zone AE with a 100-year flood elevation of approximately 13 feet under the NAVD 88 data. Pardon me. San Joaquin County's development title chapter 9-1605 imposes mandatory requirements with no exceptions. The floodplain administrator must review the permit and determine the site is reasonably safe from flooding. Technical data must show The project will not increase the 100-year floodwater surface elevation by more than one foot. None of this appears in the staff report. Independently, Government Code Section 65962, which is the enforcement of SB 5, prohibits discretionary approvals in a flood hazard zone without specific findings. There are none in your staff report. This project creates a massive increase in allowed occupancy from near zero in agricultural storage to 70 people a day and then 150 people at once up to 600 per day in assembly use. Your staff report contains no section 65962 findings and they are mandatory. you have no discretionary authority without having made all those findings and conform to your development title. Although the private CCNRs are a civil matter, the staff report includes the purported termination of saying for informational purposes of the public record. I'm happy to say that I drafted the CCNRs that we're talking about 34 years ago. I confirm to you that they remain fully valid. Amendment is allowed only after 35 years, which have not passed. And the document says nothing about outright termination. The March 26th attempted termination was also done without notice to the non-consenting owners. The original restrictions therefore continue in full force as enforceable equitable servitudes. Commission approval has no effect on them. I respectfully request and suggest to the commissioners that you continue this matter until the mandatory floodplain administrator review is completed, the required technical data is submitted, and proper Section 65962 findings have been made and placed on the record. Any approval should also include conditions requiring the building to be floodproofed or the pad elevated to at least 14 feet under the NAVD 88 base flood elevation of 13 feet plus one foot of freeboard. which are the standards required under County Development Title Chapter 9, 1605. And let me point out to you, it doesn't matter under the law whether you're using existing buildings or building new ones. It's a change of use and an increase of occupancy, and there are no exemptions under SB 5 for them. And so, You have to comply. In order to have the authority to do anything, you have to comply with the various development code titles and SB 5. And finally, as to Mr. Hakim's point about delinquent property taxes, I don't think you can retroactively pay them or cure them by later declaring yourself a 501c3 organization. retroactively curing a property tax default and later becoming a temple or a church just doesn't cut it. And I don't think you can do that with income taxes, even though it might be a nice option if we had it. So it troubles me that people who haven't paid the freight are asking for concessions from the county. All the rest of my comments, I've already submitted in writing. I appreciate being heard at this time. And I would like, if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

Thank you, Mr. Hartman. Any questions from the commission?

No questions.

Okay, so we'll move on to other folks who are in opposition to item number six.

Good evening, planning commissioners and staff. My name is Nanette Martin, and I am opposed to the conditional use permit PA2400506. You have already received many correspondences from my attorney, George Hartman, addressing the issues we have concerning this use permit. Hopefully you have had the opportunity to read the concerns that we have. I have lived in Tracy for 83 years and am a third generation agriculturist. This development was created by me due to the untimely death of my husband in 1987. and for financial reasons and to be able to retain part of the original ranch. The goal was to create a rural subdivision so that families could enjoy what I had, country living with enough land to have animals, crops, trees, et cetera, and to raise their families. The cul-de-sacs were named after my children, Philip Martin Court and Nancy Amelia Court. Much thought and consideration went into creating this subdivision, and with it, the creation of the CC&Rs. I am personally offended by the notice I received last week concerning the termination of the CCNR's governing of this property. This was done in secret, and three landowners in this rural residential subdivision were not notified until this month. There is no transparency. This should have been done with all the landowners having a voice and a vote. The CCNRs cannot be terminated until 35 years have passed, which has not happened yet. And then they can only be amended, not terminated. I have read the letters of opposition and the ones in favor of this use permit. The letters you have received opposing this use permit are from residents, farmers, and landowners surrounding the proposed temple and their valid concerns. The letters in support are largely from people who do not live anywhere near Nancy Amelia Court. Even though their letters state they are near Nancy Amelia Court, I do not think Mountain House, Lathrop, Fremont, Antioch, San Ramon, Brentwood, Milpitas, etc. are anywhere near the property. They have amended their application to having only six events a year with staggering attendance of 150 people at a time, up to 600. Can you tell me who will be monitoring this? Why isn't the use permit for only 150 instead of 600? I have seen many religious assemblies with conditions and many do not follow the rules and regulations imposed. The quiet and peace of the neighbors on Nancy Amelia Court will be impacted. The farmers surrounding this parcel will be affected. It is with great sadness that I am seeing this happening around rural Tracy, especially North Tracy. There is a minimum of eight or more religious assemblies in a few mile radius. I have no objection to religious assemblies, but not on agricultural land, which will infect Affect the right the right to farm act and this temple does not belong in a rural housing subdivision Thank you for your time and listening to me Thank you Is there anyone else would like to feed knock opposition to item six?

