Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Oh, yeah.

I'm an audible person. Yeah. Yeah, I listen to good ones. Yeah. Yeah. I've been listening to you. How do I walk in? So are you guys. There's a second chair over on the end there. Oh, wow.

Oh, wow.

It's fun to be able to sign it. It's fun to sign it.

Test, test. One, two, three.

Thank you.

Wow, you should be a coach.

Kids, I don't know if we can talk. I've had a rough day.

I want to tell them to get away.

Oh my gosh, you know what?

That's very structural.

You can go either way to get it.

This one. Right there. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

I think they said it was like $3 million. Thank you. Thank you.

A lot more than $250.

I guarantee you it was not.

Does this automatically, is this working? It's on.

I saw him over at the little boutique, and I just wanted to. Okay, so can you?

I was trying to see if it's working.

Is it working? Hello. It's working. I can hear it.

Hola, hola. Uno, dos, tres.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, I will go right on time because we're all here. I'll say good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Planning Commission meeting of July 9th of 2026. And I would ask the clerk to take roll, please.

Chair Hull?

Present.

Vice Chair Sangminetti?

Present.

Commissioner Graves?

Here.

Commissioner Oaks is absent. Commissioner Crowder?

Here.

Commissioner Amin?

Here.

Commissioner Hernandez? Here. We have a quorum.

Excellent. Okay, thank you. I would appreciate it. I'd like to have Commissioner Crowder, if you could do the flag salute, please.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice

All right. We'll move on to there are no consent items, I believe.

There are none, Chair.

OK. And so we'll move on to public comment. This section of the agenda is reserved for public comment on anything within the jurisdiction of the commission. If a member of the public would like to speak on a specific agenda item, they may do so here or later when the item is called. Do we have any blue cards?

We have no blue cards, Chair.

Okay, so we'll just move right along to number six. That's 6.1. That's under new business. This is a request for administration interpretation of non-conforming truck sales use at 2546 Turnpike Road. It's APN number 165261-25 and 165261-26. That's P260148. Can I call for any Commissioner disclosures at this time? Oh I actually drove by Pull the yoke pull you onto there and go by I already knew where it was. I didn't buy today, but I did have it So that's my my one and only disclosure so Then I would ask staff. This is a little weird because we're Ask staff to give a presentation. Are you going to go up? How's that work?

I'm going to try it from right here. Oh, OK. Good. That's why I was trying to figure out how we're going to see. We're all going to learn. It's a learning experience. Hey, and the remote works down here. Cool. Yes. OK, so we have to turn around. You got one on each side.

Yeah, I got one on each side.

OK. You have the floor. All right. We'll see how it goes. The current request is for a determination of non-conforming use for truck sales at 2546 Turnpike Road. This request is being forwarded to the Planning Commission in accordance with Stocking Municipal Code Section 16-08-030E, which allows the Director to forward any interpretation or determination directly to the Commission for consideration. The site in question is located at 2546 Turnpike Road, as I said, and consists of two parcels integrated as one site adjacent to low-density residential homes to the north and east. The aerial photo here was taken on March 8, 2025. The 2040 general plan designates the site as low density residential as did the previous two general plans in 1990 and 2008. The site currently is currently zoned RL residential low density as a result of a city initiated zoning change in 2022 to align with the general plan land use designation. The site was previously zoned industrial general IG and has a prior land use history of truck related business uses. For some background, I'll take a little bit of time here. 2546 Turnpike Road has a history of trucking-related uses on the site for over 25 years. According to city records, truck sales date back to at least 1998, with Acme Truck Parts and Equipment being issued a business license. At the time that use was established, it was in conformance to the parcel's allowed uses in its industrial zoning designation. The site retained its zoning designation of IG Industrial General in spite of being designated residential in the general plan because at the time, charter cities such as Stockton were not required to have zoning be consistent with general plan land use designations. Moving forward in time, on August 6, 2018, the Community Development Department determined in a letter to Pride Truck Sales that truck and trailer sales were classified as an auto and vehicle sales used land use, a use that was not permitted in the IG zone, but could continue to operate on the site as a legal nonconforming use. This letter informed the applicant that to retain the use's nonconforming status, that the use needed to be maintained on site, including obtaining a business license. This letter allowed Pride to obtain their business license for truck and trailer sales in October of 2018 as a non-conforming use in the IG zone. Also in 2018, the 2040 General Plan was adopted, continuing the low-density residential land use designation for the subject parcels. During the general plan preparation, state regulations changed requiring charter cities to have their zoning ordinances and land use designations consistent with their general plans. Following the general plan adoption, citywide general plan consistency rezoning efforts were initiated to change zoning to match with general plan land use designations on parcels throughout the city. On January 27th, 2022, the zoning for this property was changed from IG to RL, residential low density, to align with the general plan. Because the subject site's truck sales use was legally established and had not lapsed, the non-conforming status of the business was not changed at that time and continued under the new zoning designation. On September 30th, 2024, Pride Truck Sales failed to renew its business license and it expired. Staff has confirmed with business licensing that a notice was sent to the address on file notifying the business that their license would expire if not renewed. Upon expiration of the business license, the business ceased operating legally. As an aside, one year later in October of 25, as part of an effort to clean up expired business licenses, business licensing again mailed the business owner to see if an active business was still on the site before they deactivated the file entirely. No response was received and the file was deactivated in the city's system. Just over a month after the business license expired, the property owner's real estate agent emailed the city on November 7, 2024, to ask about continuation of the use. The city staff responded the same day, notifying the agent that the use was non-conforming and that, quote, it is important that the new owner gets their business license and continues the existing use on-site as soon as possible, as after 12 months, the truck sales will no longer be grandfathered in, close quote. The following summer, on June 3, 2025, Stockton City Council approved an ordinance amending the development code. Among the changes made were the removal of the auto and vehicle sales used land use and the addition of the large vehicle and equipment sales service and rental land use. The truck sales in question now falls under this new land use classification. This use is permitted in the IO and IG zones, subject to a use permit in the CG, CA, and CH zones, and is not allowed in all other zones, including the site's RL zone. This change in use category had no effect on the permissibility of truck sales on the property. On September 30, 2025, one year after the expiration of the business license, the non-conforming status was lost because it had been voluntary discontinued based on there being no legal truck sales business on the site for a period of one year. Planning staff received no further communication regarding 2546 Turnpike Road until January 8, 2026, 14 months after the previous communication and over 15 months after the business license expired and legal use of the site had ceased. In the January 2026 communications, Pride Group Enterprises requested that the city recognize the nonconforming status of truck uses on the site for the purpose of selling the property and were informed by staff that because the business license lapse and legal operations had not been present on the site for a period over one year, that the nonconforming status had been lost and could not be reestablished. The property owners are requesting a director's determination in conformance with Stockton Municipal Code section 16228020A4. to reestablish the truck sales use as a nonconforming use. The owners state that the site has retained its nonconforming status after their business license expired. They assert that bankruptcy and the required soil remediation to sell the property has delayed the ability for truck sales operations to continue, and the fact that the property owners have been working toward the goal of selling the property for industrial uses is sufficient to secure their nonconforming status. To properly analyze these claims, we need to start at the definition of a nonconforming use. The Stockton Municipal Code defines it as a use of a structure, either conforming or nonconforming, or land that was legally established and maintained prior to the adoption of the ordinance codified in this development code and which does not conform to current code provisions governing allowable land uses for the zoning district in which the use is located. Basically, it's a use that isn't allowed where it is, but it was allowed at the time it started. Nonconforming uses are regulated through Stockton Municipal Code Chapter 16.228, Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Parcels. To establish illegal nonconforming use, the code requires one or more of the following. So number one, an existing valid use permit if required. Number two, evidence that the use was allowed at the time it was established. Number three, evidence that the use was allowed at the time the parcel was annexed into the city. Or four, if the above information is not available, the director shall review the evidence for status as to the legality of the nonconformity and issue a determination based on information provided by the applicant in payment of a fee. The applicant is requesting to use the fourth option to re-establish the truck sales as a non-conforming use of the property. The use in question, truck sales and storage, was legally established on the subject property and has had various valid business licenses for over 25 years. The historic legality of the use is not in question at this time. Truck sales was legally established and a business license for the non-conforming use was issued in 2018. The issue to be addressed by the Commission's interpretation tonight is if the truck sales use should continue to be recognized as a nonconforming use in code, or if the rights to the truck sales nonconforming use have been lost due to discontinuance. Moving back to the nonconforming section of code, the explicitly stated intent of the code for nonconforming uses is to discourage the long-term continuance of these nonconformities in order to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare and to bring the uses and structures into conformity with the goals and policies of the general plan and to provide for their eventual elimination but allow them to exist under limited circumstances. Basically, the code is willing to let nonconforming uses persist under strict parameters but has the goal to have them eventually be eliminated. The limited conditions mentioned include maintaining the non-conforming use with all necessary permits and legal requirements, as well as a mechanism to lose the non-conforming status. The loss of a non-conforming use by discontinuance is addressed in Code Section 16228060C, shown here. It outlines three ways to deal with the discontinuance of a use. Number one is voluntary discontinuance. The nonconforming status is lost one year from the date the use is voluntarily ceased or discontinued. The second is involuntary discontinuance. The nonconforming status is lost one year from the date the owner is notified of the requirement to reestablish the involuntary discontinued use. Involuntary discontinuance occurs when the use is prohibited to continue by the city. Once the prohibition is ended, the city notifies the owner that the use is once again allowed to occur, at which time they have one year to resume operations. Number three allows for a one-year extension. The loss of nonconforming status can be extended for a year if prior to the loss of the nonconforming status, an extension is requested with evidence indicating the owner has made good faith effort to continue their nonconforming use. Bankruptcy, insolvency, or other similar instances of a business being forced to cease operations are considered a voluntary discontinuance because the issue causing operations to cease on the site are not initiated by the city. In instances like these, the city has no knowledge of any requirements that may be imposed on the owner and therefore is unable to notify the owner when the use can be reestablished. Soil remediation may qualify as involuntary if the site was specifically shut down by the city solely for the remediation to occur. in which case we would be able to notify the owner that operations can resume once the cleanup was done. But instead, remediation occurred on this site due to the ownership's need to sell the property. In any case, a business license can be maintained while a property owner remediates soil, and in this instance, the business license was not renewed and it expired. It is staff's determination that the owner did not make a good-faith effort to renew their business license after it expired in September 2024 and did not legally operate truck sales on the site for a period exceeding one year. at which time the legal nonconforming status of the use was lost. Following the expiration of the business license, the property owner's realtor was notified that the nonconforming rights would expire if the business license was not renewed. The property owners did not contact the City to discuss options or to request for an extension of the nonconforming use prior to that use being voluntarily lost due to legal inactivity in September of 2025. The applicant states that the truck sales use persisted until March of 25, which would cause the one-year period to expire in March of 26. However, as previously mentioned, code states that nonconforming uses must comply with all permits and entitlements required by the development code and the municipal code, which includes the need for a business license to legally operate. The business license for truck sales expired in September of 24, meaning that any truck sales that may have existed after that time are not a legal use of the property and cannot be used as justification to continue the nonconforming use. The aerial photo we have of the site is from March 8, 2025. It shows the site being vacant, so we know at least that the site was vacant at that time. There we go. So back to why we're here tonight. A request for an interpretation of code has been referred to the commission by the director. For an interpretation of code to be valid, it must include the required findings found in Code Section 16-08-03-0B. And I'll go over each one of those very briefly with an analysis. So the first one is, this interpretation is consistent with the applicable provisions of this development code. Staff has determined that legal truck sales were discontinued for a period longer than one year, commencing on September 30, 2024, with the expiration of a valid business license. Re-establishing the truck sales use as non-conforming after this one year of discontinuance would be inconsistent with Code Section 16.228.060C. Number two, this interpretation will not be detrimental to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of the city or interest to the property. Staff has determined that because the subject property is residentially zoned and adjacent to inhabited residential property on two sides, allowing the re-establishment of truck-related uses adjacent to this residential property would be detrimental to the health, interest, safety, and general welfare of city residents. And the third finding is this interpretation will be consistent with the general land uses, objectives, policies, and programs of the general plan. any applicable specific plan, precise road plan, or massive development plan, and the intent of the development code. Staff has determined that because the stated intent of the development code for nonconforming uses is to provide for their eventual elimination and only allow them to exist under the limited conditions set forth by code, that the site has lost its nonconforming status. The limited conditions identified in Chapter 16.228 include both the requirement to operate the use legally and the loss of nonconforming status through voluntary discontinuance. Because the truck sales use was voluntarily discontinued, the loss of nonconforming status complies with the code's stated intent. It is staff's assertion that the three findings required for an interpretation of code cannot be met to reestablish truck sales and truck-related uses as legal nonconforming uses on the subject property. For these reasons, staff recommends the Planning Commission by resolution determine that truck sales and other truck-related uses are not recognized as legal nonconforming uses at 2546 Turnpike Road and that the nonconforming truck sales use was voluntarily terminated by discontinuance and cannot be reestablished on the site. And that's the end of my presentation. I'm available for any questions. applicant is here as well.

