Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, I'd like to call the meeting to order. We'll start with the flag salute. Oh, and by the way, don't pay any attention to the clock on the wall, it's a little slow. Can we have the roll call, please?

Commissioner Sangha?

Here.

Commissioner Milas?

Here.

Commissioner Rhodes? Here. Commissioner White? Here. Commissioner Rustar? Here. Chair, we have quorum.

Thank you. At this time, the public is welcome to address the Planning Commission on items of interest to the public that are not listed on the agenda. Comments to the commission are limited to a maximum of three minutes. Is there anyone who would like to address the commission at this time? Is there anyone online who would like to address the commission on items not on the agenda? No. All right. We'll move on. And the next item is minutes from hearings of 7-16-2026. Chair will entertain a motion to accept the minutes or if there's corrections that need to be made, this is the time to do it.

I move that we approve.

Second.

All for the vote.

Commissioner White. Commissioner Mules. Aye. Commissioner Rhodes. Yes. Commissioner Stangha. Yes. Commissioner Rustaller. Yes. Motion passes 5-0.

Thank you. Next item on the agenda, actions on request for continuous or withdrawals.

No, Chair, there are not.

All right. So now we'll get on to the main attractions for tonight. Before, I'm going to give you a short explanation of the procedures and how they work. So Public hearing will be declared. We'll open it up, and then the staff will give their report and recommendations. And after that, the applicant may provide oral or written testimony. It's limited to 20 minutes. And other proponents may then give their testimony in person or via Microsoft Teams. And then the project's opponents may provide testimony in person or via Microsoft Teams. It's limited to three minutes each. And I forgot to mention the proponents, other than the applicant, are limited to three minutes per person. Time limits do not apply to responses to questions from the Planning Commission or staff, and the Chair will close the public hearing and bring the matter back to the Planning Commission for discussion and decision. With that, I will open up the first item of the evening. Staff report, please.

Yes, we have Senior Planner Giuseppe Sanfilippo here to provide a report, and then we're available for any questions.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. This project is a modification request by county staff to amend the conditions of approval for use permit number 3009 to address safety issues at an existing gun range facility. The project site is located on the north side of South Airport Way, half mile east to Quezon Road, south of the city of Manteca. The San Joaquin River runs along the northern and western property lines. The site plan has a general plan and zoning designation of general agriculture. The Manteca Sportsman Club property is outlined in pink. The rifle shooting range is the area on the site that's outlined in blue. The parcel's surrounded on all sides by agricultural parcels with scattered residences. On the other side of the river, there's a residential community known as the River Club to the west, and the property owned by the San Joaquin County Office of Education is to the north, which contains the Durham Ferry Academy and the Durham Ferry Outdoor Education Center. In 1964, the Planning Commission approved a use permit for a shooting range on the Manteca Sportsman Club property with a condition of approval that the use was not at any time to develop into a nuisance. A nuisance included anything injurious to health, safety, or public welfare. In February of 2022, the Sheriff's Office investigated a complaint regarding stray bullets from the range being found at off-site locations and discovered that bullets from the rifles fired at the shooting range were landing outside the Manteca Sportsman Club as far as one mile north of the site at the Durham Ferry Outdoor Education Center and Durham Ferry Academy. In March of 2022, the Community Development Department and the Manteca Sportsman Club entered into a compliance agreement to temporarily address the safety issues by limiting outdoor use of long range rifles, staffing the range with certified range masters, submitting plans for physical improvements and other changes to the shooting range operations to ensure the approved use of the property would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or be a public nuisance. For a more permanent solution, The Planning Commission directed staff to work with the club and the Sheriff's Office to bring modifications back to the conditions of approval to ensure shooting activities do not pose a danger to the public. The Department and the Sheriff's Office worked with the club to develop updated conditions to address necessary safety modifications, which included visiting the site and reviewing an example of the proposed safety canopy. The club followed up by submitting a letter from a ballistics expert who had reviewed the proposed canopies and concluded the design and the materials would prevent projectiles from leaving the club property. The Sheriff's Office reviewed the expert's letter and had no concerns regarding the conclusions of the letter or the qualifications of the ballistics expert. As a result, the modification was scheduled for the February 5th Planning Commission meeting but was continued to March 5th to allow time for the Office of Education's ballistics expert to review the proposed canopies and the conclusions contained in the letter by the Manteca Sportsman Club's expert. At the March 5th Planning Commission hearing, the club requested a continuance because their ballistics expert was not available to attend the meeting and did not have enough time to review the report provided by the Office of Education shortly before the scheduled hearing. The item was recently scheduled for tonight's meeting after coordination with all parties. As previously stated, the club worked with the department and the sheriff's office to improve safety both on and off site and proposed the following measures. A safety canopy at each rifle shooting bench to prevent bullets from going over the levy and also to have certified range masters on site all hours of operation. The efficacy of these measures was confirmed by the ballistics expert on behalf of the Manteca Sportsman Club, whose qualifications were reviewed by the Sheriff's Department as discussed previously. A ballistics expert hired by the Office of Education reviewed the proposed safety measures and the related expert's letter and made the following recommendations for reopening the rifle range. The use of safety canopies as a short-term three to five year solution until a no blue sky baffle system can be installed. Use of 3 1⁄8 inch AR500 steel plates instead of AR400 steel plates on the shooting canopies. A requirement to develop, publish, and enforce policies related to the safe operation of the rifle range and the repair of the impact berm. Because the original safety measures were identified in coordination with the Sheriff's Office and reviewed by a qualified ballistics expert, the Department is recommending that these measures be approved as conditions of approval for modification of the use permit and is not recommending the inclusion of the Office of Education's Ballistics Expert's additional measures. However, the project has two opposing experts with conflicting opinions on what entails sufficient safety measures, and the Planning Commission has the discretion to adopt additional or alternative conditions of approval. In order to approve a modification, the development title requires at least one of six findings be made in the affirmative. In this case here, the department recommends that findings number two, three, and six can be made in the affirmative as discussed in the staff report. This photo depicts the shooting stations at the range with a wooden mock-up safety canopy. If the modification is approved, the actual safety canopies will incorporate steel plates. This photo depicts the mock-up safety canopy with an eight and a half inch ballistic bench that would also be installed at each station to further prevent fired rounds from leaving the property. It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the recommended actions shown on the slide and included in the staff report. This concludes staff's presentation, thank you.

Thank you, any questions for staff at this time? All right, then the applicant or their representative now can come forward. And when you do, please state your name and your address for the record.

Thank you. John Swan, President, Manteca Sportsman's Club, 30261 South Airport Way, Manteca, California. I would like to introduce the team with me tonight and as they are better addressed to respond to the Office of Education's experts' recommendations. With me tonight I have Lee Smith, 30-year partner with Macellan Associates. He represents over 200 ranges and clubs. He is a 10-year prior member of the National Rifle Association Range Committee as well as the Resource Book Committee. Also Don Saba, National Rifle Association, 26-year board member for the National Rifle Association. He also for the last 26 years has been the chairman of both the NRA Range Committee as well as the Range Sourcebook Committee. And finally, Jerry Clark from the California Rifle and Pistol Association. He is the Range and Range Safety Officer Training Director. So at this point, I'd like to turn it over to Don Saba as he can better address the concerns.

Good afternoon. I've been on the NRA range development committee for over 26 years.

Could you state your name and your address for the record? Thank you.

