Planning Commission - Special Meeting

All right, ladies and gentlemen, we are going to start the meeting. We'll start with the flag salute.

Commissioner Rose, would you lead us?

Please take the roll call, please.

Commissioner Ruestaller. Here. Commissioner Sangha.

Here.

Commissioner Rhodes.

Here.

Mr. Chair, we have quorum.

Thank you. All right, moving on. Minutes from the last hearing, 618. Someone entertain a motion to accept as presented, or if you have any corrections, please let us know.

Make a motion to accept the minutes as is. Second.

Moved and seconded. Call for the vote.

Second, yeah.

Commissioner Rhoads? Yes. Commissioner Ruestaller?

Yes.

Commissioner Sangha?

Yes.

Motion passes 3-0.

Thank you. Actions on request for continuous or withdrawals?

No, Chair.

Okay. So we're gonna move. The public is welcome to address the 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 who would like to speak on items not on the agenda? Come forward. State your name and your address, please.

My name is Pete Moyer. I live at 23050 Hanson Road. For health reasons, I wasn't able to attend the last meeting. You were discussing the possibility of putting a religious center on Hanson Road. We're kind of a rural country, one acre to three acre subdivision. We've had a lot of traffic problems in our area. Supervisor Rickman and Najee from Public Works has done a lot of work with our community over the past couple years on traffic issues, trying to calm traffic. At the corner of Hanson and Vaughn-Sauson is an extremely busy intersection. I watched a child get hit by a car there a year ago. We have real traffic problems. If we open a church and a school on Hanson Road, it doesn't belong in our subdivision. It belongs somewhere else. I don't care what religion the church is. There's no prejudice or any of that involved in this decision. If we have 75 kids going to that school, that 75 cars in the morning going down the street, 75 cars coming back up the street. Our street is closed at the freeway. So those same 75 cars going back and forth have to come back at two or three in the afternoon, pick up 75 kids, come back down our street. So we're sticking 300 cars a day on our street. We have a real safety issue. Lammersville School is right there at that intersection. Nausea is still working with us to get another raised crosswalk, trying to slow traffic down. We have thousands of cars a day go through that intersection. It's a really unsafe problem and bringing more traffic into the community is not a quality thing for the residents, for the people involved. Kids ride bicycles. The school in that corner has about 180 children and a staff of about 25 people. We continually have the highway patrol or the sheriff calls for extra enforcement for running stop signs and so on and so forth. It's just been a problem area. I just don't think it's a good place for that church organization to come into our neighborhood. Right now, we have three Airbnbs in our neighborhood that aren't supposed to exist anymore. So we put up with the parties, the drunkenness, the 2 o'clock phone calls, garbage in the streets, garbage over the flows from the dumpsters. There's also a wedding venue in our neighborhood that doesn't belong in our neighborhood that has big parties typically on Friday night and Saturday night. The noise, the safety, and everything for our community, it is not proactive for us as residents of that community. I've lived on Hanson Road 25 years with my wife and my family. I am raising an eight-year-old granddaughter and a 19-year-old grandson currently, and I fear for the safety of all of us involved. Thank you so much. I appreciate your time.

Thank you. Again, please state your name and your address, please.

My name is Vanny Dart. I live at 16440 Sirellas Drive in Tracy, T-S-I-R-E-L-A-S. I echo my neighbor, Pete Moyer. I live just two houses away from Pete. This is my neighborhood. When we say we're in a rural area, it's hard for you to comprehend what rural is. You think that, okay, we are just two doors away from each other. This is very rural. We're completely out in the middle of nowhere, very remote. We do not have sidewalks. Children are about a thousand feet away from this proposed temple that about to hit your agenda soon. There are no sidewalks. Four years ago, my neighbor's horse was hit by a Camaro. The horse was put down. My neighbor was in debt, had to pay for the Camaro. Last year, my husband witnessed an eight-year-old, my neighbor's eight-year-old was hit by a car. That's the kind of safety we are talking about. When you bring massive traffic into the neighborhood, when you propose a temple that can bring at least 100 cars a day to the neighborhood, you are putting children in danger. We are putting horses in danger, things that have existed long before this temple is proposed. Just think when you're at work and receive a phone call that your child, your grandchild had just been hit by a commuter or someone who's on the way to the church but was late for the service. Think about that. Think what my neighbors and I have to go through. I have a question for staff also. When do you think this proposal will hit the agenda? so my neighbors and I can come up here and speak. Today we only have six people, but there will be more coming. I just need to know when it will be on your agenda.

Unfortunately, we're just here to listen during public comment, but I will, if you do have a date, you can let them know.

So it isn't, it is not currently on any tentative schedule for the Planning Commission. We're still working with the applicant with the site plan and working through the process. So it has not been scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing, and when it does, you will be notified.

Ms. Keene, do you have an approximate month that we talk about, like August, September, October?

It wouldn't be as soon as August. It wouldn't be August, I mean, maybe September, but we have to still work through a couple of issues.

Okay, well thank you so much for listening to me today. Just think of safety, think of children when you see this item on the agenda. Think of your kids, your grandkids. It is 1,000 feet away from the school and the school kids are five to 14. Children as little as five are using the no sidewalk. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Tatiana Brief. I live on Courier 23254, Courier Drive 3C. And I would like to note that our neighborhood was planned over 50 years ago. It is not planned and built as contemporary neighborhoods like Mountain House, where they have contemporary construction. They have sound blocking walls, sidewalks, a lot of cul-de-sacs to accommodate living of the citizens. And there is a zoning law out there for this very reason, to prevent, to accommodate safety and peace of all residents.

And we in our neighborhood, we do not have this.

We do not have sound blocking walls. We do not have sidewalks. And we are located next to a major highway, next to 205. And every time there is some kind of traffic issues, there is a huge, huge influx. throughout all the neighborhood next to the proposed temple, not next to the proposed temple, huge influx of traffic at any random time for neighborhood, and we have no total control about it. safety and traffic and noise issue is huge. And last thing, we have already one establishment in the neighborhood next, not next to my house, over one house. And they hold large gatherings already. They have a lot of people hanging around. They have a lot of cars. parking on our roads, and we just don't have room to accommodate more public large gatherings. And I would like to ask to keep the neighborhood residential. Church, temples is non-profit, but it is business. Business have to stay in business areas. This is why there is zoning law and everything around. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Does anyone else like to speak on items not on the agenda?

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Catalina and I live on Yettner Road in French Camp 95231. I am here not only as a resident of French Camp for over 30 years, but I'm also here as a private citizen and as a mother who is trying to raise a family in the community I grew up in. Therefore, I'm here today to urge you to deny the continued permits for any further commercial truck parking lots in our unincorporated community. French Camp is a historic living community, but it is increasingly being treated as a giant parking lot for logistics industry. Sorry, I'm getting emotional because I'm just seeing all the stuff happening to the area that I grew up in. air quality and public health, water and soil runoff, roadway safety and infrastructure on our local roads like French Camp Road, which was never designed to handle relentless pounding of multi-ton trucks that is destroying our community. The county's general plan is supposed to protect the health and safety and welfare of our residents. Approving yet another truck yard directly conflicts these goals. I ask the commission to deny all future permits at the very least to halt approval until comprehensive environmental impact reviews can be conducted. I ask you all to take a look at the combined impact of all these truck lots in French Camp rather than approving them one by one. Thank you for your time and I sincerely ask that you protect our small community. Thank you.

Thank you, anyone else?