Okay, we'll ask for some questions first. Yes, Mr. Graves? Oh, you're just checking it? You guys are welcome. Do we have any questions for Scott? Or do you want me to go ahead and have the applicant?

I know it's a big dump of information.

There's a lot there. Yes, I'm in.

Can I turn this off now? Sure. I'm good. I got you. I think, I don't know, it's on. Yeah, turn your mic on. Can you hear me? OK. Does it say in here how many times they were notified?

So they were notified through the standard notification for business licensing where they just send out a notification that your license is set to expire. And then they were contacted again or attempted to be contacted again a year later when they were cleaning things up and still no answer. So they just never responded to business licensing's request.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Okay. Well, then I guess we'll... Oh, sorry. Yes. Yeah, go ahead.

With the notifications, does it make a difference that it states that the property owner is a Davidson's Living Trust and that owner's information are located in Canada? Would that cause any delay or anything...

You know, I actually lived in Canada for a couple years, so yeah, mail does take a little bit extra time, but it still gets to its intended recipient. And the fact that we received no response from the the business owner or others, and the fact that they did reach out to us. The realtor reached out to the city to ask about selling the property, and we responded, well, just keep in mind, you need to get an active business license on here ASAP before this use runs out next September. no, nothing came back as well. So they were aware that there was no business license on the property, because when you have a business license, the expiration date's on it. And they were aware, well, the realtor at least was aware. The one entity that they were involved with that reached out to us was aware that the non-performing use was going to expire after one year, as well as the letter that was attached to their initial business license in 2018 that stated no activity for a period of time would result in the loss of nonconforming status. So this wasn't out of the blue. If they were doing their due diligence and paying attention to their paperwork, they would have had ample notices and resources and time to figure this out.

So I'm also looking at this, and it's multiple, multiple different addresses. So they have their physical address on Turnpike, and then the business's mailing address is in Fontana. Right. And then owner's information are two different addresses in Canada.

So when business licensing sends out their stuff, they send it to the owner of record. They send it to the business license address on file. So it gets sent out. kind of a shotgun approach, because they want businesses to be in compliance. That's why even a year later, when they're going through their system and they see, oh, there's no business license on file for this property, the business license that's on file has expired, there's no subsequent business license, we need to contact these people to see what's going on, still got no response. So that's just a history of non-response.

Mr. Ahmed?

To piggyback off of her question, I don't know if you'll know this, but how, I don't remember. I used to get business license all the time. It's been a couple years. Do you know how far in advance, like if your business license is going to expire, is it one month, two months? Do you know when those notices, I forgot when the notices come out to let you know that it's about to expire and you need to renew by this date?

I believe it's two months. Two months? But regardless, even if it was one month and they got it late, they never came in subsequently after that. They still had a year to get that business license situated before they lost their non-conforming status. So even if that notification went out the same day it expired, they still had a year to figure it out.

I was just curious, piggybacking off.

Are you sure? Yeah. I guess what I would like probably to be pointed out to all the commissioners is this is not your typical planning hearing for a use or anything. So the conformity to noticing is a little bit different. And that is my understanding. We don't have the noticing requirements like we do for a use permit or a tentative map or You you land use this is totally different maybe Turn can speak to that a little bit So that we're all clear about the notification requirements for this versus what we as commissioners are used to

Sure, Chair, if I may? Yeah, yes. I think there's two questions there. So I believe, Vice Chair, you were talking about the noticing with respect to this particular item, that it's not a public hearing and therefore it was not subject to the public hearing noticing requirements. As to the noticing requirements of the actual withdrawal of the use, that I'll point back to Scott's presentation in which he indicated that for a voluntary use a voluntary cessation of use, there is no specific notice requirement to the code. So I think that there were two questions.