I wanted to bring this closer. I'm Don Saba. I'm in Tucson, Arizona. I am on the Board of Directors of the NRA, and my work on the Board of Directors has been directed towards seeing to it that people have a safe place to shoot, and we do that through the NRA Range Development Committee. That committee has oversight over all of NRA's range development guidance. So whatever you see out there, we have oversight. We make decisions on what goes out and how to word it and make sure that we have accurate information. I've been on that committee for 26 years now and during the course of that 26 years, I've worked with a number of experts from all different fields, from military and academic. And so, as Mr. Swan pointed out, We recently have revised NRA's range guidance, revised it to update and modernize it and to remove ambiguities in there. One of the most important things about range design is there is no standard one size fits all for a shooting range because shooting ranges vary. Across the country you have different weather different wind patterns different rains different soil conditions and so we have to Not try to have a one-size-fits-all answer, but rather tailor that answer to what is At hand what is being considered? so with that background, I visited the Manteca Sportsman's Range. I looked at their proposal for the canopies and it's reminiscent of some work I had done over the past number of years in developing concepts just like that for shooting ranges that are adjacent to communities where there are people some point downrange. And from what I saw with the canopy, now it's a prototype, but I see what the design is there, and the design is to have a sloped armor plate, and behind that sloped armor plate, a person is sitting on a bench, resting down like that, and the sloped armor plate intercepts any bullets that might go above the backstop. So you've got this, design that is intended to, when you sit under it, you can't see any sky above you. You just see that portion of the backstop where the targets are. And on my examination of that, it reminded me of some experimentation I had done years ago. And I find that that is a satisfactory method for bullet containment. Now, there has been, I've seen a report by Mr. Westenberg in which he seems to agree with me. He has said that he believes that kind of a shooting facility, that canopy, he even suggested that the gun club should go forward with that. For the next three to five years, he felt it was safe enough to be there for the shooters and not a danger to anybody. So I was a bit concerned then when I saw the suggestion, well it's safe for three to five years and somehow after that it's not gonna be safe. But the proposal, the proposal was to replace the canopy with this no blue sky concept. When we revised our NRA source book just a few years ago, I chaired that committee, we got rid of that term, no blue sky, because what does it really mean? It means you can't see the sky, but from where? From where can't you see the sky? There's no definition, really. We removed that term because it's not, It's not accurate. For example, you're on a shooting range and you're standing up shooting. I look up, I don't see the sky. But then I fall to a prone position on the pavement. And I look up, I can see the sky. Depending on how you set your baffles up, you can defeat a no blue sky. So it doesn't really mean anything. When you just say no blue sky, well, no blue sky for what? I belabor that only to point out that it's not a useful concept without definition. I saw the report. I didn't see any definition of what actually that proposed range would be. How is it laid out? I saw nothing. I didn't see anything that would allude to what kind of baffles you would have, how many baffles there would be. I was only left to my recollection about what shooting range baffles are all about. And I'll tell you this, a shooting range baffle generally is about four feet tall, and in this case 130 feet wide, and it's filled with gravel or concrete or steel. Think about this, 130 foot long, four feet high, and now you elevate that up in the air, eight feet high to 12 feet high, eight plus four is 12. This huge thing up in the air, that's just one baffle of what I suspect is being alluded to in the report, but he didn't flesh it out. What is the report? You can't tell what he's suggesting. But let's just say, if you were to have just one baffle, and there's no way you're gonna have what I'm presuming he means by no blue sky. You can't do it with just one baffle. You gotta have four or five or six baffles. Think about this, 130 feet long, four feet high, elevated 12 feet in the air. What's gonna happen when the wind blows? And it's not gonna be even like that. It's gonna go like this because it's 130 feet long. The thing vibrates and vibrates and vibrates. And what's gonna happen when you get high winds? Well, it depends on what's below. What about the soil? Remember I talked about the soil, all these things. If this, my understanding of the soil, where the Manteca Gun Club is, it's very unusual. You've got water down at 60 feet. You've got San Joaquin River going by there. And when the water builds up during flood season, that pressure pushes the water up above the ground level. You've got two feet of water. So what you've done is you saturated from 60 feet below all the way up. You've got saturated silt. saturated silt is mush, how do you put concrete pilings, how do you put steel in the ground that's gonna hold those baffles that are wobbling like that in the wind? I believe that proposal is unreasonable, it's untenable, it's just not, that's not the way to go. I don't see it as practical at all. I think that the, Canopies are really your best solution here. Now yes, you do need to have range masters out there. Now I'm a certified range safety officer. I can train range masters. I can say that we train the range master to look for trouble, look to see who might be troublesome. If you see someone come on the range and they're just sauntering around, they got a gun in their hand and they're sweeping everybody with their gun, that guy's not gonna shoot. he's gonna go because you don't sweep people with your gun. The rule is you don't go into your shooting, well, when you go into your shooting booth, you bring your gun, the gun is in a case. Once you're in the canopy, then you would open it up and then you could commence shooting. I believe that the range safety officers are astute enough to keep an eye to make sure nobody does anything that's gonna be a problem. Now we've had range safety officers for years on shooting ranges and they do a really good job. I've served as a range safety officer and I have had a few occasions where I had to stop people from what they were doing. But I think in summary, I think that the canopies are really a best solution, they're a safe solution. And I favor them. I think they do a good job. Thank you very much for letting me talk over time. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them.

I've got a couple. Okay, so. The berm that is out there, I think in the report from armed professional consultants did state that it needed to repair the impact.

Could you speak louder? I'm having trouble hearing you.

Yeah. Part of the recommendations from the county's expert is to repair the impact of the berm. I can answer that one for you.

Yeah, at one point, one of the county departments added some surface dirt onto the front face of the berm. It contains some larger chunks of rock and debris, and it's something we've long identified while this project's been going on, and we know we need to go through there and remove those larger pieces. We have not done that at this point yet because this process has been going on for four years and so we wanted to make sure things were actually going to move forward and we will also address that so that the berm substance is suitable for the backstop.

Okay, so was that part of the recommendations from staff that the berm be repaired?

It's not included in the recommended conditions approval. However, the Planning Commission does have the discretion to add that.

Thank you. Another one of the recommendations, you talked about the steel canopies, and I believe you guys are suggesting it be used with 3-8 inch AR-50 rated steel plate. Is that correct? Our plans were for AR-400 plating. Oh, that's correct. You're right. I didn't read further. It says the use of AR-400 rated steel is not adequate for rifle caliber rounds. In your expert opinion, is that correct, sir?

I'm sorry. I was having trouble hearing you.

OK. Part of the recommendation is if they go forward with the steel canopy, they're going to use AR-400 rated steel. The recommendation from the County Office of Ed's expert says that that is not adequate for rifle caliber rounds. Is that something that you're familiar with?

I am familiar with that and I would like to comment on that. Typically, the AR rating of armor plate is based on a 90 degree attack angle. The bullet shoots 90 degrees to the AR. And that's how the rating is developed. But here, in this design of the canopies, you don't have a 90 degree impact. You've got a slope, a long slope like that. And when the bullet strikes, it's striking at a really oblique angle there and it's deflected downward if it hits that. So... As an analogy, I don't know if some of you World War II buffs, during World War II, one of the big reasons why the Russian army was able to defeat the German army was because they had a T-34 tank that had sloped armor on it. And the German anti-tank rounds were just bouncing off of it. It's because it was sloped. it would bounce off. But if it were straight like this, it would have penetrated. The Russians were smart. They angled their armor. And so the same is true here. I believe that. Actually, I have tested just mild steel plate, and I can deflect a high-powered rifle off a mild steel plate, too. But I'm not suggesting you go to mild steel plate. I think AR-400 is just fine for this purpose. With that long sloping angle on there, I think it'll do just fine.

Anybody else have any questions?

Thank you again.

Thank you very much. Am I right? Is that, at this time, I believe we're gonna go into those who are proponents. Are you an expert, sir? Yes. Oh, forgive me.

My name is Jerry Clark. I'm the California Rifle and Pistol Association, Fullerton, California. Just to reiterate what Don had just said, the RSOs are required prior to any shooting event to actually go over the safe gun handling rules, as well as tell them how the rules are on the particular range. We're not going to see anybody unloading their firearms incorrectly, because if we do, we're gonna remove them from the range. So as far as range safety officers, I think they refer to them as range masters. There's two different levels of range safety officers. There's your range safety officer, operate the range itself. And then you have chief range safety officers that operate from the facility standpoint. So we always make sure that everything coming on the line is unloaded. no magazines, and ammunition is separate. So for them to come on the line with anything different, we're not going to allow them there. So from my standpoint, I've trained over 1,000 RSOs here in California, and my guys will not allow anybody to come on the line like that.