Good afternoon commissioners. My name is Mary Nicholson and I've been a homeowner and resident of French Camp for over 25 years. I am here today to urge you to deny the continued permits of any further commercial truck parking lots in our unincorporated community or in areas that are within the boundaries of French Camp. Although French Camp has several of the businesses that provide primary services to the county at large, including the General Hospital, the Sheriff's Department, the Veterans Clinic, and others, at the end of the day, you find generations of families that grew up there and continue to live there. I enjoy living in French Camp. as a quaint, quiet community. Even though French Camp is a historic town and where San Joaquin County began, it is actually a hidden jewel where you find residents who are farming their land, riding their horses down the street, and living a good old-fashioned rural lifestyle. And we like it that way. But because of the influx of truck lots, many of our seniors who have lived there most of their lives are selling their property and relocating. People are bidding on the lots to put more and more truck lots there, and less community spirit can exist. It is a known fact that it is hard to get someone to care about the health and well-being of a community if you don't live there. And they're owners of a lot. They're not part of the community. Surrounding the truck lots are piles of tires, weeds, and other things that add no beauty to the community. Weeds galore, just drive down the street down El Dorado or French Camp Road or all throughout, you're now finding weeds and nobody's responsible for it. They don't care about the health and beauty of our community. Let me tell you something. You probably know that the Be Well Campus, a new facility, is being built in French Camp, and it will expand access to mental health and substance use disorder treatments in the Central Valley. Less than a block away, on three of four corners to date are truck lots. While more focus is being on human trafficking, it is unreasonable to operate with blind eyes to the large number of people who are never found. This is potentially detrimental to those needing mental health services for these reasons. The truck lots or stops are known as hot spots for prostitution. California is the number one state in America for human trafficking. French camp is ideal for, you know what, I thought you said five minutes and it's going off at three.

I beg to differ, but it is five minutes set, correct?

When I came, I saw three, not five.

You saw three? The Planning Commission rules were amended to provide for three minutes for public comment, so it did change from five to three, but it is your discretion.

Unfortunately, I said five minutes, and it still says that in our agenda, and so I'm going to let you speak for two more minutes.

I appreciate that. What I'm saying is that French Camp is an ideal spot for easy exit and entry to Highway 5, which is part of the Great California Gateway. Why bring this concern to the French Camp community? Why create an obstacle for the safety of our children? French Camp is a historic living community but it is increasingly being treated as a giant parking lot for the logistics industry. The saturation of semi-truck lots in our area has reached a tipping point causing severe localized damage to our health and our environment. We talk about air quality and public health and water and soil runoff, roadway safety and infrastructure. We need to care for French Camp because it is historical and it means a lot to our county. But we can't afford to let this trucking industry continue to penetrate because it is consuming our community and it's not only on the corners, in fact, a half a block from this new Be Well Center are these truck stops right at the corner, half a block. So when you see some people who are wandering down the street looking for help, it's easy for them to wheel them in. And I need for you to really be more focused on that in terms of planning. and thinking about it when it comes up. I also asked the commission to deny all future permits or at least Hulk approvals until a comprehensive report is done or conducted. We need to look at the combined impact of all these truck lots on French camp rather than approving them one by one. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on items not on the agenda? We're gonna put the timer on just so you know that you.

I wanna talk very short. Okay. I'm living, my name is . I'm living in 23403 Hansen Road, Tennessee, California. So I wanna agree with all my neighbor the way they are sitting. I don't wanna repeat everything. But I want to, and also I respect the religion, but I don't want to be the people that built the temple or Gurdwara or anything that's close to, because I'm very close. That was my neighbor. I don't, because there is a lot of issue about the water, about the people, about the parking, about the safety. But the person supposed to be built the temple, gurdwara or there's something religion but supposed to be they understand about the world of countryside country said we are living the peaceful and very quiet we don't need the people is coming in back and forth we don't know who's coming for our safety that's all thank you so much reynolds thank you

Hi, everybody. Cheryl DeCarico, 16601 Wakefield Court, Tracy. I'm also here with all my neighbors coming together to really get a grip on what's happening in our neighborhood. And I know we're going to see you guys again. But really consider this, what's happening. I mean, these people can live in their house that they have there, but for them to come in and do this to our neighborhood is just like, I can't even comprehend the reason that they need to do this. But I know they have their reasons, but it's hard for us to understand. And they're obviously fighting back really hard. And I mean, I get it. I'm sure if I was in the other hand, I would probably do the same thing in a different situation. But yeah, let's just try and focus on not letting this happen, please. We're depending on you people to stick up for us and help our little rural community, which we want to keep it that way. OK? Thank you so much.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in attendance who would like to speak on items not on the agenda?

So we're gonna talk about truck parking lot. I'm Anthony Nocetti. My family settled in French Camp in 1905.

Sir, I'm gonna stop you. Could you give us your name and your address, please?

I just said my name is Anthony Nocetti, okay? I live in French Camp on Bowman Road. We're talking about a truck lot over there on French Camp in El Dorado. I brought it up at the MAC Committee. Permits, soils reports, importing soils, has to be dealt with. Let me get a breath here. So you don't know who I am?

To listen, not to comment.

That's fine. I bring more money to this county than anybody else that's here with the Asparagus Festival and Stockton 99. And again, my family has been out there since 1905. And there's a lot of things going on around there. My thing is, other cultures come in here, play by the rules like we do. That's the biggest thing. with the temples, with the trucks. We're gonna address the restaurant business here shortly. So I'm a supportive of these people that have been speaking up here tonight. I thought I'd throw my two cents in at this point and I'll be back to visit some more.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who'd like to speak on items not on the agenda? Is there anyone online?

No, it doesn't look like it.

All right. We're going to move on to the action item, non-contested agenda items one and two. Items calendar 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. Is there anyone on the commission would like an item, either item one or two removed? Is there anyone in the audience? All right, then the chair will entertain a motion to approve the two non-contested items.

Chair, I apologize for interrupting. Mr. Nocetti just said he wanted to speak on the restaurant item, so.

Well, okay.

I wanted to make sure that he was clear.

That's all right.

Thank you.

Is it number one he wants to pull?

Yes, I think he is probably asking for it to be pulled from the non-contested agenda, and then we will do our presentation like we typically do. Okay.

Sir, would you like to?

So the restaurant thing over there in French Camp that you got on the agenda, that's what I'm here contesting about today.

So you want it pulled from the non-contested agenda?

It needs a lot more work done to it before it goes any further.

So you'll have a chance to tell us all about that, but I'll ask, would you like this pulled from the non-contested agenda? Yes. Thank you. It will be pulled and will be heard after we finish the other non-contested item, unless there's someone here to pull that as well. You don't have to go all the way back if you want. You could just sit here in the front row and it'll be an easier walk. So item number one of the non-condescent agenda will be removed and heard in a moment. So I'll bring it back to the commissioners. Will someone make a motion to approve the other non-contested item?

So I move that we approve item two, the non-contested.

I'll call for the vote.

Commissioner Sengha? Yes. Commissioner Rhoads? Yes. Commissioner Rustler? Yes. Motion passes 3-0.

All right, that'll take us to our next item, which will be item number one, general plan amendment for PA 2400220, staff's report. And before you start, I just want to let everybody know the hearing procedures. The staff will report and make the recommendations. The applicant... may provide an oral or written testimony limited to 20 minutes. Other project proponents may provide testimony in person or via Microsoft Teams. And the project opponent will then have an opportunity to testify either in person or via Microsoft Team limited to three minutes. And I should have mentioned for the proponents other than the Applicant, you are limited to three minutes. Time limits do not apply to response to questions from planning commissioners or staff. And then I will close the public hearing and bring the matter back to the planning commission for discussion and decision. So now I'm opening the public hearing for item number one.

Thank you, Chair. We have Jessica Leal here to provide a presentation, and then we're here for questions.

What do you need time? All right, we're in recess for 10 minutes if we try to get the system back up. Okay, I'm gonna call the meeting back to order. Can we get an update on where we are? Okay. Yeah, okay, so we're going to go back to the 1980s where they didn't have anything that they projected. And we can still move on with the agenda items. So hopefully you all have gotten one of your, if you haven't, out as you walk in, you will find the written project summary. So if you need it, be my guest. And at this time, we're just gonna move on. Everybody? Remember the Wayback Machine and how it worked.

OK, thank you. I have Associate Planner Jessica Leal here to provide a brief presentation. And we're open for any questions.

Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners. This project consists of a general plan map amendment to change the general plan designation from general industrial to community commercial for four parcels totaling 0.81 acres. This will align with the existing zoning of community commercial. The underlying project is an administrative use permit for a 4,128 square foot commercial kitchen selling prepared food through a drive-thru. The proposed use will have no on-site eating facilities and will be takeout and delivery only. The project site is located on East Herd Road between South El Dorado Street and South Harlan Road in French Camp. The parcels have an existing general plan designation of general industrial and zoning classification of community commercial. To the north of the project site are non-conforming industrial uses and scattered residences. To the south are undeveloped parcels with community commercial zoning. To the west is agricultural with scattered residences and interstate five. And to the east is a vacant parcel with a zoning classification of general industrial. The project site is currently vacant and the existing general plan designation and zoning classification are inconsistent. The proposed general plan map amendment will make these consistent and allow for commercial development. The development title states that the Board of Supervisors shall make several findings prior to approving a general plan map amendment. These findings include that the proposed changes be consistent with the general plan and other applicable documents, as well as be reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. With their approval of the general plan map amendment, this project is consistent with the general plan designation and zoning classification and all findings can be made in the affirmative. Staff has reviewed the findings and recommends approval of the administrative use permit along with the general plan map amendment. It is recommended that the Planning Commission forward the applications to the Board of Supervisors with the recommendations included in the staff report. This concludes our presentation.

Thank you, at this time we will hear from the proponent. The applicant. I think they're online, is that correct?

I'm checking, just one second. He hasn't responded yet.

Yeah, so there's anybody here who wants to speak in favor of this who could maybe call the applicant and say get back on the screen No No response. There was no response?

Yeah, he hasn't responded at all.

Okay. So, Council, I need a little direction here. At this point, I... Right.

You can, if there are opponents of the project or proponents... Well, let me ask if there's anybody here who wants to speak in favor of this project.

So, all right, hearing none, then I'll ask, is there anyone here who wants to speak against this project?

Anthony Noceti, French Cape, California. Okay, back to the future here, 1980s, tell them to get their asses down here like we did to appear in front of everybody. Okay, this is baloney to me. Putting that thing over there is gonna be nothing more than another truck stop out there with trucks parked in the road, in the center divider. We've been dealing with it already with their little taco truck thing they've got parked over there already. That's why I'm here complaining, because it kills our quality of life around there. It's dangerous for the public pulling out on those streets when you got diesel trucks parked all over the place there. If they wanna put a little kitchen in, tell them to get a door dash and deliver the son of a gun. And they can't even get before your meeting here. That's why I'm contesting this. We're gonna be back before this Board of Supervisors later on this year with some other major issues at French Camp that I'm dealing with. Code enforcement's been notified, and they're not doing, following up on their jobs. Health environmental has been mentioned, and so has, we've addressed planning slightly. and public works, so we got a lot of problems at French Camp. I'm against this because of the traffic and the bullshit that they feed you guys. They don't stand truthful. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak against this item?

Mary Nicholson, 976 French Camp Road. I am totally against this facility. I concur with everything that he said. But also, when I see all of this traffic, parks, trucks parked along the highway, I call French Camp Road sometimes a highway, because of the amount of traffic that goes down there during the day. But let me say this. I see these things and I'm told, well, Mary, there's an app and you can go and take a picture and send it to us and then we'll get right on it. Well, when you go down El Dorado or French Camp Road or some of these other places and get out of your car and try to take a picture, your life is in danger. And besides that, the app doesn't work. At any rate, though, I just want to let you know that I am totally opposed. It's not a drive-through for trucks. If they want to eat, go somewhere where there's food and they can get out of their damn trucks and go in and eat. French camp is not a drive-through for trucks. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else against this project?

Good evening, again, Catalina, Yetner Road, French Camp 95231, and just to concur, also opposed to this project, thank you.

Thank you, anyone else? All right.

We have the applicant online.

All right, the applicant can respond.

Hello. Good evening. We are proposing a new restaurant.

It will be for take out. Sir, we're having a little problem hearing you but we need your name and your address before we listen to what you have to say.

Good evening.

My name is Mohammed El-Shafi. I'm here tonight representing the applicant, Zakaria Al-Awadi, for our project. We're really excited to bring this project forward. We're asking for your support tonight on general plan amendment the administrative use permit, and the staff recommended mitigating negative declarations. To give you a quick idea of what we are doing here, this is a 4,128 square foot commercial kitchen, but it's not a fast food restaurant. It's not truck food. There's no indoor dining, no public table, only drive-through to pick up. No drive-through speaker box where people sit and decide what they want to order. Everything is done online ahead of time. Customers place their orders on their phone, drive up to our pickup lane, show up their order number, grab their food and go. No waiting, no dying. Because there's no order and no wait delay. Just pick up their food and go. The whole process is incredibly fast and keeps things moving. Of course, we know that traffic and neighborhood circulation are always top priority. But to make sure we got this right, we hired a traffic engineer, a fair and field, to do a full client study. We wanted a real data, not a guess. Here is what they found. First, the trip numbers are incredibly low. Only about 14 trips during the weekday evenings. Peak days and 26 on Saturdays. So again, 14 trips during the weekdays and 26 on Saturday. Second, because the pickup process is so fast, the maximum queue at any peak time is only four to five cars, which is in the traffic stop. To play it completely safe and guarantee no cars ever back up onto the street, we actually redesigned our layout based on their recommendations, on the traffic engineering recommendations. We pushed our physical pickup window about 40 to 50 feet inside to create a 125-foot-long driveway, which is taking about five or six cars inside our property. We also set up a one-way floor with driveways on both South Eldorado Street and South Harlem Road. So there is a clear path in and out with no internal bottleneck. On the environmental side, we are working with the health department to make sure we are providing a well on site, a septic tank, commercial septic tank, to make sure that all the waste is well managed. We really believe shifting this parcel from general industrial community to commercial is a perfect fit. It turns an underutilized lot into a clean, low-impact productive business that serves as a grid buffer zone for French companies. We've done our homework, worked closely with our traffic engineers, traffic experts, and with the planning department to make this project completely comply with the requirements. Thank you so much for your time tonight. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Chair, if I may?

Yes.

I would like to put it on the record. I couldn't understand most of the stuff because of the sound quality, so I'm not going to consider the information that was given because I did not honestly understand half of the stuff. So I apologize for that, but I just wanted to say that on the record.

Well, I have to agree with you. It was very difficult to understand because of the phone connection. So I think that's a technicality. that we have to address before we can move forward.

So the commission- Sorry for interrupting. Is it more clear now? Can I repeat? Would you like me to repeat what I'm saying? I'll try to make it briefly.

No, if you can make it brief, that'd be great.

Okay. Again, my name is Mohammed El-Shafei, and I'm here tonight representing the applicant, Zakaria Al-Awadi, at our project tonight. We're really excited to bring this project forward. We're asking for your support tonight on the general plan map amendment and the administrative use permit. To give you a quick idea of what we are doing here, this is a 4,128 square foot commercial kitchen. But it's not your typical fast food joint. There's no indoor dining, no public tables, and no drive-thru speaker box where people sit and decide what they want to order. Everything is done online, ahead of time. Customers will place their orders on their phone, drive up to our pickup plane, show their order number, grab their food and go. Because there's no order and wait delay, the whole process is fast and keeps things moving smoothly. Of course, we know that traffic and neighborhood circulation are always top priorities. To make sure we got this right, we hired Fern Peers. This is traffic engineering consultant to do a full Q study. We wanted just to show a real data, not just guesses. Here's what they found. First, the trip numbers are very low, only about 14 trips. 14 trips during the weekdays evening and 26 on Saturday. Second, because the pickup process is so fast, the maximum queue at any peak time is only four to five cars. To play it completely safe and guarantee no cars ever back up onto the street, We actually redesigned our layout based on their recommendation, on the traffic engineer recommendation. We pushed our physical pickup window to inside to create one 25-foot long driveway to take at least six cars inside. We also set up a one-way flow with the driveways on both South Eldorado Street and South Harlan Road. So there is a clear path in and out with no internal bottlenecks. On the environmental side, we did a water well on the side and a commercial septic tank. We added a trash enclosure. we will keep the site clean and safe. We wanted to serve and to help, to contribute in the community needs. We really believe, and this is the last thing I'm going to say, we really believe shifting this parcel from general industrial to community commercial is a perfect fit. It turns an underutilized lot into a clean, low-impact, productive business that serves the community of French Caps. We've done our homework. We are working with our consultants, with the planning department to make sure that our project will I COMPLY WITH THE CITY REQUIREMENT, WITH THE COUNTY REQUIREMENT, WITH ALL OUR NEIGHBORS NEED, WE WILL TAKE CARE OF THEIR NEEDS, OF COURSE. THANK YOU SO MUCH, AND MY APOLOGIES FOR THE BAD VOICE AND FOR MY LANGUAGE, OF COURSE. THANK YOU.