Yeah, indirectly, yeah, there were two questions. And the point being is that, you know, we as a commission aren't looking at this from a planning aspect. We're looking at it from a code aspect of Chapter 16 with respect to a non-conforming use in that and what staff presented is why it became extinct as far as a non-conforming use. So it's a little different than our typical planning exercises that we take on.

You are correct. You're getting nods from staff.

Any other questions? Okay, now I guess we'll go ahead and, a little different than the art survey we normally do, we'll have the applicant come up and speak at this time. As we state your name.

This is so nice. It's so new.

Yeah, brand new.

I'm kind of afraid to use it.

You're welcome.

That's nice and short for us short people, so I appreciate that.

It's got a button there on your left side. You can raise it or lower it, too.

Can you guys hear me? Is it on? Okay, wonderful. So good evening, commissioners. My name is Lauren Bactel. I'm counsel here for Pride Group Enterprises, who's the owner of 2546 Turnpike Road. Right here we have Amtaj Ranha, chief legal advisor for Pride Group Enterprises. So as you guys know, we are here tonight because we're requesting an official interpretation regarding a nonconforming use at the site. The litigator in me wants to dive into all the things that we've been talking about, but I'm going to try to stick on my schedule a little bit and provide you a little bit of background before I answer some of the notice questions that you guys were just talking about. So what we heard tonight was the planning department recommending that Pride loses nonconforming use status because expiration of the business license. Tonight, we respectfully ask that the commission reach a different conclusion based on the plain language of the code. So we've provided a lot of documents, and you'll see that we provided them in a Dropbox and also in person just to make sure that you guys receive them because we weren't quite sure if the Dropbox works. So forgive us for the amount of trees that are sitting in front of you now. But I want to point out that of those materials, there are two that are very critically important for you to see. There's two main documents, the February 2026 letter that we submitted to the planning department and the response to the staff recommendation report that we submitted Tuesday night. So it directly goes into some of the things that the staff said today. So we want to point out that we believe the Planning Department's recommendation is legally and factually flawed for a few reasons. We think it misapplies the Stockton Municipal Code. We think it ignores the mandatory legal context of Pride's bankruptcy proceedings, imposes a sanction that the Code does not authorize, and ignores the compelling public interest considerations. So for this hearing, I'm not going to go through all the details of those arguments because that would be incredibly painful for all of us. But instead, I'm going to focus on the critical points and hopefully leave enough time for you guys to ask any questions that you might have. So before diving into the site, I want to talk a little bit about Pride. So in 2010, Pride started operating a trucking and logistics conglomerate based in Canada with operations in Canada and the United States. Unfortunately, in March of 2024, Pride commenced bankruptcy proceedings in Canada, and then in the same year, in April, it commenced bankruptcy proceedings in the United States. The goal was reorganization. Once it became clear that reorganization alone was not feasible, the bankruptcy court issued a wind-down order requiring Pride to liquidate. So with those orders in hand, it is required to sell all of its assets, including the site that's in front of us right now. We heard some of the background from the site from the planning department, so I won't go into those details because we agree on the long-term industrial use of the site, how it's been used for trucking sales since 1998, which was long before Pride came in, and the surrounding area is mixed industrial and residential. We do want to point out that around the site, there are trucking companies, truck repair shops, truck dealerships, storage facilities, as well as residential. So it is a mixed neighborhood. From acquisition in 2022 through today, Pride has continually used and maintained the site for industrial use. So Pride actively sold trucks from the site from acquisition through February of 2025. And as the planning department said, as of March, they started taking the trucks off the lot to prepare it for sale. Since acquisition, it has voluntarily investigated and remediated the site under the oversight of the Environmental Health Department. So this wasn't just to prepare for sale. This is from the moment it acquired it because they knew from the historical use it was a contaminated site. So it voluntarily spent more than $105,000 to investigate and remediate the site. The investigations are still ongoing. None of that was required by law or by government order. It was just done voluntarily by the company. The environmental consultants were physically on the site in early 2026 still doing this work. Pride has also prepared the site for sale in compliance with the bankruptcy orders. So this includes removing the truck fleets as of March 2025 and marketing the site for sale for continued industrial use. To make the site viable for sale, it has worked towards completing the environmental remediation and investigations. Because to sell the site, it has to complete that for any closing. Okay, now turning to some of the legal arguments. So tonight we're asking the commission to apply the plain language of the code that's in front of you. As we just heard from the planning department, they are recommending that a lapsed business license should result in termination of a non-conforming use. The development code, which you pointed out, very clearly enumerates only three ways a non-conforming use can be lost. change of use, discontinuance, destruction. A lapsed business license is not included in that list. The staff report argues that expiration of the business license resulted in voluntary discontinuance under the development code. To support their legal conclusion, the staff report repeatedly uses the phrase legal inactivity as a standard. That is not a standard that's in the development code. So that's used for the first time in the staff report. It's not in the law. Instead, the relevant provision focuses on actual use, discontinuance of actual use. And when they talk about the good faith extension, they talk about showing actual use. A tenant, did you have occupancy? Show us actual use. Again, it makes no mention of a business license. As we described in detail in our submission, Pride has used and maintained the site from acquisition to the present. If the legislator wanted to include a license triggering for non-conforming use to be lost, it would have. And it explicitly does in other parts of the code. So in 16-12-40, when you're establishing a new use, you have to show that you have a license to establish that use. So we know the legislature explicitly includes it when it wants to. Here, it did not include expiration of a business license or the like as a way of terminating the use. Further, the development code states, and this is a quote, a business license is for revenue purposes only and not an authorization or a granting of a privilege. So the planning department is arguing that a revenue collection mechanism should extinguish Pride's land use rights. That is not an argument that's supported by the code. Quickly, I'd like to turn to the business license section real fast. So in Title V of the code, it governs business licenses and regulations. It prescribes the specific and limited consequences for delinquent and lapsed business licenses, payment of back taxes, and penalty. That's it. Title V does not say that an expiration of a business license can result in the extinguishment of any land use rights. Again, it just says if it has lapsed, you pay back taxes and a penalty, and you can get a business license again. So Pride here is prepared to pay all applicable back taxes and penalties to bring the license current. So lastly, and of critical importance, preserving Pride's nonconforming use status is in the public's interest. So the staff report really focuses their health and safety on one observation. The site is next to residential properties. That observation does not lead to the conclusion the staff report draws from it. So the health department's own environmental consultant confirmed in July of 2025 that the site is safe for continued commercial use, but explicitly warned that if residential conversion takes place, additional environmental investigations are necessary. In January of 2026, the environmental consultant said that it cannot rule out that there would be vapor encroachment on the residential homes. So Pride has ongoing investigations to determine if that is a problem. If the staff report's recommendation is adopted, Pride will have no basis and no financial ability within the bankruptcy estate to continue the voluntary investigation and remediation on the site. This will leave the contamination concern unaddressed. The site will sit vacant and unfit for residential use, and the neighbors the staff report claim to protect will be worse off. Preserving Pride's nonconforming use status is the outcome that actually protects the community. It will result in Pride's completing the investigation and remediation to be able to sell the property for industrial buyers. The city will retain a productive tax-generating parcel, and it will address the environmental concerns that the residents have raised at these meetings. For all of these reasons, as well as what we put into the very big record, again, sorry for the trees, we respectfully ask that the commission reject the staff records report's recommendation and find that Pride continues to have a legal non-conforming use on the site. Thank you very much.

Okay.

Do we have any questions for the applicant?

I would have one comment that if you really want us to go through all this information, we probably should get it the day of our meeting. I don't know when we actually got it, but clearly.

Tuesday. We sent it on Tuesday, but that's mostly there to be in the record if there is any kind of. Sure, I get it.

If you actually wanted us to file through these thousands of pages, you might have wanted to get it. If it happens to make a decision, is it working in your favor here, you go to council, I might suggest you get this to a lot sooner. That's all.

Sure.

So that's my only comment.

So it was submitted to the planning department as everything, and we figured it would have been sent over as the full record, but it wasn't sent as the full record. So after we saw it wasn't sent, then we submitted it.

Got it. Thanks. Vice Chair.