Have you trained anybody from this gun club?

Yes, I have.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, so that this time, anybody who's a proponent of this item can now come forward and you can speak for three minutes. Is there anybody who would like to come and speak in favor? Proponent in favor of this item?

Good evening, board members. My name is Larry Mendoza, and I am a resident in the city of Manteca. Because of all the doxing occurring, I do not care to give my address because of my former profession. I'd like to talk about the investigation. It's my understanding that when the initial report was made that a bullet supposedly was seen hitting the ground at the facility, the officer responded could find no evidence, no evidence of a bullet. All subsequent reports of bullets being found at the facility, is my understanding, came from one person multiple times. and based on my profession in the past, that kind of raises a question. Okay, secondarily, the issue is about long range shooting. I've been doing long range shooting since 2008. I've set up multiple guns for myself and others. A long-range shooter at Manteca Range is only there for one purpose. He's there to shoot and see that his bullets and his loads are adequately accurate sub-MOA, which is an inch in rifle terms. Anybody that's affiliated with firearms knows exactly what MOA is. I have a 1,000-yard shooting rifle, and if I went to the range and inadvertently had turned my turret, it's 22 minutes clicks on that rifle. Okay, at 100 yards, that's 21 inches, far below the level of a eight-foot levy. So that gun would never shoot over that levy. So to say it's a long-range shooter issue, it is not. and I know they've had experts in ballistics, but anybody that does any type of shooting, even long-range shooting, ballistics is a variable. It depends on the ballistic co-efficiency of the bullet, temperature affects it, elevation affects it, so there's so many variables, and the velocity of the bullet. So I don't believe that you can come here and say, oh, this is the standard. All the repairs that are being done, I support. I've been shooting at the Manteca range for 25 years. I am not a member, but I do use the facility. And the issue is safety. and I believe the range is doing everything it can to provide that level of safety for the shooting public in San Joaquin County. I think this board should be looking at something else and that is the use permit for that school. For them to build that school 1,557 yards, Directly south or north of that range That's that's negligent as far as I'm concerned if the Board of Education has a concern for the safety of children They should relocate that to another site here in the county and I'm sure there's multiple sites I think that's the solution if they're truly concerned about the safety of the kids that range has been there since what 1964 So anyway, my point is that I think if they're truly sincerely interested in the safety of those kids, they would relocate that facility and eliminate this issue altogether. Okay, thank you.

Someone else would like to come forward and speak in favor of item number one?

Hello, everyone. My name is Jaspreet Singh. I'm a member of Manteca Sportsmen Club. I've been shooting there for quite some time. And one observation that I've seen, I've gone to other shooting places as well across California and other states. I have found one of the best range masters at Manteca Sportsmen. I have compared them to multiple ranges I've been to. I go to Sacramento. I go to Lodi. and a lot of other ranges in California. One of the best range masters in terms of keeping everybody safe. I've seen this at place. That is why I became a member and I take my kids there for shooting as well and they love it. It's a very nice environment to shoot and safe environment. I feel safe when I'm there and that's all I wanted to say. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else like to come forward and speak in favor of this item at this time? Come on down, as they say.

My name's Kevin Kirkpatrick. I live in Ripon, a member of the club for well over 10 years. I'm a range safety officer out at the club. And one of the things that had been going on is finding bullets at the school grounds. The biggest thing that's not being answered is where are they coming from? Who's doing it? And where is that information coming from? And where is the proof that those bullets are coming from our facility? And none of that is being addressed. Where's the proof for these bullets? And where are they coming from? And that's all I got, thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone online would like to speak in favor of this item?

No.

All right, so at this time, the opposition to this Item can now come forward and speak.

Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Mike Hakem, 3414 Brookside Road in Stockton. I'm here tonight to represent the San Joaquin County Office of Education. I'm here with Anthony Flores and Annie Cunio from the county office. The county office operates the year-round Durham Ferry facility as an outdoor education center and a charter school with 80 students and multiple classrooms with a working farm and an active horse arena. A public park has been at this location since 1971. The park was originally owned and operated by the county and it was given to the Office of Education for the existing charter school. We are approximately three fourths of a mile away from the rifle range. As you know from the staff report, the rifle range is currently under enforcement and is closed pending further safety improvements. The staff report confirms, contrary to testimony earlier this evening, the staff report confirms that the Sheriff's Department, this is in the staff report, the Sheriff's Department confirmed that the bullets that were found at the school site came from the shooting facility in the gun range. So that's in page three, I think, of your staff report. The staff report evaluates a public nuisance given the frequency of the projectiles leaving the site. Staff originally brought this before you as a revocation of their use. What's before you tonight is something a little different which we'll deal with obviously throughout the evening. The levee and the school site create an extremely dangerous situation and a potentially lethal situation for children and students and teachers. The staff report documents three staff recommendations to upgrade the rifle range for safety considerations. And we agree with those three recommendations. We have some of our own before I close. I'll give you a chance to hear those from our expert who's online tonight. The staff report contains a copy. It was interesting to read the staff report and the copy of the use permit. The use permit that's on file is a use permit for a pistol range. A pistol range was the application for the use permit, not a gun range, and certainly not a rifle range. The actual use permit that's been issued by the county that's being held by Manteca Sportsman is a pistol range use permit and not a gun or rifle range permit. So tonight is really the first hearing that's being held to determine whether rifles should be allowed at that site. They've never been reviewed publicly before and staff has never evaluated the rifles separate from the pistol range. The use of the rifles is certainly not grandfathered with the pistol use permit. Therefore, tonight will be your opportunity to decide what are the appropriate conditions, what are the appropriate conditions of approval for the rifle range. We have retained a well-respected and experienced consultant who'll be giving you his proposed recommendations for four additional conditions. Unfortunately, he was unable to make his flight. The plane was delayed in Phoenix and he was unable to be here in person, but it's Jerry Rustenberg, Jason, excuse me, Rustenberg, and Jason is online if we could have the clerk patch and jason i'd like to have jason present his response to the earlier comments from the club as well as giving you his recommendations for approval with his additional conditions of approval and i'll reserve my brief comments at his closing mr chairman thank you can we put the expert online please

Okay, Jason, you can unmute yourself.

There we go. Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, we can. Go ahead, please. Okay, sorry about that.