I?

Good evening Planning Commissioners. My name is Philip Martin, 12183 West Plattey Rd. I respectfully ask you to deny this conditional use permit. The staff report concludes that the proposed religious assembly is compatible with the surrounding agricultural area and that the impacts will remain less than significant through operational limitations and conditions of approval. However, I believe several important concerns remain insufficiently addressed. First, the staff's analysis of the agricultural commissioner's letter that is somehow supportive of this project, I do not share the same interpretation. That letter in it says that they strongly oppose this application. So that is a basic disagreement on the interpretation of that letter. Several of the support letters also reference educational activities associated with this project. I'd like to clarify that this is only approval for a temple and not a school, because if it is a school or educational facility, there are additional restrictions on farming, which would make the neighboring farms almost impossible to farm. Additional agricultural compatibility concerns relate to field reentry restrictions and debris impacts associated with large gatherings. Large gatherings also inherently generate garbage and loose debris. Fugitive trash and lightweight debris blowing into neighboring agricultural fields create real operational problems for surrounding farms. Myself, I'm an alfalfa and hay farmer, and loose garbage getting into the fields and being put into bales affects my business. I sell hay to horses, and those are essentially pets, and no one wants to feed their pets pet food with garbage in it. I am also concerned that the protections proposed for the neighboring landowners in this application are substantially less protective than those required in the nearby Conditional Use Permit PA-2100238 Data Yoga Center, which is located only about 2,200 feet from the subject parcel on Bethany Road. One of my primary concerns is the absence of a substantial physical perimeter barrier. If this project is approved, a continuous masonry wall should be required around the entire property, parking attendance for large events, and indemnification of their neighboring landowners, as was done with the previous site on Bethany Road. This is not only for my protection but for the attendees of this assembly. I imagine they will have children at their events and Lammers Road is a high-speed country road with many of their events taking place at dusk and unfortunate and tragic incidents could occur without parking attendants to make sure kids do not run through open gates onto streets or wandering through a vegetative barrier which will not stop them from going into treated fields or onto that road. I'm also concerned about the lack of specificity surrounding the proposed stagger attendance assumptions. This concern is particularly important given the nature of large temple gatherings and festivals, which often involve scheduled ceremonies, prayer services, meal offerings, cultural programs, and other activities occurring at specific times through the day. Without a clearly defined and enforceable operational plan, the assumption that attendance will remain sufficiently staged and avoid concentrated impacts appears speculative at best. The parking calculations appear heavily dependent on the assumption the attendance will remain below 150 people at one time.

Sorry.

I would like to say that probably unbeknownst to Michael Hakim because I know he's an outstanding person and well-respected lawyer. These traffic studies were done with saying it was only gonna be 70 people and he stated it was only gonna be 70 people. But if you look on their social media, they had an event on May 11th where they had approximately double the amount of people on a Monday night at 8.23 p.m. when they say things are gonna be done at 8.30. So 150 people roughly there. If you look at their social media account, you can see it for yourselves. And so I do not believe that the studies or the information staff relied upon to make their findings is valid because the information provided to them is inaccurate. The temple on Bethany Road has about 17,000 feet at build out. This one has about 11,000 at build out if you include the residential areas. and no traffic mitigation was required of this temple. The other temple paid about, is going to pay around $20,000 in traffic mitigation. So, and I did have one question for Jacob, if he could show that site plan real quickly. Because this goes in regard to the taxes, because if the site plan is only for the area highlighted, and the other area is not part of the site plan, does that mean they pay taxes on the houses but not the site where the church is? I don't know. I'm not an expert on that. I only saw that this evening and so that's why I brought that up.

Okay, thank you. Your time's up.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who'd like to speak in opposition?