Yeah, I just got a couple questions. Sure. One is, it's my understanding you want to sell the site because the bankruptcy court wants everything to be dissolved. Correct. Given that, You're selling a site that is, whether it's non-conforming zone, zoning, or whatever it is, at some point in time, it's going to have to fall back to the general plan designation. So I mean, how are you going to sell a site representing it's an industrial type use and There's a you know, you don't know what the limit is to when they went when the next person comes along as when it's going to be Have to change to the residential type use and that so that's kind of misleading in my eyes to anybody you sell to Okay, and as far as your statement about the You had to continue doing what you're doing with the remediation in order to sell it. That's not necessarily true, I don't believe. I believe that you can sell it as is, and if somebody's stupid enough to buy it with contamination, that's on them. But as long as it's disclosed, it can sell as is. I know that for a fact because I've had a piece of property like that. So I just, you know, I'm a little lost about how you're going to sell something representing its industrial use in that even if we did support the non-conforming use, and yet you're telling somebody they can do an industrial use on the property, and yet, you know, at some point in time, that's not going to be the case.

That's correct. So we would sell it as a legally non-conforming use as is, and they would have to understand that there's the general plan. When they're diligencing the matter, that would be their risk to weigh. We would just be selling it as a legally non-conforming use that can be sold. And it was established under the resolution when the zoning changed, and it stayed in place.

You know how much simpler it would have been just to get the business license, to keep the business license? Yes, I do. You wouldn't be here tonight.

I think that would be a good transition then to talk about the notice of the business license because we have a very different understanding of the notice that we were given of the business license than the planning department. So Pride did not receive any notices. And I will say in March of 2024, when we started going through bankruptcy proceedings, there was a court order that had an employee reduction. And when the report induction came through, the person that was in charge of the business license was let go. So what he would have done was renewed the business license in the ordinary course of business. He wasn't there to do that, so he didn't renew it. From that point, Pride did not receive any notices of an expiration of business license. The notice that went November 2024 to the agent was never passed on to Pride. Actually, that agent called Pride on January 8th and said, by the way, I got this email in November. That same day, Amtaj called the planning department and said, we just were given notice that we don't have a business license. And that's when all of this started spiraling. From that day, Amtaj has been incredibly nagging to the planning department and emailed them every single day saying we really need to get this resolved. So we have a very different understanding of notice that happened for this because we did not know Pry did not know until January 8th when the agent actually told him that we didn't have a business license. So I agree, if they could have just known and renewed it, none of this would have happened and it would be a lot less of a headache. But it doesn't change our argument that we don't think under the code, expiration of a business license actually terminates a nonconforming use. We think those are very disconnected. Because when you talk about illegal uses cannot continue, That's in the part of the code that's for new established uses. And then the next provision says when you get that license, you can start using it. Under the non-conforming use for loss, it doesn't say if you don't have a license, you lose it.

Okay, any other questions? I would ask, I would follow this question up, maybe this is a Scott question, but I think you stated that the business license is going to go whatever's on public record, right? That's where these, whether you had an employee that was supposed to do that or not, it should go to whoever the person is on public record.

I talked to business licensing today and they said they sent out the notice to the address that they had on file for that business license. And on the business license itself, the expiration date is written. So regardless of of whether an employee wasn't around to open their mail, the business should have been aware their business license was going to expire.

I mean, I would actually make that point as well. I mean, yes, I could see an employee leaving, but employees leave all the time. I run a business. I have to take effect that if I employee leave, that I make sure my business license gets paid. This is a big corporation. Clearly, they're bankruptcies, so maybe things didn't go the way it should have gone. Yeah, they should have been able to figure out how to how to renew their business license, but that's you neither here or there So I don't know that I agree with your assessment that you weren't informed. I think you were informed but You come to be too big to handle Dealing with that I guess apparently any other questions. Oh, yes Soler in our light system here commissioner.

I'm in your first I concur with my colleague over there that I You know, I run a business, and I've retired now. And I know when my things are due. I know I post it in my business. It has an expiration date. I probably still have all of them because I'm a paper person, unfortunately. But I just don't understand that all this time you've been sent notices. You know that you have a business. You've gone through bankruptcy. You know you're supposed to sell it. I don't know why it's not just sold. It almost seems like... you're just kind of sitting on this piece of property. I don't know if it was forgotten about or whatever, but you're sitting on this piece of property, and then all of a sudden now, you're like, oh, we're about to lose it now. And all of a sudden, you're coming to us now, and you're wanting us to kind of say, okay, well, we're just going to forget all of this that you're supposed to be doing over here. I look at it as the business owner's responsibility to make sure they should know what they have to do when they have to do it. If I have a business, I don't renew it, then I run the risk of losing my business. It's just that. And to come back now and say that you didn't know or someone wasn't working there and someone didn't open something, it's just, I don't know, a little suspect for me. I... I am just not really comfortable with that. You said, what are some other things? I don't know why it wasn't sold when it should have been sold. We would have been done with this. But it's almost like, OK, we've got to hurry up now and get this switch, get them to vote one way, so then we can turn around and sell this and just get some money off of this. You talk about homes there. I know the homes that are to the north of that. I know maybe the homes to the back of it. I don't really remember. I think those have been there most of my life. I grew up a few blocks from there. I think they have been there, but I know those homes that were kind of to the north of it, I think, I forgot when that development came, And I don't know, I'm just not kind of feeling some of the stuff that you're saying. It's almost you're just kind of throwing stuff out there and blaming other people. And at the end of the day, I'm going back to the owner of the property. If you own something, I'm going to make sure I'm on top of that big time. I'd love to own property, but like that. But you've got to be on top of that. And then come back after the fact and try to put this here. It's just, I don't know, I'm really uncomfortable with that.

Can I respond to that? Yeah, yeah, definitely. So a few things. So Pride has definitely not been sitting and doing nothing on the property. So like I said with the remediation, but more in terms of buyer, they had an active buyer that came in in February of 2005. It was under contract to be sold. So this is in the affidavit that we included from Randy from Pride. So it's attached. 21 years ago? What?

2005, you said. 2025. I'm sorry, 2025.

So February of 2025, they had an active buyer. They're under contract. And the closing kept getting pushed because they wanted the remediation completed. So you'll see that pride push to try to get the closure letter from the health department saying that the remediation was done. And this is in the voluminous documents, too. They got the closure notice. It went out for public comment. And then there was a resident that said, I have a worry about soil vapor that's coming off of it. Because of that, additional remediation has now been done through the soil as well as through the water. That buyer backed out because of time restraints. So again, that's in the affidavit. They haven't just been sitting on it. And at this point, there had been no concern about the business license through that sale process. I understand that's an oversight and something that is directly identified in Title V, that there's penalties, there's back taxes. You have to have consequences for not having that business license. But what we're saying here is it's not a termination of the land use. But again, Pride definitely hasn't been sitting on it. They've been actively trying to sell it, and it is in that affidavit for you to see.

When was this bankruptcy? What year was that?

2025. So they had trucks on the site, and they were selling trucks from the site. They were ordered to take everything off for sale. They took it off in February. Right away they found a buyer, and then that fell through because of the ongoing investigations. The moment they found out basically that buyer was out, other buyers have not been interested in buying this until the remediation is done. I agree we could probably find someone that might be willing to take it. That probably is not completely reasonable.

Lower your price. That's what it comes down to.

Yeah, but everyone that we're finding that's a buyer will not take it until that remediation is done. So Pride is actively trying to do the investigation remediation. We have all the reports there to show what they've been doing at the health department to get it done and to address all the concerns.

It just still sounds to me like that all this time has lapsed. And then it's almost like, uh-oh, now we got to do all this stuff. That's what it feels like to me. We have to hurry up and do all this stuff now. And I just hear a lot of blame being put on other people, not on the actual people that should have been on top of this, which are the owners. It doesn't matter how many addresses you have. It doesn't matter where you live. They sent it to the address on file. And that's, once again, your responsibility, the owner's responsibility. If they move, anything happens. I've changed businesses. The first thing I do is go down there and change my address on there to make sure that I'm receiving what I need to receive. So right now, I just feel that there's just a lot of little things going on with blame for different people and not taking responsibility for what they did not do.

Thank you. Vice Chair.