My name is Jason Wiesenberg. I live at 6108 West Gambit Trail in Phoenix, Arizona. I WAS CONTRACTED BY THE OFFICE OF EDUCATION TO CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF MANTIKA SPORTSMEN'S PROPOSED CORRECTIVE MEASURES, WHICH INCLUDED THE NEWLY DESIGNED SAFETY CANOPY AND UPDATED OPERATING PROCEDURES. IN ORDER FOR ME TO EVALUATE THE CANOPY, I NEEDED TO EVALUATE ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE RANGE AS A WHOLE. So the evaluation included a review of documents that was provided to me, an onsite inspection, analysis of the proposed canopy mock-up, interview with the club president, and then a review of applicable industry standards and range development guidance. So when I went out there and looked at the range, first thing I noticed is I did a full walk of the range, checked out the berm, And the berm was what I estimated to be about 10 to 12 feet high. That's not unusual, but it should be the NRA's recommendation when you don't have a natural backstop beyond the range, their recommendation is that it's a 20 foot high berm. And so the Manteca range does not have, there's not a natural backstop, like a large hill or a mountain that's beyond the berm. So, In my opinion, the berm height is not adequate enough at 10 to 12 feet. So the other thing I noticed out there is that it had larger rocks and whatnot, and the president's already addressed that, so I'll move on. Next, I went and looked at their wooden mock-up of the canopy, the proposed canopy. And took pictures of it, sat behind it, all that good stuff. And the angle of the canopy, I don't have an issue with the angle of the canopy. It looked like when I sat behind it that it matched up with the top of the berm and so forth. So my concerns with it was when I saw that it was being made with AR400, I asked why it was not being made with AR500, which is a harder steel. And the response I got was that they were told the AR-400 was appropriate and was fine. I will tell you that whenever you talk about steel and rifle rounds, using rifles, AR-400 is never part of the conversation. It's always AR-500 or AR-550. And while I don't disagree that an angled shot or a ricochet off the AR 400 would not penetrate, there's a high probability that it would deform the metal in some manner because it is softer. So just the safest route, the safest route is to go with an AR 500 anytime you're dealing with rifle caliber rounds. So that was my recommendation for that. The other immediate concern I have with the concept of the canopy is with it being all steel on both sides and being boxed in, the gun report within that box is going to be like an echo chamber. The report can either go forward or backwards towards the shooter. So I don't know why it was not considered to be skeletonized, meaning just have the top barrier and then put it on four legs, whether it be steel legs, wooden legs, whatever, and just open it up to help dissipate the recoil because I think there's going to be an increase having spent many years in indoor ranges and that kind of thing. I think there's going to be an increase in sound percussion that's going to be angled back towards the shooter. So that was another concern. My ultimate concern with the canopy was the ability for someone to defeat it, meaning all they had to do was stand up and shoot over the top, step over to the side and shoot around it and so forth. So while most shooters shouldn't do that and may not do that, the possibility exists. And the goal here is to reduce those possibilities, in my opinion. So that's where it comes into play about the number of, and they've used three different terms so far in testimony, range master, chief range safety officer, and range safety officer. Three different titles. They all have three different purposes. What I'm most concerned about is the frontline range safety officer. If these canopies are going to be used, you need to have a one to five ratio, meaning one RSO for every five shooters. I believe that range, if I remember correctly, is 12 or 14 positions wide, shooting positions wide. One RSO or one chief RSO or one range master cannot manage that. The scope of controllability is too hard. They won't be in a position to intervene if somebody is to do something that they shouldn't be doing. So that is why I made my proposal of having a 1 to 5 or 5 to 1, however you want to look at it, ratio if they're going to implement the canopy as their standard. Now, the standard for, first off, regardless of who was there first, a range, a community, or whatever, The range has the ultimate responsibility of ensuring that no rounds leave the range, regardless of what's been built up around them. So it's their responsibility that every round fired stays within the range. And it's not so much the people who are good shooters who are going to purposefully hit the impact zone, it's for the accidentals that go off, which I have seen my fair share of that. You know whether it be a light trigger on a rifle the safety wasn't on the finger was actually on the rifle or on the trigger when they moved it and a shot goes off while the barrel is elevated. That is what the design wouldn't that's the purpose of a no blue sky range. And I'm going to use that term the NRA may have changed it. I went to the I went to the class 15 years ago have the manual whatnot. So it's possible that they updated and changed the term. But the the concept of the no blue sky range

is still present. Sir, you're over your time limit. Can you sir wrap it up real quickly?

Okay, I apologize. I didn't realize that. So the bottom line is, it's not my job to come up with no blue sky range design. My recommendation was that a no blue sky range be in place, that the canopies be used for three to five years as a AS A SHORT-TERM SOLUTION TO ALLOW THE RANGE TO BE OPEN AND THE CLUB TO GENERATE MONEY, GENERATE REVENUE UNDER TWO CONDITIONS. AR500 IS USED AND THEY HAVE A ONE TO FIVE RATIO. BUT I DO NOT CONSIDER THAT CANOPY AS A PERMANENT LONG-TERM SOLUTION. IT CAN BE EASILY DEFEATED. NO BLUE SKY RANGE IS THE BETTER WAY TO GO.

THANK YOU. Mr. Hagan.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief in my closing. Our position and recommendation to this commission is that public safety needs to override all other considerations, including expense. National standards should control and San Joaquin County should not be liable for not adhering to accepted national standards. The three to five year extension for the No Blue Sky is an appropriate compromise for the title flight rifle range to reopen. I would also remind the commission that the berm is approximately 10 to 12 feet and the national standard is a 20 foot berm. So we start with a berm that's about half the size of a normal-sized berm, which is another reason to militate in favor of the blue sky canopy. I'm going to hand out two handouts, Mr. Chairman, and I'll close. One is our experts recommended four conditions, which will be in front of the Commission for consideration, and the other is copies of the facility showing the bullet holes. Thank you. Thank you for allowing me to make this presentation regarding this matter and we're available for any questions, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, any questions?

Thank you.

All right, thank you again. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition of item number one? You know, Mr. Hagum, I do have a question Yeah, it goes back to the statement you made about, and I'm sorry to make you come back down here. So you stated, correct me if I'm wrong, the pistol range only has a, the club only has a permit for pistols, is that correct?

That's correct, that's correct. It's in the staff report. under use permit application and it indicates request is for a pistol range. That was the request signed by John Sonoya or Soroya back on July 15th of 64. The use permit staff report indicates that it's a request for a pistol range and they evaluate the pistol range at the location and the actual use permit itself indicates that it's for a pistol range, not a gun range, and certainly not a rifle range. So tonight is the first night for a hearing on the rifle range.

Interesting. Is staff aware of that? The club is permitted?

Sure. So through the chair, when we process that land use permit, it was to, let's see, add the pistol range on the existing property. And then we said that the subject property already has an existing rifle range at the east end of the property. So it was not evaluated necessarily under this land use permit, but it was recognized as already existing on site prior to 64.

All right. Is there anyone else online who wants to speak? Okay. So now we're going to bring it back for rebuttal from the applicant or their representative.

Thank you once again. There's been some comment here by several people, two people. They keep saying that the NRA says that a backstop needs to be 20 feet high. No, the NRA range guidance does not say the backstop must be 20 feet high. I know this because we wrote the book on that. What this NRA range guidance says is that a backstop can range anywhere from 10 feet up to 20 feet, up to 20 feet. It goes on to say that that up to is decided on a case by case basis. depending on, as I said before, we don't have a one size fits all for shooting ranges. we decide on a case-by-case basis what that backstop height should be. And a lot of those cases we look at is things like a canopy would be a factor in deciding how high that backstop would be. I went out there and looked at it today, back from the 100 yards, and it looked just fine to me. The people shooting in the canopy are shooting right down to the toe of that backstop. And that backstop I had, my colleagues here he's he's taller than i am so i had him go down there and i could estimate how many of him high is that backstop and i was guessing in some places 12 feet in some places maybe 14 feet but the idea is is that if you're shooting down low in the backstop the backstop height is not what's critical it's just where you strike it because you're not going to you're not going to the bullet's not gonna climb the backstop and go over it. So that issue there, we do not state the backstop must be 20 feet, nowhere. Thank you very much.

But you would agree that the rocks, and I think you did, sir, it needs to be fixed. The burn itself needs to be fixed.

I'm having trouble hearing you, I'm sorry.

The burn itself needs to be fixed. It has to have the rocks and it has to have some some type of, they're recommending 24 inches of some type of soil, silted soil so it'll absorb the bullet?

The backstop should be cleared of all those big rocks, absolutely. It needs to be cleaned up.

Those rocks in question were deposited there after the range was closed. So they were not there pre-existing when it was open. Do you know by whom? I do not. The former club president received a call from I'm not sure which county department that they had excess material that they could provide and dump on the face of the berm. Typically, we want to make sure it's clean, and they apparently came out and dumped that, and after it was dumped, it was discovered that it wasn't good clean. But that did happen after the range was closed down, and we are fully aware and intend to clean that up. Thank you.

Did I answer everything, or did you have another one?

You seem to be the only one asking questions today, people. No, I'm good. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Rebuttals over. We're good. Okay. I'm going to close the hearing and bring it back to the commission to discuss and make a decision.