HAVE A GOOD NIGHT. THANK YOU. DON'T HANG UP. WE GOT QUESTIONS. YEAH, I'M HERE. OKAY. SO I'M GOING TO BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSIONERS TO ASK QUESTIONS THIS TIME.

I just need some clarity here. I just want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. This is for a permit which would normally be done internally through staff, correct? Am I correct on that or did I?

Through the chair, Jennifer Jolly, director. The general plan amendment is the reason that it is coming before you and will go before the board. Normally, it would be an administrative use permit, which is processed at staff level.

Okay. So technically, we're not approving or disapproving the kitchen. It's the plan amendment, correct? Or does it all go together?

Again, through the chair, the projects are being processed together. The general plan amendment would need to be approved in order to recommend approval for the administrative use permit. Right now, the general plan and the zoning are not consistent. And in the staff report, it contains the reasoning why it's not consistent. It has to do with when the general plan was adopted and the landowner requests. So to answer your question, you would be making a recommendation if you are to approve it, you would be making a recommendation of approval Board of Supervisors for the general plan amendment and the administrative use permit, if that's what you choose to do. So that use permit cannot be approved today. It has to go to the board because it's tied to that general plan amendment.

Because all of the findings can be made, which makes life difficult for a planning commissioner because Our role is to find consistency, and if there is consistency, to move it forward. But what you're saying is if it goes to the Board of Supervisors, then at that point, the big question of the permit would be tackled. Am I understanding that correctly through the chair? I'm sorry.

Chair, Commissioner Rhoads, what is before you are two sets of findings. You have findings for the general plan map amendment, as well as the findings for that administrative use permit. And you are correct, typically, an administrative use permit would not be presented to the Planning Commission, but it is being presented because the general plan map amendment is connected to it. So they are both being provided to Planning Commission for recommendations. And those recommendations then will be forwarded to our Board of Supervisors.

Got it. Thank you so much. Thank you for indulging me.

Yes, no, good points. Can we... ask questions at this time of the applicant and then I can close the hearing and then we can have further discussions. So I do have a question for the applicant. Are you still online? Yes, sir. All right, so there were three very concerned neighbors of yours who made it quite clear that there's a lot of traffic and a lot of truck traffic. So this restaurant that you're going to do, is it primarily for truckers or is it for everyone in the community? That's my first question and I got another one after that.

Yes, sir. We are not serving, we are not determining a specific car who is driving through, but it's not for tracking. There's no tracking in the subject, in our project. This is only for private, not for the trackers, not to serve the freeway, it's just to serve the community. with small car, with student car, with any car, who will make order online on the phone, on the application, and will place the order, come by, show the order number, pick up their food and go. No trucks in the suburbs. Only the trucks who will bring or will deliver the food or the products to the project. It will be only two times or maybe one time every day or two times. Only drop their goods and go. No trucks in the suburbs, in the projects.

Okay, thank you for that clarification. The other question I have, have you made any effort to speak to the neighbors who are around your facility? Have you asked them how they feel other than what you've heard tonight?

I understand completely the complaints. Actually, the owner himself, he is complaining from the truck parking issues. And I asked him why this concern is very bad for the community. He's saying they are creating a very bad soil. They are leaking oil. They are making a lot of noise. The place is not safe. I completely understand their concern of the truck parking issue. And the owner of this project himself is complaining from this concern. And again, I confirm if you can, the planning department can make a condition of this approval to avoid serving the trucks. Actually, the driveway is not affording a truck to get inside. There is no room, no maneuvering to get inside the drive-thru and pick up food. The window is designed just for small cars. It's the same as McDonald's, as Same as the fast foods. Just pick up foods from small cars and go. The drive-thru is just for small cars. The rest of the area is designed as a landscape. There will be a lot of big landscape. There will be 12 parking spots for any cars, if any cars or any customers... may delay, has no number, may delay the queue behind him, he will park his car in this temporary parking and pick up his food and go. Again, we confirm there is no truck service in this area. So we are completely away from the concerns with the community complaints. There is no high traffic. This is just a restaurant. It's not an assembly area. There is no dine-in service. So there's no assembly. Just drive and go.

OK, thank you. Are there any other questions?

Chair, if I may. So the question is to the applicant, obviously. We understand what you have repeatedly explained, that people are not going to stand there. They're going to pick up and go. So that's understood. I'm going to repeat the question the chair was asking, and I believe we didn't get the answer, is you have a consultant and you have talked to the county staff. We are asking you, have you talked to the community? It is the community that's complaining. It's not a consultant or the county staff that's complaining. We have to look at the greater good, and please don't repeat. Respectfully, we know how the process works.

Yeah, we are ready to sit with them. We didn't sit with the community so far, but we will be very happy to sit with them, explain the project, and how good it will be, prepare all the media which shows the whole project, explains the whole project to them. Anytime they are willing to sit with them, to meet with them.

So the burden falls on you because you're the applicant. the folks are complaining, the community is complaining, so when you bring something like that, the basic law is that you reach out to the community, to the immediate neighbors, and French Camp is, like I said, it's a nice community, but I guess the answer is no, you did not reach out, but you're willing to reach out now, but you haven't done that. Obviously, it's clear with your answer that it hasn't been done, but it will be done if needed. I guess I will stop there. Just want to make sure that my question is answered and which also answers the question for the basic decision that before bringing it here and you thought maybe, you know, the community is not going to object to this. I'll rest there. That's the clarification I wanted to make. Thank you.

Any other questions?

I just have a follow-up through the chair because you asked and one of the responses kind of clarified something for me. So for the applicant, so what I'm hearing is something like this. If you are an in and out burger that only took orders through the internet, it would be the same clientele that would be coming through, that you cannot cater to trucks because a truck would not be able to drive through this window. Am I understanding this correctly?

Yes, ma'am. There is no catering service, only pickup window for pickup and go.

Okay. So it's not bringing trucks into the area because these trucks cannot make it through your window?

Absolutely no, ma'am. No, no, no. Absolutely no. You will find that the window is very, very low. So it's not designed for that. The drive-thru itself is not designed for the truck.

Oh, parking. Oh, only parking for a bit.

So again, the way I'm- I'm sorry for interruption. Even the parking lot or the parking spaces is not designed for a truck. It's only for a small car. It's nine by 18 foot.

Okay, Mr.

Chair.

Yeah. Thank you so much for your response. Because what I'm seeing, it's no different than an In-N-Out burger. The only thing is that they can't stand there and read. and try to make up their mind, so it's quicker, actually, than a fast-through, if I'm understanding it correctly.

And with all of the findings there... So let me close the hearing, and then we can bring it back for discussion and decision. So I'm closing the hearing, and Commissioner Rhodes, you may continue.

Sorry about that. I'm trying to make a picture of this and in doing so, I actually thought you had closed it. I apologize for that. Then I mean, I don't see any reason not to make a motion to move forward with this because I mean, it would, that means they'd never be able to, if we said no, they'd never be able to get a In-N-Out burger or a McDonald's or anything else because it's the same concept is what I'm seeing.

So the discussion is for the commissioners and the decision is going to be commissioners and we'll leave it there. Any comments? Okay. I understand and I heard everyone from the French Camp area about this project today. However, we're here to decide on if all the procedures were followed properly. And from what I can tell and what I've read, everything was. And if it's true of what he said, which I'm taking as that, I don't think we have a choice but to move forward in the affirmative and pass this on. So if no one else has a comment, I'm gonna ask for a motion and we'll go from there.

Do I have?

And I'm gonna read the pieces that it involves. That way it's clear to everybody. Okay, here they are. Forward to the Board of Supervisors the mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting program with a recommendation to adopt. Forward to the Board of Supervisors the findings for general plan map amendment with a recommendation to adopt. Forward to the Board of Supervisors general plan map amendment number PA2400220 with a recommendation to adopt. forward to the Board of Supervisors the findings for Administrative Use Permit number PA2400217 with a recommendation to adopt and forward to the Board of Supervisors Administrative Use Permit number PA2400217 and the corresponding recommended conditions of approval which are all in attachment G with a recommendation to approve.

Do I have a second? I will second the motion and call for the vote.