I guess I struggle with this whole thing, too. We're putting a lot of blame in a lot of places. Remediation. That's great. You're remediating the site and the environmental contaminants. I'm happy that's being done. The bankruptcy, you know, something went wrong. Something didn't work out right. But that's not the city's problem. The city's problem of your remediation is not, the city has no involvement with your remediation issues either. So the bottom line is, is our codes, in my opinion, from what I know about the code, and I've been around here a long time and read a lot of code in that for this city, And the way I see it is it's the owner's responsibility to follow up and get the business license as needed in order to maintain a non-conforming use. Without a business license, in my opinion, you lose your non-conforming use because there's nothing being done on the property anymore that's legal. in that without the business license so i'm struggling with this whole thing about you know bringing the bankruptcy in bringing in the remediation and that like i said that's all great and everything and i'm sorry about bankruptcy but sometimes that's what happens we all have my own small business and it's it's tough and that's a tough business world but it you know the trying to throw that in the mix of the business license issue and what our chapter 16 says and that just kind of bugs me and that i'm struggling with it all and that i can't i can't support that can i respond to that yeah sure i have one follow-up question maybe you can ask this too have have you spoken to your realtor obviously you have a commercial real estate agent different than a residential commercial agent but

obviously have you spoken to your agent about how the value would change if you because you could still sell it as a residential property. Obviously, there are higher criteria in regards to the environmental issues. It still could be done, but just more costly. Have you spoken to your agent about the value difference between the $3 million and some change?

We haven't spoken to the agent as far as I know, but I know that we have spoken to the environmental consultants to try to figure out what the cost would be to take it from viable to use for commercial to residential because of the contamination on the site. And it is a significant more that we would have to do in terms of investigation and remediation.

Is it hydrocarbons?

It's soil vapor. Soil vapor indicates. THCs. It's a few different things. There's VOCs in it. There's a few different things. It's mostly what you'd find from small leaks from trucks being on it from underground tanks as well. Yeah.

which obviously, if the use continues as industrial, those environmental issues are only going to continue. So saying it's in the public good to continue the use is not really super accurate from a standpoint of living around the property. From an environmental standpoint, I can understand from a tax standpoint, from an income standpoint, from the city, yes. But from an environmental standpoint, clearly, cleaning up, if someone buys it as a residential, they're going to have to clean it up to develop it. So someone could still do that. It's still possible. This wouldn't be as financially viable as it is industrial property. Any other? Yes, question I'm in.

Sorry, last one. These lights are killing me. Can I ask you a question? Yeah. How many times were you contacted about bankruptcy, all these issues that were going on?

Prior to January of this year?

Yes. How many times? Have you gotten letters? Have you gotten anything?

Absolutely none. Pride did not reach out to the planning division to discuss any issues that may arise through their lack of legal truck sales on the site. And just to be clear, we're not using the business license as a land use entitlement. We're using it to establish proof that legal sales are happening because the truck sales is the use. And if you don't have a business license, you can't legally sell anything. And so that is why we're using the business license to determine whether or not the use existed.

Now, have other businesses or if someone would have contacted you, they would have let you know, look, this is where we are. We're having an issue, bankrupt. Do you work with people like that?

That's why the extension provision code exists. If they're showing a good faith effort to get a use active on the site, then we can extend that for a year. But if no one ever reaches out for us to do that and that use then expires, it's gone, we can't reinstitute it.

So my question to you is, why didn't you contact them when these issues were arising before? Who did you contact to let them know, look, we're having issues. Can you work with us? I mean, it seems that that was an option as well, to contact and let everybody know what was going on with this piece of property. Whatever's on there, the soil, you could have let them know, look, this is what's happening in the soil. Someone did a complaint. Can you let us take care of this? And would you work with us? Why weren't they? I don't know why anyone didn't reach out for that.

So we were working directly with the health department on the remediation. As far as we knew, there wasn't an issue. Again, I understand that sounds like we're pushing blame, but that's why it wasn't reached out. The first time we reached out was when we knew there was an issue with the business license. So I know it's sounding like we're pushing blame otherwise, but we worked with the health department on the remediation, as our consultant told us to. The moment we thought there was a business problem, we went to the planning department. Absolutely.

Yeah. Just wanted to, Chief, because I think I could answer some of these questions since I was directly involved. Well, first and foremost, Commissioner Ahman, I completely agree with what you're saying in terms of running a business. And by no means are we trying to shift blame or say it's not our fault, it's their fault or their fault. You're right. We ran a business. The bankruptcy required us to lay people off. We should have put in contingencies to account for the fact that mail was still going to be going to one of our 47 sites. Maybe mail was sent, maybe it wasn't sent, I'm not sure. I can tell you that for a fact, I've never received any sort of a notice at any address, and I'm the recipient of any mail that's served on our formal registered agent for service of process. The very, very, very first time that I ever caught wind of anything related to this issue was in January of 2026 when our real estate broker said, hey, I was actually on the phone with the city planning department and they said that this use is gonna expire, so we don't think that we can continue marketing this property as a commercial property. if it can't be sold as a commercial property? I said, what are you talking about? Forward me whatever email that you received. Our broker forwarded me an email from Scott. You can ask Scott as he sits here today. As soon as I caught wind of that, I emailed him incessantly. I am talking about every single day, if not every other day. I emailed him. I emailed the director. I immediately asked for a formal determination. Scott said, send a letter with exhibits. It was a very voluminous letter with probably several hundred pages of exhibits. I forwarded it to them. They sat on it for months. Eventually, then they said, we're actually not going to make this determination. We're going to kick it to the commission. They forwarded you guys a letter. They did not send the attachments. We found that out on Tuesday, which is why you have 1,000 pages in front of you now. So all that to say, as soon as we caught wind of it, we immediately started working to try to resolve this. So my question is, if I had received that same notice last year or in 2024 or six months ago, why wouldn't I have taken that same action? I absolutely would have. There's no reason for me to not have done anything for six months when I had notice to only now come and try to rectify the situation. But I think that that's also an aside. I think the issue here is it's conflating two separate issues. There's what the code permits in terms of eliminating the non-conforming use, and there's a lapse of a business license. As Lauren said, the code is very specific that if the business license lapses, what can you do to reinstate it? You pay the penalties, you pay the fines, you pay some back taxes. If you pull up the provisions that Scott put on his PowerPoint, and I can ask him to do it now, I ask you all to sit here and find me anywhere in any one of those code sections where the word business license appears. Anywhere. it will not be in there because that is not a valid reason to discontinue a non-conforming use. You can't kind of piggyback off different sections of the code and cherry pick which sections you want to use to try to create language in the law that doesn't exist. So I just wanted to address those points. And a couple questions earlier about kind of the marketing and why we couldn't sell it. When we received the court order to liquidate and sell our assets, all of our trucks were basically financed by other lenders. So when we filed for bankruptcy as a part of the bankruptcy order, we had to notify the lenders on a VIN by VIN basis, hey, this is where each of your trucks are, come retrieve them. That's why the aerial photo that you see, there's no trucks on the lot because the lenders came and they picked up their trucks. We also had a real estate, it's called a real estate protocols order where we were forced to sell every single one of our 47 sites across Canada and the US. As a part of that, every time that we entered into an LOI or that we got an interested party to come forward, and keep in mind, these are not people like us who are just buying a residential home. These are sophisticated people who are buying commercial sites. They have their own brokers. They have their own team of lawyers. They have their own advisors. They have their own industrial guys, their environmental consultants. Every time they came in and we were under some sort of an LOI or a contract, immediately upon doing due diligence and seeing our own phase one and phase two reports when we bought the property, they all had the same response. We had this property fall out of contract multiple times. The most recent one, the party agreed to stay under contract after we gave them a price reduction, but they had an express contingency that said, we will not close on this site until the county issues what's called a no further action letter. What that means is the county basically says, I've seen your reports. I've seen your testing. I like the work that you've done. I'm signing off that this site is no longer contaminated. That was an express contingency. They would not close on that, despite any sort of concession we gave them. Because in their eyes, it was too much of a liability. So it wasn't about, oh, we were trying to get top dollar. It was not. Just any party that came into the equation saw that report, saw that it was contaminated, And most of them, quite honestly, just refused to even deal with it. As they said, this site has too much hair on it. We don't want to deal with it. And the one party that we had under contract agreed to stay under contract, but would not close until we got the no further action letter. And Chair Holt, to your comment earlier about kind of what impact this has. If the site cannot be marketed and sold as a commercial site, and we have to sell it as a residential site as per the current regulations and zoning, it can't be used for residential purposes. And the reason is because the environmental threshold and standards are very, very different for commercial uses and residential uses. Residential uses have a much lower threshold level in terms of the number of VOCs and things like that that are permitted as opposed to commercial. We were remediating it to get it under the commercial thresholds. Our environmental consultant told us that He doesn't even know if it would be possible to get it under the residential levels unless somebody came in and, to use his words, dug up 6 to 10 feet of dirt and basically kind of repaved and regraded the entire site. I don't know what the cost of that is. I don't know if there's somebody out there that's willing to do that. I don't know what effect that would have on the soil vapors. That option has not been explored. But I just kind of wanted to add those points because, like I said, I became very, very intimately involved with this as soon as I found out, which was early this year. And like I said, Scott can tell you how many times I emailed him to try to get this to a resolution.

