Planning Commission - Special Meeting

All right, I've called the meeting to order. We'll start with the flag salute. Please join me in saluting the flag to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisibley andice for all.

Roll call, please. Commissioner Rhodess, here. Commissioner Sanggha, here. Commissioner Meis here. Commissioner Roo Staller here. Thank you, Chair. We have quorum. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is minutes from hearings on 8:15 and 2526. Do I hear a motion to approve the minutes as submitted or if there's any to abstain from 2024? Okay.

All right. So, we'll take we'll take them as one minute at a time. Sorry. Um, so for 8:1524, do I have a motion to accept as presented or if there are any corrections, this is time to make them? I'll make a motion to accept it. I'll second. Call for the vote. Commissioner Singha, yes. Commissioner Mis, yes. Commissioner Roostler, yes. The second set of minutes is from 2526. Do I hear a motion to accept as presented or any corrections that need to be made at this time? I'll make a motion. I have a second.

I'll second. Okay. I call for the vote. Commissioner Rhodess? Yes. Commissioner Sanggha? Yes. Commissioner Mis? Yes. Commissioner Roostaller? Yes. Next item, actions on requests for continuous or withdrawals. Yes, thank you. Um, the department is requesting a continuence for items number three and four to allow us to uh discuss and coordinate with the cities on item number three and then item number four is kind of dependent on item number three for the amendment to the general plan to then be item number four be consistent with the general plan. So, we're asking for um continued to undate specific. Thank you. I have a motion.

Excuse me. Somebody made it. I'll make it. Okay. Second. Second. Moved and second. Call for the vote to remove items three and four. Commissioner Meis. Yes. Commissioner Rhodess. Yes. Commissioner Sgha. Yes. Commissioner Roostaller. Yes. Motion passes 40.

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

Okay. Is it just would they like to speak to the commission or is it for another item? No.

Next item on the agenda, action items. Non-contested agenda items there and two number one and two that are calendared for non-contested agenda will be approved in one motion without separate public hearings unless a member of the planning commission or the audience requests the item be removed from the non-contested calendar and heard separately this time. Is there any anyone on the commission who would like to remove items either one or two? I'll ask anybody in the audience if they're wanting to request removal of the non-contested items. Seeing or hearing none, I will ask for someone to make a motion to accept the two items.

Motion. I'll second it. It's been moved and seconded to accept non-contested items one and two as listed on the agenda. I'll call for the vote. Commissioner Sanggha. Commissioner Meis. Yes. Commissioner Rhodess. Yes. Commissioner Rousaller. Yes. Motion passes 40. Thank you. Okay.

We're going to come back at this time. You can sir if you want to speak on item I believe it's number four continuence three and four have been continued so you can talk about the continuence not the project itself even commissioners my name is Robert Beetles I own the 1 acre parcel at 5440 East Harney Lane and on applicant on number four. Um, I'd like you guys to reconsider postponing it. Uh, because obviously when you postpone three, four can't move forward and I can't move forward without him. Uh, the city of Lodi filed a letter today saying that my parcel is within LOI's sphere of influence and LOI is the only city with jurisdictional standing over this property. The LOI's letter states that the city does not oppose my project. LOI's own general plan already designates my site as a business park which allows office light industrial and productionoriented uses that is decisive. Tracy, Ripen, Stockton and Lodi itself has raised concerns about the broader text amendment. I take those concerns seriously but the core worry is a sphere the sphere of influence encroachment has a clean solution that you can put on the record tonight. You guys can modify item three if you bring it back. So that the provision allowing parcels smaller than two acres to be redesated warehouse industrial applies only where either the parcel is within the city's sphere of influence and that city has provided written consent to the redesation or the parcel is not within the city's sphere of influence. That modification answers every city on the record. It gives them veto power over their own spheres. It honors LOI's