Chair, if I may. So this thing falls under my district, which everybody has the right to make a decision. I just wanted to put it on the record that I was at the school yesterday in the morning, and I spent some time going around, driving around, and also walking around to see where the kids go and sit and other activities that are being done there. So referring to this page here where it shows the bullet holes, I was shown that by the teacher who was there the day this incident happened a few years ago. There is one in the drainpipe. There's couple on the door on the portable room number five and also some in the just the walls She did explain to me what happened how it was thought that there was a shooter on Site did not know where the bullets were coming from. It was a horrible and a scary scene that being said I Support the gun range. I big supporter of Second Amendment. Again, that being said, I think public safety overrules everything. It's little kids going over there. It's a school that offers a lot of things besides just regular study, like math, science, or English. It is outside curricular activities, like there's horses there, farming. And I saw a couple of kids trying to learn how to use a tractor and things like that. I'm personally putting this on the record that this was very disturbing to see this kind of bullet holes at a classroom door. Even though this matter is four years old, again, on the record, I support small businesses. I'm myself a businesswoman, and I support the gun range because it's a beautiful place to do your training. And that place is not really for training. It's for, I think, other purposes like, you know, recreational purposes. Somebody can say that, you know, okay, this is for personal thing where you can say that, hey, why did the school come there after this and who came first? The gun range was there first. I also understand that. It's really disturbing. I usually don't get disturbed by things like this. I'm pretty different when it comes to matters like this. But seeing this personally yesterday and spending some time there, we drove around. We also, like I said, I'm repeating myself, we walked around, we did drive around, did talk to some people over there, and this thing is still existing. I don't know why they're keeping it there, maybe to have a proof. I would like to get this thing taken care of by whoever needs to pay for this and this thing should be not there because it's like a visible thing for the students. It's public safety matter. It's not a matter of how high the burn should be or who said what. with respect to both the parties, I really, really am disturbed by what I saw yesterday. I just wanted to put that on the record that I was there, I spent some time there. I understand where the gun range is and I understand where the Durham Ferry School is. This cannot be happening. And when they say they don't know where the bullets came from, whoever is saying, it's been said that by the sheriff's report that the bullets came, if you go by the trajectory of the bullet, it shows where the bullets came from.

Did you say that was two years ago? Those rounds went in two years ago?

No, sir. I said a few years ago. Yeah. So that's what the teacher was there who was teaching the class that day, the one that I spoke to yesterday. So I just wanted to put that on the record that I was there. I did talk to the teacher. I did talk to a couple of the people over there. So a disturbing thing to look at, definitely. Thank you.

I heard on one end, and I don't know who the question is for, but I'll go through the chair. I heard somebody talk about the guidelines of the NRA, but I also heard guidelines from the national. Is national the same as the NRA, or are there federal national guidelines for this? No, I think that who brought the national ones was the school district.

It was the county.

I'll go through you if, yeah, you want him to answer it?

Yeah, we'll get your interpretation, then we'll get the interpretation from the county office.

what I was referring to was what we as the National Rifle Association proposed. Remember NRA was founded in 1871 to promote marksmanship and to promote gun safety. And so true to that charge, that's what I've been talking about. National Rifle Association is the a preeminent producer of information about safe shooting and safe gun ranges. There is no national governmental body that is providing shooting range design. There are military bodies, but those military bodies talk about a very special kind of a shooting range. kind of a shooting range where you've got guys shooting .50 caliber armor-piercing machine gun fire at armored vehicles. That's a totally different kind of gun range than what we do. So there is no real national certification. There's NRA certification and that's it.

Did you have a question? I do. I'm trying to understand. So there are no federal standards for for any type of gun ranges in the United States, such as the Sportsman Club? Yeah, are there local ordinances? Do they?

Sorry, I'm sorry, I missed what you said. Could you say that again, closer?

There's no federal standards on how a gun range should be operated?

Yeah, yeah, there is a section in our guidance about operation of a shooting range. And it talks about range safety officers. It talks about the way the shooting sessions are conducted. See, typically when you have a shooting range, you've got everybody on the firing line, they're shooting, then the range master calls ceasefire. Okay, now everybody must unload their guns, open the actions. And the range master goes down the line, make sure every gun is unloaded. Okay, then he calls target change, period. And that's, everybody goes down range and he has, the range master has to make sure there's nobody behind the benches, nobody touching a gun. they go down range and they change their targets. Because you know, the targets get full of holes, they need a new target, right? So that is part of the operation of a shooting range. Is that the answer, does that answer your question? That there's a design of how the range is operated?

So did you dispute the claim that you should have one range officer per five shooters ratio?

Are you saying what the other person recommended?

I'm asking the question, yeah.

What I think.

Right.

On this range here, I think you have two shooters for the entire range, or two, excuse me, two range masters for the entire range. I believe there's 14 positions there. I would say two is plenty for that range there. Is that all? Yes. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the commission, I would respectfully request we give Mr. Jason Wustenberg an opportunity to respond to the question of national standards. He's also an expert, and he's still online, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Yeah, I'd like to hear from him as well.

Jason, I've unmuted you.

He's still on. Hello, can you hear me? We can now.

Okay, sorry about that again.

So in regards to the comments that were made, first of all, address the national standard aspect. The NRA, when they make recommendations, for instance, the berm height should be 20 feet when there's no natural backstop behind it. Those are they announce those as recommendations. And when you have several agencies and entities that follow those recommendations and no other national organization challenges those or comes out with alternatives, the recommendation becomes the standard. So that's often referred to as this is the NRA standard or this is the national standard because several other entities have built their berms in the same manner. In regards to the... the one to five ratio. So the one to five ratio is a law enforcement standard that we use Arizona Post. I believe the NRA law enforcement division advocates for it. So does the National Law Enforcement Fire Instructors Association. So that is a standard that is used with trained individuals, people who have been through a police academy or 50, 60 hours of firearms training, continuing training every year. And that's a standard they use to maintain range safety, one to five during the day, one to three at night. And so on a public range or a private range, without knowing what the skill level of the individuals are that are on that range, I think going above a one to five ratio increases risk.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions?

Chair, just to clarify, so are we saying that we are going with the NRA standards because there are non-documented national standards to go with? Is that the main question that we were trying to get answered?

That's not how I interpreted that. Go ahead.

See, I've been trying to really look at this to be fair to the gun range, but most of all, keep the safety of our kids number one. So if there was a national standard, then that would make it easier than for me. You know, I've been to the school. I know exactly what it's like out there and everything else. So that was where I was coming from in terms of that. Now, I'm going to put the who came first to rest, because I'm 75 years old, guys, and I can tell you that the rifles in the 1960s are not the same as the rifles in the 2000s. So a lot of things have happened. So whatever was determined in those days may not necessarily be what would be determined today. The whole question of pistol versus rifle, gives me some concern. But without jumping into a decision right now, I do have another question. I looked at your policies, which are very broad and very, they're not very sophisticated, I guess is what I'm trying to say. would the gun range be in opposition of, because one of the recommendations is policies and procedures. Now it does say here that they can be evicted from shooting if they can't do it, that this person is watching them, that they can't open their case. There's a lot of things, but again, you've got 14, is what I understand. I may have understood that this is 130 feet long. So without good policies and procedures, and at least one to five for the safety person, it's kind of like an accident waiting to happen. Everybody here is probably the best of the shooters, but we know that that's not the case. So I would feel comfortable with policies and procedures that are a little bit more sophisticated and the one to five. But what I don't know and through the chair is if they would be willing to even look at those because in the responses, it's always that it's not necessary. Okay.

Would you be willing to accept some of the expert recommendations from the county?

What are you referring to?

Well, we'll take the rifle range. They'll develop, publish, and enforce policies related to the safe operation of the rifle range, including one to five range safety officers to shooter ratio.