Two follow-up questions real quickly, if I can.

Are the current property taxes being paid? There's outstanding property taxes, but the property taxes will be paid at closing from the sales proceeds. And that is the same way that we've handled property taxes on every single other site that we've sold.

Okay. So you're getting notice for those property taxes is kind of my point.

We're getting notice on that because those go to our registered agent for service of process, which is CT Corp. It's a large corporation. And whenever CT Corp gets served, I get an email saying, you got served. And I can pull it up on my phone and see what exactly it is. And that's why I was saying back to the notice issue, nothing was ever served on our registered agent. Otherwise, I would have received it.

Well, it's strange because I think that they use the public records the city does to sell out the census business license. Isn't that correct?

That's my understanding.

Obviously, we're not part of that department, so that's a different issue, but okay. That aside, clearly, like you said, it can be made possible that you could make it meet the standard for the environmental issues you just have to spend a lot of money to do it uh very clearly obviously the threshold for industrial is a lot higher because you're not having people um that have to live on top of that dirt so it can be done it just would be really expensive you're saying that the your remediation company is saying that they're not sure it's possible or they're just saying it would be It's highly expensive to do it.

Is that correct? They don't know what the scope of work would need to be done in order to get it fit for residential use. He gave me an example. He's like, on other sites, it wasn't a specific site. As an example, this is what had to be done. They had to dig up 6 to 10 feet of dirt, regrade, repave, et cetera. that he said without actually digging into the numbers to see what the thresholds are, to see what these most recent test results reveal, he couldn't tell me with certainty or for sure exactly what needed to be done. He just gave me an example as to what, in his experience, because he had been doing it 30 years, what he'd seen done on other sites. So I don't know, with respect to this specific site, what has to be done or how much it would cost.

our vice chair is actually a civil engineer so he's got a pretty good i can confirm it because i've experienced it with my own personal family property fortunately i had a big time company john deere who took care of it and that but they had to remove four and a half feet of soil that was contaminated with nitrates and nitrites from the fertile ammonias in that. And they had to haul it off to down south with the dump yard down there. It's a special dump yard for contaminated material. And it was a lot of money, $2 million over three acres.

I see that Commissioner Grace has a question. I'm getting used to our light system here, the fancy light system that we have. So you have the floor, sir.

to take it off, too.

Oh, you're... Yeah.

Okay. A couple questions. Is it for staff at first? Is there any other ways of contacting somebody outside of City Mill? Notices.

Yeah, you can always track down a phone number or an email if one's on a record somewhere. In regards to non-conforming statuses, planning staff does not keep track of every non-conforming use in the city. It always happens after the fact. Someone comes in for a business license or they call us to ask about buying a property and then we look up information on the property to see when... what's going on there or what's allowed to be used. And that's when you find out that a non-performing status has been lost. We don't actively notify people that, hey, your non-performing status is going away because we don't keep those records.

got you so at the end of the day there's no way to know if they got it or not this their them versus right commissioner graves if i may there absolutely is a way if you go on the california secretary of state website for any business anywhere in california that's registered to do business as a part of the initial filing you have to fill in what's called a registered agent for service of process that's required on every single, it's called a statement of information and articles of incorporation. You have to include it. You cannot create a corporation in California without it. What is the purpose of that? The purpose of that is that you have to designate a company or a person to receive official notices on behalf of the company. We have that. Our registered agent is CT Corp. I've received notices, legal notices, on behalf of this specific real estate holding company through our registered agent. So to answer your question, there absolutely was a way. If all of these letters that were mailed, wherever they were mailed, were actually just served on the registered agent like they were legally required to be, I would have gotten notice. And to your point, I would have started this conversation whenever that notice was sent. But none of these were served on the registered agent.

And I don't know they are required to by our code to be sent to the registered agent based on the SOI. Our code just says you have to have a business license to operate. And so how, I mean, I agree, the SOIs do require that. But we don't have to mail that way per our code.

I think Commissioner Grace was still in the middle of his questions. Yeah, I got a couple questions. No, you're good.

I love getting the knowledge. All right, next question. When I go into a restaurant, it says business license. It has a date on there. Would that be the same for them, like whoever has that business license? So they're responsible for that, right? Regardless, you're responsible for knowing the date. It doesn't matter if we got a notice, you guys are responsible. Okay, cool. We can move past that. Last thing, you did say something that stuck out earlier in your comments about... Earlier in your comments about the law, letter of the law, like nothing that staff has said, I forgot exactly how you said it, but it stood out to me. So if it's not in the law, I guess for staff, if nothing is in the law from what you guys presented, you know what I'm talking about?

Yes. So what I said is that the code sections in the statutes that Scott pulled up talking about how a nonconforming use can be eliminated. Nowhere in there is the word business license found. You won't find those two words, business license, together anywhere in any of those statutes that were up in the PowerPoint.

Yeah. Okay. So, and then you also went on to say you could do a fine, you could do, or you could pay a fine.

Yeah. And my counsel has the statute. It was three things. Yeah. It talks about if a business license lapses, you can revive it by paying back taxes, fines, and I think penalties.

Okay, cool. Thank you.

And they would, it would reactivate it.

Why can't they just do that? Or why couldn't they just do that?

So he is correct that the requirement for a business license does not exist. However, maintaining the use is what exists in code. They have to maintain the use. Now, the use in question is truck sales. You cannot legally sell trucks on a site without a business license. So therefore, we're using the business license as a proxy to see if that use was active. Now, since there was no active business license, they could not legally sell trucks, which means that use did not occur. Not legally. Not legally.

But yet we took their taxes.

Well, the county took their taxes.

Well, the sales tax, too.

I don't know that question. That's a good question, but you wouldn't know that either. I can't speak to that. God, I had a follow-up question.

Yeah, I guess to that, I guess that is my only question. So in that regard, your hands are tied or their hands are tied?

Well, I'll respond in two ways. Firstly, I disagree that the use had to be truck sales. I think, as counsel pointed out, there's California Supreme Court case law that says it needs to be use on the site, some sort of activity. There was activity. We had lenders picking up trucks. We had remediation going on. Our consultants were out there doing soil vapor samples. We were marketing the property for sale. People were coming on doing their due diligence. There was absolutely activity and use going on the site. And secondly, the bankruptcy court orders, which supersede everything because it's a binding court order, prohibited us from selling new trucks. Because those were no longer our trucks to sell. Once you file bankruptcy, it becomes the trustee's estate. I don't have authority to sell this truck if I wanted to. Somebody came on the lot and said, I love this freight line, and I'll pay you $10 million for it. That's no longer my decision to make. That's the trustee's decision to make. So we were not even permitted to sell trucks. That's why we had to give the trucks back to the lenders. Once the trucks were removed, we had to finish the remediation efforts because that's what the buyer required in order for us to close. That's the reason why this site is still, there's no trucks on site because we can't do that anymore. So in a way, our hands are tied by the bankruptcy court.

Thank you. However, it's nonconforming based upon the use. So if you don't have a means of knowing what that use is, in your case it's not remediation, clearly, you could have kept your business license and continued to do those efforts to sell it without selling trucks and still maintain that usage and still maintain your nonconforming use. So saying that you essentially weren't selling trucks anymore, that's not really relevant. in the sense that you could have kept that business going by keeping your business license going, and you're still active in trying to list and market the property. So I don't know that selling the trucks is really the big issue, but the issue is nonconforming, and how are we going to base nonconforming on what use if you don't have a business license or an active business? What usage are we nonconforming to? We just pick one out of the air, or that's my question back to you, is that how is the city supposed to know what the usage is if you're not following the letter of the law in regards to running your business.

I'll pass it on to Lauren, because like I said, she's the one that has the legal authority on that piece.