Commissioner Rhodes? Yes. Commissioner Sangha? No. Commissioner Broussard? Yes. Motion passes 2-1. Yeah, three, oh sorry. Yeah, it doesn't. Motion fails, 2-1.

All right, so. Council, that means that they have to appeal the decision, correct? And so you have until September. September, excuse me. You have until July 27, 5 PM to appeal this decision to the Board of Supervisors.

All right.

All right. So we're going to move on to item number three. Staff, would you please give us your report? Now, we don't have visual for this one either, right? Okay. Use your imaginations.

Okay. Thank you, Chair. I have Jacob Ahuli here to provide a presentation, and then we are here for any questions.

Good evening chair and commissioners. This project includes an administrative use permit to authorize the construction of one single family residence on each of three legal parcels within the open space resource conservation general plan designation. The application also includes authorization for future accessory dwelling units and accessory structures associated with each residence. Because the project is located within the OSRC general plan designation, the general plan title requires approval of an administrative use permit. The project site is approximately 18.99 acre undeveloped parcel on the east side of South Costa Road, 4,315 feet south of Blewett Road in Tracy. The property has a general plan designation of OSRC and is zoned general agriculture. The project site is located near the southern boundary of San Joaquin County. The surrounding area consists primarily of agricultural land, scattered residences, and quarry operations. The project site is adjacent to existing quarry operations, including the Knife River quarry, located west of the site across South Costa Road, and the Cemex quarry, located east of the site across the Delta Mendota Canal. Two additional quarry sites are located within one mile of the project site to the west. The site plan shows each proposed development of one single family residence on each of the three legal parcels, including the estimated locations of the future residences and associated site improvements. Included in the staff report is a staff prepared vicinity map depicting the surrounding quarry operations and nearby residences. The applicant is requesting approval to construct one single family residence on each of the three parcels. The application will also allow for the future accessory dwelling structures, excuse me, accessory dwelling units and accessory structures associated with each residence. The department received opposition from Knife River Construction, owner and operator of the quarry located west of the project site across South Costa Road, opposing the proposed project. The department also received opposition from CMEX, operator of the quarry located east of the project site across the Delta Mendota Canal, as well as the property owner of the parcel on which the CMEX quarry is approved. The concerns raised primarily relate to mineral resource protection policies, project entitlement procedures, and environmental review. Specifically, concerns were raised regarding the project's location with a mineral resource zone, potential impacts to future mineral extraction, and whether the project is consistent with applicable general plan policies. The project site is located within an area designated as MRZ2, Mineral Resource Zone, by the California Department of Conservation and is adjacent to existing quarry operations. Staff evaluated mineral resource concerns and determined that the proposed residential development would not adversely affect mineral resources. Although the site is designated MRZ2, the property is subject to recorded deed restrictions that limit excavation activities on the parcel. Under the development title, administrative use permit applications are generally acted upon at a staff level. However, staff may refer an application to the Planning Commission when a project receives substantial opposition. Due to the opposition received for this project, the application has been referred to the Commission for consideration. The project qualifies for two CEQA exemptions, the general rule exemption and a class three exemption pursuant to the CEQA guidelines, which applies to the construction of new single family residences where the project involves limited environmental disturbance and no unusual circumstances resulting in a reasonable possibility of significant impact and environmental effect. Staff reviewed the project for consistency with the general plan, development title requirements, surrounding land uses, site conditions and applicable environmental regulations. Based on the proposed residential development, site constraints and proposed conditions of approval, staff determined that the required findings for approval including the compatibility finding can be made in the affirmative. It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the project with the recommendations included in the staff report and within the updated approval information contained in notes for this evening. Thank you and this concludes staff's presentation.

Okay, do we have any questions from the commissioners at this time? No? All right, then the applicant may come forward or their designated person to speak on behalf of this application. Name and address, please.

Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Roger Towers. My address is 95 54th Street, Southeast, Washington, DC, 20019. This is truly not a complicated project, but it has caused some controversy. So that's why we're here tonight. And I wanted to thank the staff for giving an honest and fair report. I have six points I'm going to briefly address and First, I'm going to talk a little bit about SMARA, because I recognize you're an experienced planning commissioner, so I'm not going to get into the weeds on some of these other things that you're familiar with, but SMARA is probably an issue that you're not. Second, I'm going to go through the fact that the property has no potential for excavation for numerous reasons, and then I'm going to talk about the general plan policies and the... regulation requirements regarding the permit. I'm going to address the opposition letters to some extent. I'm not going to address all of it. I'll let them make their own comments, and I have rebuttal time, so I'll address those. Fifth, there's some constitutional considerations under the 14th Amendment, and I'm going to address some constitutional baseline as to We're approaching that level that I have rights under the Constitution, and those need to be incorporated into the thought processes. And six, I have some concerns about the conditions of approval, not the county standard conditions, but from recent amendments from the COG and from the Bureau of Reclamation. So first, with regard to Samara, this is the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. And under Samara, as specific to this property, when we talk about MRZ2, the state goes through a process of, a two-step process. State geologists, they go out and they say, okay, where are the significant resources? So they do a study and they classify certain areas where they suspect mineral resources are. So in this area, there are known significant resources, and those are classified under this Mineral Resource Zone 2 standard. So when you hear MRZ 2, that's what that refers to. The designation line on our property essentially splits it down the middle because the area closest to the canal is not included in that MRZ designation because it's a setback. There's no possibility that MRZ up and down the Delta Minidota Canal that anybody's going to be excavating within 300 feet of the center line of that canal. It's just that canal is so important to California and to the country as a whole. Nobody's going to put that canal at risk. So in that process of the two-step process of classification, designation, the state geologist says, okay, these areas have, or this specific area based on known information has the potential to have is likely to have these resources. And then based on those recommendations, then the Mines and Geology Board will say, okay, we're going to designate that and give it special status and emphasize that these areas need to be specially considered in the county's general plan. County has adopted general plan policies and those policies are at issue tonight. And I'll go through those when I get to the regulatory process. That's just the basic summary of the SMARA. Now I'm going to talk about why the property cannot be mined, has no potential. First, it already has been mined. When the canal was built, this is a concrete line canal. So those sand and gravel aggregates to make the concrete, they had to go from somewhere. They came from this property. And I don't have any documentation from the Bureau of Reclamation that says there was a borrow pit on this site. But I know it was a borrow pit for a couple of reasons. One is at the very northerly end of the property, there are still the remnants of a concrete batch plant. The concrete pad is still there. Otherwise, the property itself has no resemblance to the Zacharias gravelly clay loams that occur in the area. The soil structures have been completely destroyed. Vegetation is minimal in the 75 years since the canal has been constructed. The property has no potential for excavation. I have had technical investigations made of the property. There's absolutely no tilt to the soil. There's no silt. This soil structure just does not exist. The property does not even have the potential for agricultural use soils. So that's one issue. The second is that when the property was, this is part of excess right-of-way that the Bureau of Reclamation got rid of. And when they did that, disposed of this property, they imposed their own regulatory or Regulatory is not the right word, but they impose in the quick claim deed, there are conditions that prevent the excavation of the property so that pursuant to federal policy, this property cannot be mined. The third reason why this property could not be mined, it's not large enough to support commercial excavation. By the time you take in the setbacks from the canal and from the roadway, there's maybe between five and eight acres of potential, assuming the other things don't exist, assuming that the classification designation process was meaningful in its presentation, there's just no potential for excavation based on the size and shape of the property. So no potential, there's no fair argument that this property can be excavated. And this is a finding actually that was made by the Board of Supervisors back in 2009 when a truck parking project was approved on this site. the project was so heavily conditioned at that point in time that it's just uneconomical and I couldn't move forward with that. So that's that aspect. Now, third, I'm going to talk about the general plan policy. And we're not talking just about policy applies to this property, but we're talking about policy of the general plan that applies to mineral resources. And this includes mineral extraction. So when you're talking about mineral extraction, the miners and their permits, they're highly regulated, they have mining plans, they have reclamation plans, they have environmental impact reports. And when you go through all of these procedures, at the end of the day, and the requirement is under these policies, that there will be no significant impact to the surrounding property. So they have They have the same requirements for compatibility when they were approved that we have now. And so there's really no distinction except that the homes that are already existing in the area for which the quarries have been found to be compatible with Those homes are actually closer than our property. Our property, the Knife River Quarry across the street on Costa Road, that portion of the property or project has already been excavated. It hasn't been reclaimed. That's another issue, but it's already been excavated. Across the way to the east, that's the CMEX project. and that's separated by the canal. So you have substantial separation between those areas. And within the CMEX project itself, you have existing residential uses. So when these projects were approved, you went through all of these steps, countless hundreds of hours were spent by community coming to participate through the process and develop these ERI, excuse me, EIRs and go through that process. And the time and energy of the Planning Commission and sometimes the Board of Supervisors constitutes thousands of hours of work put into these projects to ensure that they are compatible with existing residences. Now, what the Corys argue is that even though they're compatible with residential use, the residential use is not compatible with Cory use. It's absurd. This is a very low density residential project with substantial buffers and further away from other residential properties. And I would like to point out in the staff report at attachment D, the page 34, I believe it is, Page 34, I prepared findings, draft findings for use by the commissioners. But at finding number 14, I listed the conservation resource policies. And at 4.3, I note land use compatibility, and it says the county shall ensure that mineral extraction and reclamation operations are compatible with land uses both onsite and within the surrounding area. This is part of the policy and it's implemented through the text of the zoning ordinance. Within the zoning ordinance, you have requirements I was going to read it and I lost my notes here someplace. Oh, here it is. Formally, at the time that these quarries were approved, codified at 9-854.5, now recodified at 9-813.050C, is the findings. The findings for these quarries are issuance of the permit shall not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or be injurious to the property or improvements in the area. These are the parameters which the quarries operate within. There are existing a number of single-family residences in the area. I think the staff identified nine. Immediately to the south of our property is a home, which is actually, again, closer to the ongoing operations of Knife River. So that's that aspect of the general plan and zoning. The other aspect that's been raised in the Opposition is the CEQA. They've challenged the applicability of the CEQA exemption, saying that they're special circumstances. And their argument is, well, because the state has designated this MRZ2, that these are special circumstances that the project no longer qualifies for the exemption. And it requires a fair argument to be supported. And as I've gone through the limitations of the property, the ability to mine it, there's just no ability to mine the property. So the special circumstances exception to the exemption just does not exist. Okay. And again, with regard to the opposition letters, some of the arguments are just absurd, including saying that we don't have to get building permits. Obviously, we have to get building permits. There's comments to the effect that we're creating new parcels and not consistent with zoning or not consistent with the 40 acre minimum. It's just nonsense. These are existing parcels and we're proposing, the plan proposed one house on each of these parcels due to recent changes in state law. Anytime you have one house, you're allowed a second house plus an ADU. So it wasn't part of our proposal, but that is a possibility. With regard to the constitutional floor, We have rights under the 14th Amendment. We have the right to reasonable economic use of our property, and we have the right to equal protection under the law. So when you already have a number of single family residences in this mining area, and you're gonna tell us now that we can't build That's a violation of our rights protected by the equal protection of the 14th Amendment. So I don't see how you could possibly deny this project under the constitutional floor of the 14th Amendment. The conditions of approval. Late in the process, We receive conditions that are just unintelligible to me, and it's going to cause problems with the future. First, I'm going to talk about the condition number four. This is the COG requirement. Back in January, I had exchanged several emails with the staff at COG and questioned them about the applicability of the mitigation fees for this particular project as it is zoned AG-40. And they sent me a copy of the application the Habitat Conservation Plan and the agreement. And within that plan, the land or property zone, residential zone, AG 40 are exempt from that Habitat Conservation Plan. And now they're going back and saying it is. I had some discussions with staff today, and they said, well, it says that, but we all understand it's something different, so it'll be fine. I'm not good with that. I like the conditions to be clear in what they say. I don't want to have to come back to the commission and ask for revision of the conditions of approval. There's... And I don't clearly understand all of the parameters that are the requirements of COG. So that needs to be addressed. I'll think about it some more and come back later for my later comments. But we do need to address the conditions approval for COG. Relative to the San Luis Delta Mendota conditions, To some extent, they're duplicative. The first one, A, says no excavation below elevation 190 feet. That's contained within the deeds restrictions. It doesn't really matter, I guess, to that extent, but... If we already have it and you have the deed restrictions, the quick claim deed in your package, why do we need to go over and do it over and over again through multiple different agencies? It's just not something that makes sense to me that we just create layers of bureaucracy. And then the rest of the conditions we've got prior to issuance of building permits and It's more time than I want to spend with you, Commissioner, and burden you down with these. Why is the Delta Mendota Canal Authority inserting itself into the drainage plan? They're attempting here to impose a requirement that no water leave our property This is overland flow that's existed for many years. Just because we're taking a few acres out of that site, and obviously we are increasing the impermeability of those hard surface areas, but to turn around and say that no water can leave your property, this is just natural event, rain flow. That's... it just seems to absurd extension of authority because they're a responding agency. Again, these are very late comments and I just think the whole thing ought to be dropped because we already have The Public Works Department is reviewing drainage plans. We already have these things covered. The landscaping plans reviewed. Again, it's just duplicative and it creates an unnecessary headache and cost. With that, I'll take your questions.

Questions?

in terms of, you say that you're against some of the mitigation actions, and you did mention number four, which is a COG-related one. But then you went into a conversation about late comments. Are you saying that there are late comments and more mitigations that we don't have listed?

No, no, just these conditions, especially one from the Bureau of Reclamation, I think it just came in today for these last revisions. Reading through them, I don't completely understand what they are or even the need for them. um again all of these issues already being reviewed and analyzed by other county departments so why do we throw in the bureau of reclamation which isn't being affected by this property or by this project and then again the cog it's just As I understand it, their policy is that they have essentially a bubble or an area for the site development of two acres on each lot. And then if you go outside of that area, then the fee applies to the area outside of that area. outside of that polygon area of two acres. And that's fine. I don't, if that's the situation, it is. I don't care, but it's not what the condition says. And so I would like, you know, I just think that needs to be spelled out. It should have been spelled out in last January when I was trying to nail this down with them, but rather than coming in now at the last moment. Does that answer your question? That answers my question, thank you. Okay. Are we good, sir, chairman, Mr. Chairman?

Yep, we're good. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Are there any other proponents here or on the line who'd like to speak in favor of this project? Okay, you got anybody online who want to speak in favor?

No one's responding.

All right, so now we'll move to the opponents. Who would like to speak first in opposition to this project? Yeah, no worries, no worries.