written consent to my project already in the record. It preserves county flexibility for rural parcels, no city claims, and it lets you forward item three to the board of county supervisors tonight with a clean recommendation. A continuence is not harmless. It tells every applicant in this county that a proper a properly drafted project with full staff support can be stopped by letters filed in the 11th hour without a single concern being raised about the project itself. That is bad public policy. The commission's role tonight is advisory. The board of supervisors has the final decision authority. Every city raising concerns will have additional opportunity to engage with the county before the board votes. Nothing irreversible happens if you forward item three with the consent modification. For the commission's awareness, if item three is continued tonight, I will be asking during item four for my project to be forwarded with conditional findings tied to the board's later adoption of item number three. That option preserves my project without requiring this commission to resolve the contingency tonight. Staff recommends approval. The report or the record supports approval. Please recommend item three to the board tonight. Please bring it back with the sphere of influence consent modifications so the countywide dialogue that cities have requested can can continue at the board level without halting projects that are already now that are already ready now. I ask you to please bring it back for consideration. Um can I speak to four now or you me to come back?

No, go ahead. Okay.

Gotcha. So, this speaks a little bit to uh my project, but um I'll keep it tight because the record kind of speaks for itself. The the project converts an existing 5,500 foot building to an administrative office. It adds one new 4,000 ft storage building for equipment. It u installs dense landscaping and a screen fence along the north property line to protect conforming residents. There's only 13 employees. Approximately one delivery per day. 8 to 4 is the hours Monday through Friday. It has an existing well and existing septic with a nitrate loading uh study approved by the environmental health on October 28th of 25. It has an existing driveway on a minor arterial with a direct state route 99 access. The business is statecertified traffic control, flagging, lane closures, detours, and work zone safety plans for public and private construction across the region. When work is being done on a road, drivers and workers go home safely because of companies like ours. That is a public benefit staff identified under land use goal LU6. Every referral agency responded on the record. SJCOG, United Auburn Indian Community, PG Gen twice, environmental health, public works, the fire prevention. Every condition and attachment G is accepted. Agricultural mitigation at a 1:1 ratio will be provided at a building permit or with the building permit. SJM SCP compliance will be satisfied before any ground disturbance. Most importantly, the city of Lodi, whose sphere of influence actually contains my parcel, filed a letter today stating LOI does not oppose this project. Loi's own general plan designates my site as a business park, which allows exactly the uses that I'm proposing. No city with jurisdictional standing over this parcel opposes it. My request has three tracks in order of

preference. First, the commission has just approved or if the commission uh approves item three with or without the sphere of influence uh consent modification I proposed. Please forward you know 411 and 412 to the board of supervisors with a recommendation to approve. Second, if item three gets continued, I respectfully ask that the commission forward my application with conditional findings recommending approval contingent on the board's later adoption of PA260004. The findings in the staff report are staff's proposed findings. The commission has authority to supplement them. A conditional recommendation preserves the board's final authority without halting a project that has been cleared every subst every substantive test. Third, if conditional findings are not adopted, I respectfully ask that my item four be continued to the same hearing date as item three with my application status, public noticing, and fee payment preserved so I do not have to restart the application process. Staff recommends approval. Every referral is complete. Loi supports the project. The record is clean. Please forward PA25000411 and PA25000412 to the board of supervisors with a recommendation to approve. I urge you guys to please reconsider postponing and move forward with three and four. Thank you commissioners. Okay. At this time I'll bring it back to the commission. Would you like to speak, sir?

Yes, sir. I would. All right. It's about the continuence. Is that correct? Yes. Thank you. Please state your name and your address for the record.

Yes, thank you. My name is Tom Turpra. I am the city attorney for the city of Ripen and um yeah, I appreciate the applicant's thoughts on this matter and I get I guess what I want to reiterate on behalf of uh the city of Ripen and uh based on what I've seen on some of the comment letters uh I have not seen all of them. I think there were some other cities. I I've only seen Ripen and um Ripen and Tracy's letters on this matter, but um if there's other cities that have contributed their thoughts on this, I have not seen those. But based on what I have seen, um the cities do not have any opposition to item number four. They have no opposition to your project, sir. Uh what the cities have opposition to is just the process by which this uh text amendment was brought before this uh commission. And really um for us, we have no concerns about the project and like the applicant says, we have no jurisdiction over that. We have no we have no um we have no arguments on that front. But this is a text amendment that has uh ripple effects that uh circulate countywide. And um they do circulate into our spheres of influence. And while I do think that the applicants suggested revision is well-intentioned and I think it is a very good idea, it doesn't necessarily foreclose every possible solution for every city. And um different cities have unique needs and specific needs. City of Tracy actually does come to mind as an example where their sphere of influence is a little bit uh oddly shaped and doesn't necessarily reflect their general plans. Um that may or may not be in the process of being updated now. Um so these are not one sizefits-all solutions though I think that is a great starting point for the discussion and I think the point being this does need to be a discussion amongst the cities because this is a countywide um amendment that you guys would be considering under this text amendment. So, um, from from the city of Ripen's perspective, my I would urge this commission to uh reconsider