So I think we're talking about two different things here, right? Because planning department's really focusing on legal use. And we're focusing on use. Because we are just looking at the one section of the development code that says when a nonconforming use can be lost. And like my colleague said, at no point in that development code does it say legal use. It just says, Use. It's just talking about physical use. And I know we're really hung up on legal use, but it doesn't say that. And it makes sense that it would be legal use, but it doesn't say that. So the letter of the law that says when it can be terminated is based on discontinuance of use. Like my colleague said, we did not discontinue use. We took the trucks off. Under non-conforming use definition is to use, maintain, continue, transfer. We maintain that site. So even when we took those trucks off, we still maintain the site. So it still was ongoing. And where we're crossing is you guys are very focused on the business license, and we agree that that lapsed, and there's consequences for that under Title V. Back taxes, penalties. But where there's not a consequence is termination of property rights. Under the nonconforming use, you do not have your property right terminated for a lapse of business license. It just doesn't say that in the code.

OK. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Crowder?

We're not your only business, or the one here in Stockton obviously is not your only business, and your bankruptcy is going across multiple businesses, I'm assuming?

Correct.

have you allowed your business license to lapse across all of them? Are you in non-conformancy with all of your businesses that you? I mean, has other cities notified you that they? I can answer that question.

No other city or county or state has notified me that our business license has lapsed. But I'm also not sitting here checking every single license. Our company at its peak had 1,700 employees. We're down to just myself. So I just don't have that bandwidth. But like I said, I have never received notice from any other county jurisdiction authority that any sort of license is lost.

And I understand that there is a loss of employee. I mean, I have been through many downsizing. I used to work for a trucking company. So I understand deeply going from a multimillion dollar down to a skeleton group. But even in the midst of bankruptcy, and if you are still trying to maintain that property during the bankruptcy, would it not behoove you to know where your business licenses are as far as expiration dates so that you can maintain without all of this rigmarole that's going on?

Certainly, but I think this goes back to our principal position, which is it doesn't matter. If the business license lapses, we can address that. You pay the taxes, you pay the fees, you get it reinstated. It doesn't impact property rights in terms of the non-conforming use. So that's where there's a fork in the road between Scott's position and our position is, in our view, the business license issue is not an issue because it does not affect the property rights.

So with being in bankruptcy, being a... I don't know how many years behind you are in your property taxes and such and what the number would be for penalties, but being within your bankruptcy, you would have just no problem shelling that money over to reinstate?

Well, I'm not sure. Would it be property taxes? It's a business license. I know the property taxes are in the six figures. I know that for sure.

But to pay any back penalties or whatever it would be in the midst of your bankruptcy to be able to reinstate or anything, you would have no problem doing that?

Correct. We would do that. We would have no problem doing that.

The way that it's going, it has to go through the monitor and through the process. And when we were talking about the consequences for allowing the business license to lapse, we went through the penalties. Because in Title V, it talks about the back owing of the taxes as well as penalties. And it's a certain amount. It's 15% of what you would have owed. And the monitors on the bankruptcy proceeding, it said, yes, that is something the state could cover.

So if your realtor never called the city, we wouldn't be here either.

Correct. That was the first time that I caught one. Yes.

Interesting. Yes, Commissioner Rahman. Sorry.

I'm going to try to explain this. So one of the things you said on the slide he's talking about is one of the things was non-usage, correct? So you're talking about, I drive by that place all the time. I know when the trucks were there. I know when the trucks left. and you're talking about we didn't discontinue use. That's where I'm a little confused as well. If there's no trucks there, and you're trying to say trucks don't matter, but that's what it says on the sign, that you're selling trucks, I guess maybe my thought is you just kind of abandoned it. I know every once in a while I see a security guard out there, but at the end of the day, you're still not doing anything with the property, so how does that fall into you just abandoned the business, you're not doing anything with it anymore? There is nothing there, so you have discontinued using it as a truck sale establishment. That's where I'm a little confused.

So, correct. We took the trucks off as of March 2025. They were gone. Under the code, it's one year of discontinued use that would then result in losing your status. So, one year if you don't have use, right? Voluntary, one year. Involuntary, the one year runs from when you get official notice. So here, they're saying it's voluntary discontinuance because that's what they're classifying. So it would be one year from the last use. If we're saying it's just from when trucks stop, that's March of 2025. The one year lapse would be March of 2026. But after the trucks were still taken off, we have records of every time that we've gone on to do soil bearings and everything else to continue to maintain it. And that's where the nonconforming use definition comes in, because nonconforming use doesn't just mean use. In that definition that Scott put up, it also says to maintain as well. It doesn't define maintain, so it doesn't say maintain business license or other, but it's broad. And we think maintaining the land through investigations remediation for continued industrial use would fall under the word maintain. So, yes, the trucks went off in 2025. One year would be March of 2026. But we continue to maintain through that year. And we can give you the last date that they did remediation on the site, which I think was December of 2025.

So you're basically telling me that if I have a business and I'm not using it, as long as I open the door and walk in and walk back out, I'm using it?

No, that's not what I'm saying.

Is that what you're saying? Because there's nothing there. And when I drive by, there's weeds. I just don't see anybody there. I'm not saying that no one went out to test soils. But if you have somebody going up there to pull up a little bit of soil or something, you're saying that we are using it. We're doing something with it. Is that what I'm understanding from you?

No, what I'm saying is we, by court order, we pulled the trucks off when we had to. We're trying to sell it by court order, and we're maintaining the site. So we're not in a situation where we're just abandoning it and not doing what we're supposed to be doing. We're trying to actively sell the site, like we've been saying. So it's, I think, very different than that scenario you just gave.

I think I can speak a little bit to clarify staff's position on this. Sure. So when it says, if you look at the slide there, the date the use is voluntarily ceased or discontinued, not any use. It's the use. So the use in question in 2018 when they got their business license, the use was auto and vehicle sales used. When the code was updated in June of 2025, the use is a large vehicle and equipment sales service and rental. Now, they have stated in this hearing that no sales service and rental or vehicle sales used have occurred after their business license expired. So from the city staff standpoint, that use is voluntarily ceased and discontinued on that date.

Or that if sales happened after that date, it didn't happen legally, correct?

Well, they said they couldn't. That was just stated that due to their bankruptcy, they couldn't sell things if you wanted to. I thought that was March. In March, they were gone from the site. Oh, that's a good question. So then at that point, it was just vehicle storage. It was not vehicle... large vehicle and equipment sales service and rental.

That's a good question. When did the actual sales and rentals and business stop because of the bankruptcy? Opposed to when you got rid of the trucks because your bankruptcy told you to. When did the actual business

realistically stop. We would have to look into that and I don't know. I was just curious. I mean the bankruptcy was filed in March of 2024 but the wind down orders didn't come to much later because like I said it was originally a reorganization. So the sales continued for a while until we got the wind down orders. But we can get you the numbers on that.

I was curious because that would give us an indication.

But that would still discount the fact that a non-conforming use still considers to maintain by the definition of the code.

I guess your definition of maintain.

Which is not defined by the code.

Obviously. Staff would argue it's maintaining the use. Yeah, maintaining the use. I think that's our big...

But if the use includes maintain in the definition of use, it can't be circular.

It's just you can keep it nonconforming and just send people out there once a month for decades and keep that nonconforming use in theory under that definition. So I don't know. That's a tough one. Yes. Sorry. Commissioner Graves. Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Arnaz.

I just had a question. When you say the use and you guys were maintaining the property, what does maintain the property mean to you guys? Were you guys still paying electricity, garbage? Was any use there at all? I'd have to turn the on touch on that.

I'm guessing we were still paying for, that would all go under the property taxes. That would probably be rolled up with the bankruptcy.

No, the property taxes were different.

But to answer your question, what we were doing was, We still had, we had the active remediation efforts going on. So we had our consultants, we had the San Joaquin County environmental people out there doing testing. Our brokers were giving tours of the property. We had active security on site. I'm not sure if we maintained water or electricity because there was, Nobody there. But there was activity on site. And I know that we were paying for security patrols because there were a few break-ins and things like that.

So when the license was expired and when you guys found out, the whole time there was throughout security on the premises?

No. It wasn't a 24-7 type situation.

But you guys did have people coming out, checking. The Environmental Health Department was still going continuously throughout the whole time. And you said they just stopped coming when? Just a few months in December?