Good evening Chair Roosthaler, members of the Commission. My name is David Tembladar. I'm an attorney with Harrison, Tembladar, Hungerford and Guernsey. We specialize in mining, land use and natural resource issues. I'm here on behalf of Knife River Construction this evening. I'm joined by Steve Acevedo and Rod Getty, both employees of Knife River that are currently responsible for the mining location you've talked about already this evening. We've read some letters. I really want to focus what I think is the fundamental question before this commission this evening, and that's really one of land use compatibility. The issue from my perspective, I think from my client's perspective, is really this. Is it good land use policy to locate three single-family homes in an area that's fundamentally a mining district? Staff described four mining operations that are essentially in the immediate proximity of this. So that's the basic question I believe this commission should consider. I think there's three key points that I'd ask you to focus on. The first is one about compatibility with state law and county land use policy. The second, compatibility with prior county decisions. And then finally, and perhaps most importantly, is common sense. So let me address each of those in turn. As already been described by Mr. Towers, the state of California has designated this property as an economically significant mineral resource area. The county has followed suit by giving it a general plan land use policy of open space resource conservation, and ultimately your zoning code, PROVIDES FURTHER PROTECTION TO MAKE SURE THOSE RESOURCES ARE PROTECTED, WHICH IS THE REASON WE'RE HERE TONIGHT. IN A NORMAL EGG 40 ZONE, THIS WOULD BE PERMITTED BY RIGHT USE. IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION DESIGNATION. YOU MENTIONED PROCEDURES. WE ADDRESSED SIGNIFICANT WE BELIEVE PROCEDURAL ISSUES WITH THIS APPLICATION. I WON'T GO INTO THEM IN DETAIL BUT KNOW THAT WE HAVE THEM IN OUR LETTER AND WE THINK THIS IS PROCEDURALLY FLAWED TO BRING FORWARD THIS EVENING. But more importantly, perhaps, I think it's important this Commission understand this is not the first time Mr. Towers and his wife have pursued this application. The first application for residences on this property was back in 2003, and this Commission and the Board of Supervisors on Appeal denied that application. He subsequently tried again in 2009 for residences coupled with a truck lot. That was again denied. Finally, he pursued his rights as he's described with litigation against the county. Starting in 2013, the trial court denied his lawsuit, found that he did not have a constitutional right to an entitlement he appealed that decision to the court of appeals and the court of appeals also denied that application so i think that's an important context for this commission to understand as you consider this application when asked previously about land use compatibility This commission, the board, and the courts have said, no, we don't think it's compatible. Finally, and I'll close on this fundamentally, is one of common sense, candidly. You've described here three residences, potentially three additional ADUs. That's six families. That's six families. And I guess I would say this. Mr. Towers has owned, I understand, owned this property for close to 25 years, if not more. He has a very keen understanding of mining operations. He's described to you the SMARA ordinances that govern mining operations. He understands the impacts associated with their operations. And I can appreciate that, and I can appreciate the fact that he feels that residences are compatible. I'm not so worried about, and my clients are not so worried about Mr. Towers. we're worried about the three families in those residences, those three additional families in the ADUs that aren't gonna be so familiar with mining operations, that aren't gonna be used to having trucks and the various things that mining operations entail. And so I'm, I put it this way, as the commission considers this, are you prepared as a commission to really invite what I would describe, again, as a mining attorney that deals with stuff all the time, not just years, but potentially decades, of land use and compatibility issues. So those are my final comments on it. I would be remiss if I didn't say this, particularly to your prior comments earlier this evening, Ms. Senga. We did reach out to Mr. Towers to try to have some conversations about compatibility and could these two things live together. And I will tell you, Mr. Towers was eminently reasonable eminently professional, and we had, I think, very productive conversations. He ultimately elected to bring the matter forward, and I appreciate that. I respect that. He has that right. Unfortunately, that means that we find ourselves compelled to stand in opposition of this project. So with that, I would close. Certainly answer any questions you might have, but thank you for your time.

Thank you. Just for the record, I want to say that we did speak on the phone about this project.

Yeah, thank you. Thank you very much.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition?

Excuse me, if I have to sit down, I can't stand too much here. My name is Gerald Costa. Oh, thank you, thank you. I live at 734 O'Neill Court, Tracy, California. I purchased land east side of O'Neill, the canal in 1983. And just wanna give you a little history. I've been growing apricots for 50 years in the Tracy area. And the Bureau of Reclamation I can't remember exactly the year, but they put the property out for bid, that and several other parcels. And an apricot grower that was also a developer bid on the property and I would have liked to have bought it myself because I would have made a beautiful apricot orchard. It was about 23 acres at the time. but it didn't happen. So he got the property and I assume he's the one that cut most of the lots, I'm not sure. I know he cut one or two lots and sold them and then I guess Mr. Towers comes on the scene. I'm opposed to this, the building of any houses on Costa Road project number PA2500240 for the following reasons. Number one, incompatibility with agriculture. The area surrounding the towers project has supported farming for a long time. Even before the canal was put in, there's fourth generation farmers and one of them has had the name named after him, Koster, the Koster property. I'm concerned that the Planning Commission, that if they approve this permit at the construction, the houses, the three possible ADUs, and they may open up the door for more housing development to occur in the area. As more houses get built, the people, especially high end homeowners, will complain about noise, dust, chemicals, and everything else. They will have much to gain in property value, et cetera. and will gather resource to hire legal counsel to file complaints with the county and stop farming in the area. Number two, incompatibility with mining operations. The project is located in an area with known valuable mineral resources which should be conserved and protected against residential development. We have a God-given resource that is very, very valuable. And why? Well, aggregates are heavy and it costs more money to haul the stuff than you pay for the actual product itself. So this means that we're gonna have to go somewhere else to get the aggregates, and there's plenty of aggregates south of these mines, but it's gonna cost a lot of more money for San Joaquin County to go pursue these aggregates. Okay, and then... And if the future, and if the houses are built, there's, wait, where am I? All right. Okay, then the, there's gonna be problems with, with the mining and the incompatibility is gonna be with the big trucks coming in there, the mining dust, the conveyors, noise, lights, all that stuff that again is incompatible with houses. What's that beeping I'm hearing?

It means your time's up but you can finish that thought if you'd like. Your time's up. My time is up? Yeah, you get three minutes, but if you'd like to just finish that last sentence, feel free.

You know, I don't have my hearing aids. They broke on me, so am I free to talk more or no? You can finish that thought.

You can finish the thought that you have. You can finish the sentence that you have going right there.

Okay. Okay. Again, we believe that the neighbors will stop the mining eventually, and we all know that this has happened in many other cases. Okay, I've had three more items I had here, but I guess I let it go. I don't understand. It seems like Towers talked for more than three minutes. Yeah, he gets to.

I explained the procedures. The applicant has up to 20 minutes. Okay.

I'm sorry, I didn't read that.

No, that's quite all right.

I thought I had all night.

Well, unfortunately you don't, sir. Thank you. Yeah. Anyone else would like to speak against this project?

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Scott Miller. I'm also an attorney. I represent Cimex Construction Materials Pacific LLC. This is the Cimex mine. And as the commission knows, the Cimex property that is permitted is east of the Delta Mendota Canal and just the other side of Mr. Towers' property. And then this property has been permitted, Cimex obtained a quarry excavation use permit in 2008. This is after certifying an EIR with findings of significant environmental impacts and overriding considerations. Mr. Towers owns his property at the time, did not object to this. The main, we sent a letter, I know the commission has received it and reviewed it. We pointed out inconsistencies with the general plan, the zoning designation. I just want to highlight now the main point of this, which is the project, is it must be consistent with surrounding areas. And Cimex's primary concern, the staff report makes the finding that it's consistent, but fails to explain how the project is compatible with the County General Plan, namely the rural character of the surrounding areas. County land use policy LU 2.1 requires the county to ensure that new development is compatible with adjacent uses and complements the surrounding natural agricultural setting. In this case, we have the MRZ2 designation. And the general plan also requires the preservation of open space and land uses and that the county limit to the extent feasible the conversion of open space and agricultural lands to urban uses. Place a high priority on preserving open space lands for recreation, habitat protection and enhancement, flood hazard management, public safety, water resource protection and overall community benefit. Cimex is concerned that the placement of houses on these properties will result, will raise issues for the residents. Now Mr. Towers is familiar with the process of mining. I think Mr. Timbaldor pointed this out earlier. The future owners of these properties may not be and there will be noise, dust and so forth, all the things that go along with mining and This creates a tension. This is a situation that the general plan policies are in place to protect against, and we feel that that is a danger here. Now, also, I will point out, as far as the MRZ2 designation in the county staff report, I'll just point to general plan goal NCR4, states that mineral deposits identified in MRZ2 mineral resource zones should remain in agricultural or open space uses until the extraction of the resources. In this case, The general plan designation, open space resource conservation is in place to protect that. It's compatible with that MRZ2 designation. And then as far as the CEQA exemption, we understand that CEQA guidelines section 15303 subdivision A, it applies to the development of one single family residence or in this case, there'll be multiple with ADUs and so forth or a second dwelling in a residential zone. Project here is not located in a residential zone, does not fall within the scope of this exemption. Section 15303A further provides that three residents may be constructed in an urbanized area. This, however, is not an urbanized area. This is an open space resource conservation area. And for these reasons, and as explained further in our letter, CEMEX submits we oppose the project. Thank you.

Thank you.