to not reconsider and to uh maintain this continuence for a subsequent date. Um, I app I I I truly do feel for you, sir. I do have a private practice where I uh, you know, represent applicants like yourself. I can understand why this is an extremely frustrating outcome, but this is and if if this continuence holds, but um it's nothing personal. It has nothing to do with your project. It just it just has to do with the long-term planning objectives of the city, which I urge this planning commission to carefully consider in this process. And so, if you have any questions, I would be happy to take those at this point. Um but I thank you for the time to speak on this matter.

Thank you. Anyone else like to speak about the continuence only? Excuse me. I'm sorry. Can I can I ask him a question? Sure. Ask him a question.

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

All we're right now is whether to reconsider the continuence. We're not getting into the merits of the proposed text amendment and I feel like that's what we're doing right now. So, we're not going to get into the merits on this agendaized item. If if you want to speak to the continuence, you you've had an opportunity. If if there's anything more you want to add on that front, that would be appropriate. Yeah, sure. Yeah. I just forgive me. I just wanted to ask a simple question. If they have the ultimate authority, what are they against? Because they literally nothing would move forward unless they signed off on it. So, thanks. We hear you. Okay. this if you want. I

No, I I think I think our I think council has summed it up appropriately. This is only the discussion about the continuence. Sure. And not not the merits of

Mr. Be's suggestion or anything else that would be something that comes out of staff and meeting with the cities later on. So at this time I will ring about to continue to the commission and ask if anyone would like to reconsider the decision that's already been made. Okay. I got one. I I would like staff to clarify what usually is the uh the process for for the item number three. Good evening. Good evening.

Jennifer Jolly, director of community development. First, um I'd like to apologize to the applicant for the delay. Um we never intend to delay a project on purpose. Um there there was some oversight on the notice. So the cities did get later notification about the project. As a point of clarification, when we are approving a land use permit, we have findings that we have to make. One of those findings is that the project is consistent with the general plan and zoning codes. And I'm majorly paraphrasing, but that that's essentially one of them. Without the text amendment item number three being approved tonight to forward onto the board, we would not be able to make findings for the project. So, it's not to the applicant's benefit to move his project forward because the staff's recommendation would have to change. We cannot make findings if the general plan text is not consistent with the project. The text amendment that we are proposing, we do understand uh now that the cities have some concerns and we do intend to um address it very quickly. Uh I've talked to multiple directors today from the cities. We are intending to have a meeting next week with them and we are going to get this um flushed out as quickly as possible. um and we will bring this back as quickly as possible and both of these items will be processed again together. So I do apologize um but the appropriate thing to do is to wait to bring the text amendment and the land use permit together because otherwise we cannot recommend approval on the project and I I understand where Mr. Beetle's coming from saying that it's it's near the city of Loi and they don't have an issue with this. However, when we change general plan policies and zoning codes, it's countywide. So it does have to take into consideration how this would affect the rest of the county. So land use permits are very project specific or sight specific, but policy applies countywide. So that's why we have to delay it. And

again, I apologize. Um this was not intentional and we do want to get it right and we want the cities to be comfortable with the recommendation. We do value the city's input on these things and unfortunately we just got the information they got our information late so therefore we got their information late and um that is so that's why it's our recommendation tonight and and just to be clear there will be no additional fees applied to the applicant not at all and what what's the time frame are you thinking May 7th May 21st

Ideally would be the 21st of of May now there is only one board meeting in May anyway so whether we went on the 7th or the 21st, it didn't really matter because we'd have to go in June to the board. Um, the board meetings in June h have three different dates. So, I'm pretty hopeful that we will be able to find an appropriate date. So, it will be a delay for them for a few weeks. Uh, which again, I apologize. There's only so many times I can apologize, but I really am sorry that that happened. We do understand that businesses time is money and and we we do understand that. It was just an unfortunate error. Um, but you have my word that we are going to get this resolved as quickly as possible. Okay. So, I'll bring it back to the commission. Anybody want Sorry. Yeah, I'm I think we all are.