So we do fully intend to revise our policies for the rifle range. Um, things change consistently and it's been four and a half years since it was last open. So as part of the process of moving forward, um, that will be also done. Um, as far as the, my understanding for the one to five ratio and what he was quoting as law enforcement ranges, my understanding of the one to five for law enforcement ranges is because of the type of shooting and training they are doing at those ranges. They're doing moving and shooting. They're doing tactical training. They're doing rapid fire. That is not the case at our range. We're talking about individuals at a seated position, single shot, no rapid fire. They're not moving from bench to bench. So that's my understanding of the one to five.

Okay. But you've heard... Two of the commissioners already brought up the safety, safety, which I believe you all are all for the same thing. The sir who spoke, he takes his sons to the range. So obviously safety's, I think, on all of our minds. And how do we make it so it's the safest it can be? And for me, the hardest part, I do believe in the Second Amendment, too. Believe it or not, I've asked a lot of questions where you're wondering if I've ever held a gun in my life. I have. I don't want accidents to happen, and I think we should take the most, and I know it's gonna cost money, and I'm sorry for that, but we should take the most extreme measures to make sure nothing ever happens.

Absolutely. And if, if one to five is the standard for us to have, we're fine with that. And we expect that even though we have 14 ranges, if we only had one RSO available to work, we would only have five lanes, maximum open. If we had two, then it would be 10 lanes. Um, safety is, and always has been, and always will continue to be our number one priority. Okay.

And if I could, In listening to everything, you know, I was listening to what this person would be doing, and I heard that, you know, if they're doing something wrong, they're called right there and whatever. And in my vision, it's 130 feet and 14 ranges. So I do agree 100% that one person, if all of those were open would not be enough.

And we never we were never proposing that it was strictly one person for 14 lanes just to be clear on that.

So the way I understand it is that you are in agreement of repairing the impact burn.

Yes.

That you are in agreement with the one to five and in the policies and procedures. Now where I'm still is I you know I mean I The whole, I don't understand the blue sky very well, so that makes me uncomfortable in making a decision. And of course the difference of the AR-500 and AR-400. I'm...

Correct me if I'm wrong, the AR-500 is a thicker piece of steel which would help deflection-wise?

I'm not a metal expert. It's not necessarily that it's thicker. It's, I believe, the process of how it's manufactured. The tensile strength's higher.

Yes. It would help in the deflection of a bullet, correct? It's a harder metal. Okay, it's not necessarily a thicker metal. It's a harder metal, the way it's forged or whatever. So I'm sorry, like Commissioner Rose, I see that we're We're halfway there.

Are you good with the 500?

We can do the 500.

I know it's more money, but I'm just to get this thing through.

It's not an issue about money. Again, like I said, our number one concern has always been safety.

You'd be putting out a 20-foot berm if it wasn't about money, right? Well, the berm's a levy. I don't think they'll let us raise the levy.

No, but and then could you explain, you know, the blue sky, no blue sky overhead baffles should be installed for a permanent long-term solution. Can you explain what that means again so we could understand?

understanding of no blue sky is from where you're at. You cannot visibly see blue sky. Okay. So not see the sky.

It encloses. It's your one.

Yeah. And baffles are one method. Um, there are minor standards. There are various methods of, of being able to do that.

That's what the canopy is for. You can't see sky.

So from the... You see burn, you see the target. If you're sitting at the bench shooting through the canopy, you cannot see blue sky. The front lip is at a lower elevation that is below the top of the levee and doesn't allow you to have a shot angled up that it would... go to blue sky.

Technically.

Now I know there's those who've had a concern that, well, somebody could stand up and shoot over it or shoot from the side. And that is reality. That is what our range safety officers are for. That is their job to ensure that people are following our rules. And we don't have, we have no tolerance for people who don't follow our rules because an accident in our industry can have catastrophic effects. So when we have people, depending on the severity of what they may have done, We'll have a conversation, we'll warn them, we'll talk to them, we'll correct them. But if it's a severe thing, thank you for coming out, but your day is done. If they repeat it, thank you for coming out, but your day is done.

It's open to the public and you still have members and then you have non-members come?

Correct. We are a nonprofit volunteer run club. since 1937 and we do have public access as well and what are your operating hours it depends on the day of the week i see mostly weekends uh saturdays eight to eight sundays eight to four mondays are nine to noon tuesdays were closed wednesdays 12 to 8 thursdays is 10 to 4 fridays is 10 to 8 i'm just trying to get the school hours yeah yeah

Let me ask a question through the chair, but this one's for staff. Has the county approved any other rifle ranges in San Joaquin County? I'm sorry.

Through the chair, I honestly cannot answer that. I personally have not seen any, and I've been with the county for 26 years, but there are other shooting ranges in the county. But as you can see, some of these are very old. So I with certainty could not answer that.

Yeah, and the reason I'm asking that is because if there was a pre-existing rifle before 1960, that's been many years. So I'm almost looking at this as this is the first time the Planning Commission is really putting a standard in terms of rifle ranges in San Joaquin County. So With that, I have to make a decision, I want you to have it, I really do, but I wanna make a decision understanding that if 20 others came up tomorrow, I can sleep at night, because I've been there, and that is, you know, and there's a lot of kids there, and by the way, they do field trips there. It's not just the kids that are there. It is kids coming from every other school, so there are not only field trips there for other schools, There are group events where they go and everything else. There's a lot of kids and youth that go there. So I want to make sure that whatever I approve, I can live with.

Mr. Chairman, because Blue Sky was our proposal, I would respectfully request Jason be given a couple of minutes to explain it. Commissioner Rhodes had a question. I don't think it got answered. I think the commission needs more information on the Blue Sky issue before you make a decision. Thank you.

Okay. I will grant it. Hopefully, Jason.

Jason, I've unmuted you.

Hello, can you hear me? Yes, go ahead, Jason. Tell us about no blue sky.

Okay, the concept of the no blue sky range is that from a fixed firing position, like a shooting line, there is a series of baffles that extend down the range so that no matter what position you shoot from, standing, kneeling, sitting, prone, that if a round should go off errantly in an upward trajectory, that it would strike one of the baffles. Now, How far apart those baffles are and how tall those baffles are really depends on the height of the berm, the construction. Again, that's an engineering issue. That's not my specialty. I've been on a number of ranges that have no blue sky range or no blue sky baffles. And some of them are linked together because there are high wind ranges. Some of them were made of wooden pea gravel, some were made with steel, some were made with concrete. But the idea behind that is that if it's from a fixed firing position, no matter what should happen, intentionally or accidentally, the round is kept within the range.

Does that answer your question?

Yeah, it's just no matter how we go, it just seems like all of the, I believe there's four recommendations from the expert from the county makes it where I can live with it.

I agree to that as well.

Can I add something further?

Yes, if it's brief.

Yes. So my recommendation for the use of the canopy for three to five years was a compromise to allow them to use the range to generate revenue, to give them time to do research, to get bids, to find ways to raise money or whatever for the ultimate goal of reaching a no blue sky range. I do not believe that those canopies is the answer for a permanent solution.

Okay, thank you. Can I bring it back to the commission? Comments? All right, so it's up to a commissioner to make a motion to accept the item as presented or you may make, I hope I'm saying this right, Council, you may amend the item. Is that correct?

That's correct. You can amend the conditions. Yes.

I would make a motion that we amend to include the recommendations by the expert report that the County Office of Ed Commission I'm a little nervous on that three to five year solution, but if he thinks it's fair. Okay.

Through the chair, could I interrupt for a minute? Making a condition that's three to five years is a little bit too in the middle for us. So maybe I would recommend say no longer than five years or three years just because that just leads a lot of.

Yeah, that makes sense. No more than five years.

Thank you.

Do I have a second to that motion?

Commissioner Rhodes, can you please repeat the motion?