Steve DeLure, I'll use Jerry Costa's address, 734 O'Neill Court. Way back when, probably about 15 years ago, Jerry offered me one of those lots, real cheap, because he wanted me to move to Tracy. So I decided I needed to look into what's going on, so I went over to the overpass that was built on Bird Road, and you see all these trucks, zoom, zoom, zoom, zoom. Okay, I don't need that kind of traffic going by where I'm gonna live in the future. So next thing I did, I went over to 580 where Teichert and Granite had their operation and got close. And you hear the conveyor and the lights and the noise and the dust. It's like, I don't want that next to me. So another reason not to buy the lots and build. And I have experience building. Then I said to myself, you know, if I do build these and I have to sell in the future because I don't want to live there because it's horrible. What am I going to tell the buyers in good conscience? Don't worry about the mess. And maybe it'll go away in 15, 20 years. And you know what you'll have? You'll be sitting on top of a road. You'll look at a 100-foot pit over there, a 100-foot pit over there. And beware, in the future, it might be filled in as a garbage dump. sewage treatment plant or something else that's not going to be pretty. So the idea that it's just you dismiss incompatibility as absurd doesn't make any sense to me. That's why I spoke because I looked at buying that. I mean he was going to essentially give me a lot for free and we could have put manufactured unit on there cheap, could have lived nice and cheap, had a nice house, but don't want to be in that kind of mess. So I don't know how in you get across the point to these people what living with agricultural is and what living next to a mine is like unless you have them go and experience the traffic and the dust and everything else. They're incompatible. Will be, always will be. And to shut down a mine to put a couple houses in now doesn't make any sense. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition to this project? Is there anybody online who would like to speak in opposition to this project?

No response.

All right. Then at this time, the applicant may provide a rebuttal limited to 10 minutes.

Again, Roger Towers speaking in rebuttal. So the theme is this, from the opposition, is that mining is a dirty business, and because all of the truck and noise and dust, that this is no place to live, that houses should not be in this area. It's a false premise. It's a red herring. I've already given you the requirements that we've gone through relative to the procedures, the review processes that this county has spent untold hours processing these permits to make sure that they don't have these types of impacts on the existing residences. If they throw out these words, well, what about the truck traffic? There is no truck traffic. This is not a haul route on Costa Road. It doesn't exist. The dust problem. There are dust mitigation plans associated with the mining operations in terms of there's chemical dust applications or watering requirements. There is not supposed to be dust emanating from these projects that's in excess of what might come out of a typical agricultural project. agricultural use of the product. That's why we have an air quality board. It's not allowed, period. They can't do it. So it's fear-mongering, saying all these different bad things can happen. We talk about now this last gentleman, Steve, he talks about, well, it could be a garbage pit. The reclamation plan is for agriculture, for the pit across the street. If you're out there, there's no noise. It's very quiet. This is with operating quarries. And with regard to... Mr. Temblador, speaking on behalf of Knife River, mentioned previous litigation relative to this property. I'm not here to relitigate the past. we have a new general plan, we have new zoning ordinances in place. And if there is no possibility that I could convey all the problems that we dealt with at that time relative to prior actions of the board. This is the trap that we fell into before is that these commenters come and they say, We're gonna get all these complaints about all these different things, about all these different things that they have agreed they won't cause under the terms of their permit. If they're causing these things, they're violation of their permits. This is the process that we have. I'm not going to hold on to land as a nuisance easement for these projects. They have terms that they have to abide by, and it affects everybody equally in the area. Could there be better areas? Maybe there could be better areas, but It's quiet out there and it's reasonable. It's dustier than I would like because they're not doing the dust controls that they should be doing. Overall, it's a very nice area and I wouldn't hesitate to move out there. Mr. Koster talked about incompatibility with ag, incompatibility with mining. This is the ordinance. We have an A240 zone, which implements the general plan. The A240 zone allows residential use, except in this case, because we have the OSRC designation, and then we have to go through this administrative use permit. So that's why we are here. But there's no potential for excavation of this property. And we are compatible because there's already been a finding that the quarries are compatible with residential use. To turn around and say that now the residences aren't compatible with quarries is absurd. I think that's all I have, thank you. Thank you.

Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing, bring it back to the Planning Commission, ask questions, make comments, and then we'll make a decision. Start with me?

Yep, yeah. Okay, so I'm looking at the recommendations, which would actually be what we are accepting if we do move in that direction. I want to address one before I even go into where I'm heading, and that is I would have no problem adopting the findings except for the compatible piece. But I like to have all of the pieces in place before I make any decision. And all I want to know is, well, I saw the cog. You mentioned the cog. And by the way, I was on the cog for 16 years, and I was part of drafting the Multispecies Act. So unfortunately, it makes perfect sense. It's right on target. But then there was a mention of the Bureau of Reclamation, but I never saw anything where they put a condition on it or that there was a condition related to it.

If I may, Commissioner Rhoads, if you look at the conditions of approval in the packet, I believe Mr. Towers was referring to condition number five. Five. That's what I thought.

Yeah. Yes. And that has to do with the canal, correct?

That's correct.

Yeah. Okay. So there wasn't anything that I did not see. And then of course, the first one, which is the Exemption, that has to do with CEQA. I always feel torn because I do believe that farmers have a right when their time comes to say I don't want to farm anymore to use their land for whatever purposes they want, whether it be building houses or whatever. And I think I've made that clear many a times. However, I can't find that mining and homes are in any way compatible. There's a big difference in between me buying a home next to an agricultural parcel and having to put up with the smell and the dust but actually buying something that has been designated. I just don't, I can't go in that direction so I won't be able to find that it is compatible.

Commissioner?

I don't want to repeat the same thing, but I was going to say that.

Okay. Well, I don't know. I think I may be going on the... What I find interesting is that there are nine residents that have been located within a one-mile radius of the project site. Somehow they got their homes built, and they're all around quarries. So I really find it very difficult not to say, I believe this project should be approved. So I guess we're at a Rhodes here. Unfortunately, there's only three of us, so you have to have three in the positive to make this go forward. I will make the motion to approve the project along with the recommendations that the staff has presented. Do I have a second?

Through the chair, sorry. Before you all vote, just a couple of cleanup items. So one, I wanted to just clarify, because based on, I believe, Mr. Mitchell's comments, he referenced a CEQA exemption. And I don't know if he caught that when Mr. Pahuli did his presentation, I believe there was a reference to the common sense exemption as well, which is CEQA guidelines 15061B3. We don't have the presentation up here, and it's not in the packet, but I just wanted to put that on the record. And then as far as the condition of approval relating to COG, does staff have a clarification for that?

Through the Chair, so the condition that was in the original packet was language that COG sent us directly. So we felt that we needed to clarify what the intent of Cog's condition really was, and that was to notify future property owners that they would need to comply with the HCP. I spoke with COG staff today, confirmed all of this. They agreed with us to have a condition that would record a notice on the property so that when someone purchased the property, they realized that they needed to work with them before they'd be issued a building permit. So that's all that condition does. It's not really adding anything new. It's actually clarifying for future buyers that there will, and it would require Mr. Towers, should this project move forward, it would require him to record a notice on each parcel stating the statement that's in the notes for the evening.

Right, that's how I understood it. Thank you. So, a motion is on the table. Is there a second? All right. Unfortunately, this project is not approved because we did not get the votes necessary to, or even a second to move forward. Up until January 27th, 5 p.m. Is that it?

I'd like to ask council, do we need to actually take a motion to deny the project or is a denial inferred because they could not get a second?

Right. So there can be a motion to deny just to be very clear. That's fine. Okay.

All right. So the chair will entertain a motion to deny the project.

I make the motion to deny. Second.

Call for the vote.

Commissioner Rhoads? Yes. Commissioner Sangha?

Yes.

Commissioner Rustler? No. Motion fails.

It was a motion to deny. Right. I could have told you it was going to end that way. Yeah, I see what you're saying. Yep.

So is the motion denied or is the motion failing?

It is the project. The motion to approve the project fails.

Yes. OK, thank you.

Yeah. Yeah. Regardless of right. Yeah.

So that is it. Mr. Towers, you may appeal. Thank you, thanks everybody. We're gonna move on to the next item on the agenda, which is Director's Report.

Thank you, Chair. The only thing I would like to touch on tonight is to let you know that the text amendment with the new policies about warehouse industrial went to the Board of Supervisors and was approved. consistent with your recommendation. So that's probably the only one I need to touch on tonight. We can go over future meetings if you'd like.

Please.

Okay, our next meeting will be on August 6th. We have a variance and a subdivision coming before you as well as the Manteca Sportsman Club coming back before you. Oh, Lord. And then on the 20th, we have a cleanup general plan amendment. And I don't need to get into that right now, but just one item on the 20th. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any other business? Commissioner comments? No, I appreciate everybody who can make it tonight. So if we have a full commission the next time you meet on August 6th. No further comments. This meeting is adjourned.