Hello again, Commissioners. Andrew Genesee, San Joaquin Farm Bureau, 3290 North Ad Art Road. So you'll notice a theme in my comments are a worry about things being cited in ag zones that aren't ag uses and the potential impacts. A number of those have already been talked about. I will say Department of Pesticide Regulation established a rule, I think it was about seven years ago, that restricted pesticide use within a half mile of schools. find just schools, right? Well, they're now working on rules that that same half-mile restriction will be for private schools, not just public, and all daycares. They're also looking at other sensitive receptors, their own language on that, on restricting pesticide use. So while the current owners may be more than happy to deal with the right to farm, it may not be their choice. The fact that they are a sensitive receptor in an ag area may restrict the ability within a half mile of people to do their regular ag operations. We have very serious concerns, not just with this, with any sighting of activities that are non-ag on ag properties, ag-zoned properties. Not just this, but going forward, we encourage opposition to non-ag activities on ag-zoned lands. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak in opposition to item number six? Anyone on the phone? Okay. Rebuttal, Mr. Hakim.

thank you mr chairman i'll be brief um regarding the comments on sb5 i had a chance to review those with mr raymond cheyenne raymond from your public works department and he was looking up and doing his homework as the opposition was speaking the sb5 requirement is for communities of 10 000 or more it's inapplicable to the project it's for before you this evening and we maintain that the project's in compliance with your development title and all the rules and regulations connected to the flood issue. In terms of the CC&Rs, there was no obligation for public notice or public hearing to terminate the CC&Rs. On the face of the CC&Rs, drafted by the person who wrote them, it states that 51% or more of the landowners can terminate at any time. 51% did terminate and the CC&Rs are terminated. I know that's not a part of your deliberation this evening, given the information that you don't enforce the CC&Rs. I just wanted the record to reflect that they have been terminated. The project has taken out a number of special permits for activities. So to the event that the neighbors have seen some activities on the site, there have been special permits issued for those activities. In closing, I would like to mention that it wasn't that many years ago that the Farm Bureau brought a major issue to our Board of Supervisors, and that was the appropriateness of having churches and temples and other religious facilities in the Ag Zone. uh... there was a full day hearing in front of the board of supervisors led by the farm bureau in opposition and after much debate and discussion your board of supervisors approved and still maintains the appropriateness of your discretion to allow churches and religious institutions and facilities in the Ag Zone. It's part of your ability to make the findings, and we submit that with your staff support, you can make the findings that are set forth, and I'll submit it with those brief comments, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. With that, the public hearing is closed, and I'm bringing it back to the Commission for Discussions and Questions. All right. Would someone like to make a motion? All right. I would like to make a motion then that we accept, that we approve the conditional use permit for number PA2400506. Second. Call for the vote.

Commissioner Rhodes?

Yes. Commissioner Milas?

No. Commissioner Sangha?

Yes.

Commissioner Rustaller? Yes. Motion passes 4-0.

3-0. 3-1, I'm sorry.

Excuse me, 3-1.

3-1. All right, we will move on to other business.

Chair, do you want to read the appeal? Oh, yeah, sure.

Thank you. Person to government code section 65009B2, if you challenge the proposed projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the San Joaquin County Planning Commission at or prior to the public hearing. The appeal period for this agenda item expires on June 1st. 2026 at 5 p.m. and the appeal fee is $1,027.30. Now we'll move on to other business.

Thank you, Chair. I just want to give you guys a heads up that we do intend to bring updated rules of procedures for the Planning Commission. I think it's about time to do that. It's been 24 years since they've been updated. So those will be in your next staff report. We're intending to tentatively bring them in June. What month are we? June 4th. Thank you. So that will be an agendized item for discussion and review. But we haven't done it in 24 years, so I just wanted to kind of highlight that to you. Under other business, if I could just also add, instead of waiting for Director's report, we do have a new planning commissioner that was appointed at the last Board of Supervisors meeting. His name is Lawrence White. We have not met him yet, but Council and Deputy Director King and I intend to meet with him to get him onboarded, and he will hopefully be joining us in June.

And once you, if you get his number, could you give it to me so I could welcome him aboard?

Absolutely. Thank you. That concludes my other business update.

So June 4th is this for sure?

June 4th we do. I'm going to actually turn if it's okay with the chair I'll just go ahead and turn that over to Deputy Director King and she'll go over the schedule.

Please.

So June 4th in addition to the updated rules and regulations we do have a conditional use permit for an avian viewing facility at the Staten Island Preserve. So it's just a small project we bring up. That's it. Just those two items so far.

Do we have a meeting on June 18th?

We don't have anything scheduled for June 18th, and I don't have anything scheduled for July 2nd. I second.

Okay, directors, reports, you've already done that. Yeah, I just kind of combine other business and directors by my project. Well, you know, once you get that cataract surgery, I'm lucky I can see any of this. Okay, so with that, I'm going to adjourn the meeting.

Thank you.