Yeah. And I apologize, but um I don't think any of us are going to reconsider the decision that's been made. Chair, if I may. Yes. I had a question. Isn't there like a time limit when the cities can respond? Because some of the letters came in at the last moment, just like the gentleman was saying. uh you know it's like a day before or the couple hours before we don't even sometimes get enough chance to see what is written in there in detail I mean is there some kind of protocol like how soon or how late they can respond

through the chair there's there's actually two answers to your question so first of all I want to clarify that this is not on the cities this is on the county we uh made a mistake in our notification city of Loai was the only one that actually got direct notification the other cities found out I believe through the public hearing notice process. Um so they did not even know about this project until very recently. So that is not on the cities, that is on the county. Um and then the second uh question that you have is um we do provide a referral period where we prefer to get the information but technically you can submit information on a project going to a public hearing up until the hearing. We just prefer we prefer not that not to be the case. So but in this case this is not the cities doing a bunch of late notices. this is that they did not know um that the project was going and which is why I've had conversations um including Karen has had conversations with another city. So we've talked to multiple cities today and apologized on behalf of the county um and we we want to make it right.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other commissioners? Okay. All right. Again, we're sorry. We're going to move on to the next item agenda and that would be other business. Is there any other business for the commission? All right. Um, planning commissioners comments, anybody? All right. Director's report.

Good evening. Oh, let me switch gears here. Um, well, I just will give you an update on the variance application that you guys heard a few weeks ago for the uh fence that was built into the ride ofway on Alpine Road. that was heard by the uh board of supervisors on t two days ago, Tuesday, and it was voted three to one to approve the variance and the fence will be allowed to stand. So, um can can I ask a question? Yeah, I think staff did their job. The commission did their job,

which So, what's the setup for? Is this a precedent that anyone else can now build on county property? I'm going to answer that by saying that every variance application has a unique set of circumstances and findings need to be made to approve them. Our board was able to determine that they they felt like the findings could be made which is why they recommended approval. There were some conditions of approval added at that hearing to address a few of the items um such as the insurance writer and um I for I'm not sure exactly what else there was might recall

the um the additional condition we put on was a deed restriction that the fence would have to be removed once the uh property is sold. Oh yeah. What about the neighbors that are suing them in court? Could they sue the could they sue the county as well? The existing case that I'm aware of is a civil issue. So, I won't weigh in on that. And then I'm going to defer to council on the other answer.

Get into the merits of it, which I I won't do here in in a in a public hearing, but you know, anybody can sue for anything. And whether the lawsuit has merit, that's that's a different issue and a different question. But through the chair um didn't we discuss that it was a liability issue for the county like you said somebody else can come out and say if they did it why can't we do it so that was the whole reason we were all on the same page to say no I mean I know people can go and appeal to the supervisor can somebody go and appeal to what supervisors decided just a question because this is opening like a Pandora's box somebody else can come and say the same thing

the appeal would be to a court, right? It would be a lawsuit. Well, we can sue. I mean, I'm just saying I mean, we are just opening up a a messy situation cuz I remember when we discussed we discussed in detail and it was a it was a place of discussion where we're coming from was concern for the county because it's a county property, but ultimately the board has a decision and they made their decision. 3 to uh excuse me, I know it was 3 to one. Uh, we had one commissioner abstain at the board. It was 3 to2. So 31 or something like that. It was through the chair. Um, yeah, one of the board of supervisors abstained. Oh, he did. Yeah. So 31.

Okay. Just wanted to put it on the record, but it is what it is. So thank you. Yep. That's I I I think that concludes our day. I know. I I did a really good job tonight brightening your day. So, nothing more. Thank you. All righty. Well, well, that will be the last word and this meeting's adjourned. Thank you.