Basically, it would be the recommendations of staff, but we amend it to include the recommendations of the report by the expert from County Office of Ed. So that means that use, let me go back, use of the safety canopies as a short-term solution not to exceed five years until a new blue sky baffle system can be installed using 3 1⁄8 inch AR500 plates instead of the AR400. develop, publish, and enforce policies related to the safe operation of the rifle range and make it two, I mean, make it the ratio of the one to five in terms of the range officer. I think I got them all. Oh, and repair the burn.

I'll second that.

Moved and seconded. Call for the vote.

Commissioner Rhodes. Yes. Commissioner Mules.

Yes.

Commissioner White. Yes. Commissioner Sangha. Yes. Commissioner Rustler. Yes. Motion passes 5-0.

All right. We shall move on to item number two. And just for the record, in case you'd like to appeal this decision, you have until August 17th at 5 PM. You guys want to take five minutes?

Sure, yes.

OK, we're in adjournment for five minutes. If, oh, we're waiting. If everyone could take their seats, we'll proceed to item number two.

Thank you. I have Principal Planner Megan Aguirre here to provide a presentation, and then we're available for any questions.

Okey-doke.

Okay. Good evening, chair and commissioners. This project consists of a variance to reduce the minimum lot size in the AG40 zone from 40 acres to five acres in a minor subdivision to subdivide an approximately 15 acre parcel into three parcels. The project site is located at the western terminus of Wiggum Street, 655 feet west of North Trethewey Road, east of Lodi, and is surrounded by scattered residences and agricultural land. The project has a general plan designation of general agriculture and a zoning classification of general agriculture 40 acre minimum. This is the tentative map submitted by the applicant. Proposed parcel one contains an existing single family residence and a barn. Additionally, a new single family residence is currently under construction on parcel two as an accessory dwelling unit. In 1908, a map was recorded for Crump Tract, which created parcels that were all approximately 10 acres in size. In 1974, a division of land approved a boundary line adjustment between two of those 10 acre parcels, resulting in a five acre parcel and a 15 acre parcel that met the zone minimum at that time. The adjusted 15 acre parcel is the subject of the current variance and minor subdivision applications. The current zoning, which has been in place since around 1985, is general agriculture with a 40 acre minimum. The variance application proposed to reduce the minimum parcel size from 40 acres to five acres in order to allow the underlying minor subdivision application to subdivide the approximately 15 acre parcel into three parcels, each to contain just over five acres. A revised tentative map was recently submitted to relocate proposed access to the existing private road, Wiggum Street, on the east side of the parcel. The Sierra Club and several neighbors in opposition to the project submitted written comments with the concerns listed on this slide and discussed in the SAF report. While most of these concerns would be addressed through recommended conditions of approval if the project were approved or are civil matters, the department agrees that land use concerns, particularly those regarding potential impacts to agricultural areas, affect the ability to make required findings for project approval. The department received a letter from the San Joaquin Farm Bureau Federation earlier today also expressing similar concerns. The Department of Toxic Substance Control submitted a letter recommending soil testing for agricultural areas that are proposed for residential use to identify potential contaminants. A surface and subsurface contamination report submitted by the applicant to the Environmental Health Department concluded that there are no contamination concerns. The development title states that several findings must be made in the affirmative prior to approving a variance or a minor subdivision. Variance findings include a determination that special circumstances exist, that the variance will not be detrimental to surrounding properties, will not confer a special privilege, and will not authorize a use that is not otherwise permitted on the property. Staff recommends that finding numbers one and three cannot be made in the affirmative because there are no special circumstances and approving the variance would be a grant of special privileges. The required minor subdivision findings include determining that subdivision is consistent with the county code, the site is physically suitable for the type of development and the proposed density, the subdivision won't cause significant environmental impacts or public health issues, and several findings pertaining to project specific design and improvements. Staff has reviewed the findings and has determined that minor subdivision finding number one cannot be made in the affirmative because the subdivision is not consistent with the general plan and development title which require a minimum lot size of 40 acres and a maximum density of one residence per 20 acres. Additionally, because the subdivision does not meet these requirements, the site is also not physically suitable for the proposed development and minor subdivision finding number two cannot be made in the affirmative. This photo was taken at the terminus of William Street looking onto the project site. It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the applications with the recommendations shown on this slide and included in the staff report. Alternatively, if the Planning Commission determines that the project should be approved, staff recommends that the Planning Commission make variance findings numbers one and three and minor subdivision findings numbers one and two in the affirmative and approve the recommended conditions of approval for the minor subdivision. Additionally, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting program. Thank you, this concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you. Any questions for staff? No. All right, so at this time, the proponent or the applicant may come forward and speak not to exceed 20 minutes.

Thank you. My name is Matthew Weber. Address is 3425 Brookside Road. Myself, along with MCR Engineering, is representing the applicant, Mr. Marino. And before I get to the findings, I want to give a little background kind of why we brought this to the commission tonight. Mr. Marino currently lives at the end of Wiggum Road. house right here, the green area right above the project site. Mr. Marino has lived in that house for 30 years. And prior to that, his father lived in the house and he purchased it from his father. He has raised his children there and he's known the neighbors who own the subject parcel for 30 years. When they passed away, he saw an opportunity, so he purchased it, and he purchased it for the sole purpose of putting his oldest son in the current residence, the ADU which is being built, where his youngest son will live in, and if the commission were to approve this application, his daughter would live on the third parcel. And so the purpose, and I tell you that just to explain why we're here, his intent is to keep the neighborhood, and what I'll go into in a minute, as it is, and and to really kind of live with his family and grandchildren. Now, we believe the findings can be made. And before I back up one thing, I would like to say that I really appreciated staff's assistance. I understand that their reluctance to make a recommendation, but they've been a pleasure to work with and very helpful through this process. The variance is reading requested because we believe it's actually compatible with the local area and the AG 40 maybe doesn't actually adequately represent the area. If you look at this, this is why I brought this. If you look at this area right here, What you see is from Highway 12 down Trethewey to Wiggum, there are over 30 parcels, none of which are larger than five acres. And, oh, thank you. And what you see is on Wiggum Road, all of those parcels are one acre parcels. On Trethewey, all of those parcels are one acre parcels. The two green parcels, which are to the north, Mr. Marino's parcel is about five acres. The other parcel that you use perpendicular to it is about five acres. And then the two green parcels on Twethaway, right in front of the project site, are five acres. And what we're proposing would equally match those two parcels. And so we believe that given... the way this has developed over the years and this until I think the early 80s was zoned AG5, which I think probably explains some of the parcels out there. And so we believe it would match the neighborhood. There wouldn't be any special treatment because what you're getting is essentially lining up with the current project and the current neighborhood. The parcel as it sits and as has it sat for the last 30 years has never been farmed. We don't believe it can be appropriately and commercially farmed because of what we just talked about with all the residences around. It's hard to get equipment in there. It's hard to do certain things in there. And so you can't really farm this 15 acre parcel because of basically the way it's been developed around it. Now, The parcel actually has two APNs. It's unclear. I think it was because of the previous merger of the lots, but it has two APNs, but I believe it's still technically one 15-acre parcel, and what we're asking is that it be turned into five-acre parcels. The parcels immediately across Trethewey, there's three-acre parcels in the blue there. Those were created in the 90s through a zoning variance as well. And so we believe that if you can make the findings that the five acre parcels will adequately line up with what you have in the current neighborhood, that the current ADU will become a standalone residence. And like I said, the opportunity for one more residence is that would be it. And I know there's been some opposition. We just got a letter from the Farm Bureau and I will point out that we don't believe this. And I understand the Farm Bureau's concern. This is not a 40 acre parcel we're carving up. This is not a parcel in the middle of larger parcels we're asking to be carved up. And it will not impact the parcels to the south or to the west, those can adequately be farmed. There's clear buffers between those. Those don't have any houses on them. Those are being farmed. This would not impact, this parcel has just never been farmed and given the size and the location cannot really commercially be farmed. And so we think that you should be able to make those findings. The only other real opposition was some neighbors. They were concerned. If you look from Highway 12, there's a white line where it says private access road. That road, there was some concern that these parcels were gonna use that road. These parcels have the right to, but they will not use that road. They'll come down Wiggum and then there'll be a, EASEMENT ACROSS THE THREE PARCELS THAT WILL BE WIDE ENOUGH OF 30 FEET TO ALLOW FOR FIRE SAFETY AND MEET ALL THE COUNTY REGULATIONS. THERE WILL BE A RECORDING ON THAT TO ALLOW FOR WHICH IS ONE OF THE CONDITIONS APPROVAL TO ALLOW FOR PRIVATE MAINTENANCE FOR ALL THE PARCELS. AND SO AGAIN WE WOULD ASK THAT you know you make the findings we have provided a handout that has this map for your consideration but it also has staff's findings but the two that they found is in the negative found in the affirmative and we would request that that you go ahead and adopt those findings if you feel feel appropriate if you have any other questions i'm happy to address those or mcr is here as well and they're happy to address those questions so the the

The items in purple, which was greater than 40, they're being farmed right now?

The items in purple we believe are being farmed right now. These ones clearly are not, I mean, they're not large enough to farm anything. Mr. Marino's is a home with nothing farmed on it, and there's nothing farmed here.

So... The sites that are... From Highway 12 down to Mr. Marino's line in green, those aren't being farmed?

On the green side?

Oh, they're grapes? Yeah, they're grapes. Okay.

All right. Okay. Yeah, behind on the west side, those are being farmed. I'm sorry if I misspoke. Those are being farmed as grapes. There's no homes on those behind those. This would not impact it as Mr. Marino's house is on the green right to the north. It doesn't impact. And where the houses sit, they'll be far enough back.

It's still one parcel, correct?

It is one parcel. That line, I believe, I'm not sure if you pull it up on San Joaquin, like the GIS, it will show that line, but we've talked with staff. It is not two parcels. They'll correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure. It would be three. Correct. There'd be another line that would match up with the two five acre parcels.

Yes.

Identical.

So the one that's got the line already has a house on it, right?

Yes, sir.

And an ADU, I believe.

Which would be parcel two. They're building an ADU, which would turn into a single-family residence.

I have a question. How many ADUs can be built in one parcel? Just one?

Yes, just one. You can have a primary house and one ADU, and then like one JADU also.

What is that?

A junior ADU would be built inside of an existing house. I just want to be thorough with it. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you.

But the intent was to make it three, five acres with a house on each. Is that right?

Eventually, likely, yes. There's currently a house on the one. There's an ADU, which would be a single family house on the second, partial two. Partial three is vacant. Likely, if things work out, that's where his daughter would build a home.

That means that if there was three parcels, there would be the potential of three homes and three ADUs. Okay.

What is the well water situation out there? For each parcel, is there a well?

Currently, the existing house has a well, and I believe a well was installed for the new ADU, yes. So each parcel would have its own well. which has gone through county environmental health.

Anybody else? Okay, so thank you, sir. Nice visual. So at this time, is there anyone else who'd like to speak in favor of this item, item number two. Anybody online? Okay, so we'll move along if anyone here wants to speak in opposition to item number two.

Hi, Andrew Genesee, Executive Director, San Joaquin Farm Bureau, 3290 North Ad Art Road in Stockton. Thank you for the time to address you on this. I realize that that area, there's a number of subdivisions were done back in the 80s and maybe early 90s. There's a reason why it was changed from AG 5 to AG 40 was to prevent the further subdivision of those areas, the further degradation of ability to keep those farming areas. I'm a firm believer that we cannot let poor decisions made in the past lead to having the same poor decisions made in the future saying that it's okay. At this point, I understand that property is not farmed, but if you split into three, three accessory units, that's a total of six. Heck, why not split into two and a half acre units? Now you've got six houses with another six accessory development units. So you can see how it just keeps going. We ended up with a subdivision without planning. It tells the neighbors that, hey, you're on 40 acres, why not split it into four tens? Why not split your 10 acres into two fives? You're telling everybody around there to just keep subdividing. I understand the family would like to do that. My dad lives on 40 acres right now. I've got three little brothers. When he passes away, it'd be great to take that 40 acres and each of us get 10, but that's not how it works in Ag Zone land. So I appreciate, I commiserate with the family what they'd like to do, but we cannot let poor decisions that were made in that area in the past lead us to make poor decisions in the future. I think that we need to protect the viability of Ackleson area by saying no more with the subdivisions, with putting stuff in farm zoned areas. So thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to speak in opposition? Okay, close the hearing and we will bring it back to the commissioners. You know what? Stop. We didn't close it. Do you want to rebut?

real quickly well i just realized this goes up and down which is kind of cool um but um i understand the farm bureau's concern and and i think that concern would be more valid if if we were trying to separate you know a 40 acre parcel or something that wasn't surrounded by these parcels i think that what you're if you approve this what you'd be doing is you'd really be matching the neighborhood i don't think it tells everybody that that it's fair game in the county that where you can split anything. I think what you have is a unique parcel that is in a area that has been subdivided and it's buried behind those houses and it really makes the most sense to do it this way. And so that would be our response. So thank you. Thank you. Sorry, I forgot some time.

So now I'm gonna bring it back to the commission for discussion and decision.

Unfortunately, I'm sorry, but I agree with staff. I don't have the expertise of staffs, but if it's not consistent with the general plan, that's my role as a planning commissioner is see if it's consistent or not.

Anyone else?

I agree with Commissioner Rhodes, so I propose that we make a motion to go with the staff's recommendation.

Second. Second. Is there any further discussion?

I second it. Yep, I hear you. Any further discussion? Okay, I'm going to call for the vote.

Commissioner White. Commissioner Rhodes. Yes.

Yes.

Commissioner Sangha.

Yes.

Commissioner Mules.

Yes.

Commissioner Rustler.

Unfortunately, yes.

Motion passes 4-1.

And you do have the right to appeal. What did I say? I've got to find my cheat notes here. You have until August 17th at 5 p.m. to appeal. this decision, and then it'll go to the board for them to make a decision. All right. That are the two items that are on the agenda tonight. So we'll now go to Planning Commissioner's comments, or other business, I'm sorry. Any other business? None? No? OK. Planning Commissioner's comments. Director's report.

Thank you, Chair Roosthaler, Jennifer Jolly, Director of Community Development, giving you a couple of updates for some board items. We had a truck parking facility with a general plan and zone reclassification off of Cherokee Lane that was approved by the Board of Supervisors at the last meeting, and this is the one I really wanna update you on. If you recall, a little, a month or two ago, we did a solar farm hearing, It did get appealed to the Board of Supervisors, and at the last minute, the applicant reduced the size of the proposal, and the Board voted to send it back to the Planning Commission for review. So we will be bringing that to you in the next couple of months for another hearing. And just wanted to let you know that's coming back. And the... Appeal of the, let's see, Nancy Amelia Court. Thank you. Off of Lammers in District 5, there was a religious assembly. It has been appealed to the Board of Supervisors. It will be going on September 15th. That concludes my report.

Thank you. I have a question, if I may. Sure. Real quick. I was listening to the Planning Commission, not the Planning Commission, the county supervisor's meeting. They did bring up that issue about that solar farm, the people who appealed it to the lady who had made some weird comments was also there. I did not get the full decision. What happened in the end for that?

The board, through the chair of the board, voted to send that back to the Planning Commission. So we as staff are going to be resending that out for notification to the public so that there can be the opportunity for them to weigh in on the new, because it's basically a new proposal. They were proposing to reduce it from 10 acres to six. approximately. I don't know that that will change anything for the neighbors, but they do have the opportunity to participate, and then we will bring the item back for your consideration again. Understood. Thank you. You're welcome.

It's back to me. Anybody else? All right. Well, then this meeting's adjourned.

Thank you.