Well, so the remediation efforts have been going on since we bought the property. I forget the exact year that was. Like Lauren said, we voluntarily enrolled the property in the program to get it remediated. We thought that we were at the finish line. There was public comments. Someone from the public came forward and expressed concerns about soil vapors and potential soil vapors on the neighboring lots. Because of that comment, San Joaquin County required us to do air sample testing around those houses where the complaints were coming from. So because of that, we had to go back to the drawing board, develop another scope of work, get that scope of work signed off by the San Joaquin County, and then we were out there doing that testing, and we received those results, and the county said, okay, these results look good, we want you to do these four or five more things, and then we think that we're gonna be able to rubber stamp it. As we were about to start to do those four or five things is when all of this kind of, yeah. So when we found this out, then I started dealing with Scott to try to get this issue remedied, and it was the monitor and our court-appointed chief restructuring officer's position that, well, if we're not gonna be able to sell this property and we're gonna have to take a loss on it, then it doesn't make sense to continue, as he put it, throwing good money after bad money. We're not going to continue to remediate something that we can't recover any sort of money from. Because keep in mind, it's not just not being able to sell it for commercial use. There's also three years of property taxes that are owing, which, like I said, will get paid out at closing directly by First American Title Company if we're able to sell it. If we're not able to sell it for commercial use, then I don't know quite honestly what other avenue we have other than to possibly abandon it.

OK. And then I do have a question for staff. So in September 2024 was when the business license expired. They had a year of inactivity. And then you said that the word, the use, did the verbiage in the code change in June 2025?

Yeah, so in June, we had that code update last summer. And so in that code update, some uses got moved around and changed in code in our use table. So it kind of changed what use they would fall under. So they would no longer fall under used vehicle sales because the other – Land use of and get the exact large vehicle and equipment sales service and rental more squarely falls on to what they were Approved to be doing because they're like business.

I said truck sales And when this verbiage does change or is anybody are they aware or do we send notices? I

Not particularly. We have the general, it's a public process when codes get changed. But in the end, that wouldn't change their status. It's still a non-conforming use. And if they would have reinstated their business license, it would have been approved no problem at that time. It didn't change the permissibility of their activities on that parcel.

Okay, that's not my question.

Commissioner Griggs? My last question. So if this property doesn't get sold, what happens to it? You guys can't sell it because you can't, whatever reason, can't get your business license, and then too much money to put in to make it a really, what is it called? Commercial. Yeah. What happens? Does the title company take over it?

As far as I know, the private would probably abandon the site.

And then what happens after that? Does the city take over?

It goes to tax sale if they don't pay it in five years.

Yeah. I think before we get to that point, we would get your determination and figure out if it's something that we would want to appeal and go to the monitors to see if they would want to continue to appeal it or not and determine what would be the next step.

I don't see the problem with them paying the old fees or whatever they owe. Like, if that was the law, why can't they just pay the back taxes or whatever they owe and get their business license and move on?

Staff's position is that the intent of the code is for nonconforming uses to go away. And so when the circumstances arise that use has ceased or discontinued and has gone that year, that we cannot, through code, reinstate that use.

Okay. Got you.

Can I respond to that? Yeah, I would say our position is that has never been terminated because like we've been saying the business license is not connected to the loss of the non-conforming use So in our mind, these are very two separate things. We still have a non-conforming use We have delinquent a business license under title five. We have consequences. We have to deal with under title five But it never terminated. Therefore. We're not asking for reinstatement our position it never went away because under though I understand the intent but it doesn't say that in the code it doesn't say an expiration of a business license takes away your property right mr. answer to that all right I'm saying we're using the business license as a proxy and whether or not activities existed and whether or not that use existed on the site

And in speaking today, it sounds as though the use did stop at that time. And so we're focused on whether or not that use happened, whether or not truck sales existed, and whether or not truck sales ceased for a period of one year.

Okay.

Yes, Vice Chair. I guess at this point, I see both sides of the story, okay, in that. I mean, bankruptcy court orders certain things to be done, and they've got to liquidate under the bankruptcy terms, and that does pose problems. problems with conformity to the use on the property. And so our options here tonight, since it was elevated to us versus the director's decision was, is we can go along with staff's report as presented to us and agree that the nonconformity does not exist any longer, and therefore it's over with in that. Then they're stuck with the position they're in through their bankruptcy monitors and everything to determine what avenue they go to take, whether it be to appeal to city council You lose at city council, there is no other remedy. You can take it to court, but it's just going to drag on and drag on. At some point, it's got to come to an end. Bankruptcy wants it to end in that. The other option is we could look to Title V or Section Code V and trying to separate the two issues based upon, I don't see anywhere in that section of the code that it does say business license. There's other parts of the code that I don't have memorized in front of me, but it's the bottom parts where our code is. The other stuff's all the remediation. I don't care about the remediation from this perspective of what's before us. That's your guys' business. More power to you to get it cleaned up in that. If we, the other sections of the code, I'm taking verbatim what you're saying, that there is no tie between the two sections, 5 and 16. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. But there is a proxy that Scott and staff have said, there is an indirect tie. I mean, not everything's black and white. I mean, there's gray in between, and this proxy is part of this gray. And so it becomes, now that it's before us, it's our decision to make. We could, as Commissioner Graves indicates, just let them pay the thing and reactivate it. The place is going to go away as far as their involvement in it. However, that nonconformity will remain with it, and somebody's got to come in. What happens? They sell it. It's still under nonconformity. What happens to it in a time frame for somebody else to come in to reestablish an industrial use on it?

The only use that would be able to be re-established is truck sales. No other industrial use would be allowed on site because that's the non-conforming use that was established.

Okay. So that's the only viable use that they could do if they still had a non-conformity use.

Correct.

Otherwise, they got to turn to residential use and they're on their own whether they wanted to do that or not, whoever buys it. So I think that's the position that we're faced with here tonight without going over and over and over a bunch of trees and trying to figure out right or wrong. I'm not sure. People make mistakes. They don't get their business license. It happens. And I understand about the mailing. I mean, you guys don't handle the mailing for that. And plus, there was a period of time where you switched on your business license to where it's all online versus getting a mailed statement for business licenses and that. And so I'll reserve my right to vote the way I want here when we come to that, but I think we need to move on.

Yeah, I agree. I think we've exhausted unless you have it. I see your light on. You have another question? I do. Sure, fire away. I think Mike my question is for Karen possibly

So counsel here keeps referring back to the lapse of the business license doesn't mean the turnover of the property is essentially how I'm processing in my brain. How – okay, so if that's not the case, then why is the business license even – if the business license doesn't have anything to do with the turnover of the property. Does that make sense? Okay, good.

Chair, if I may. Yes, yes, please. At the risk of being a little redundant of what Scott has said, I'll try to rephrase that a little bit. So it is correct that the business license is not mentioned in Title 16. Staff is not indicating that a business license is a land use requirement. Rather, it's an evidence of continued use requirement. The argument that staff has posited is that the specific use has to be continued. The way to evidence the continuance of the specific use is having that use continue legally because you cannot do that use without a business license. The lack of the business license evidence is a discontinuance of use. What you have before you is staff's interpretation to that effect or the interpretation of the applicant as set forth with respect to you the use not having to be specific to the nonconforming use, but to either maintenance or general use, it has been brought before you to resolve that interpretive issue. Did that answer your question?

It did, actually. Thank you. It helped unjumble a few brain cells.

Commissioner Grace, where were you?

So, I mean, we keep on saying there's... They're saying that there's no specific use in the description, right? And you guys are saying, but it's sales, but it's no specific use. As long as it's being used. So I guess I'm just confused. What do we benefit by even coming here today? Why couldn't you guys just make a decision? Because you guys brought it to us. So I'm just confused on if it's a law, why bring it to the commission? If they wrote the law or it's not being used, nothing we can do, move on, right?

I think it's the interpretation of the law, but yes. Yes, please.

If I may?

Yeah.

So the process that's before you is an interpretation of the application of the development code. So you, as the planning commission, sit in what is essentially right now a quasi-judicial status. You're judges interpreting the law, and you have two cases brought before you on how your code, which you administer, develop should be applied to the circumstances that issue so staff is interpreting it as the use as we just went over and your applicant and the party of pride is interpreting it differently and I don't want to put words in their mouth yeah they've expressed their interpretation of the code and the limitations with respect to staff's interpretation so now you're being asked to resolve the application of this section regarding legal non-conforming use as to this specific property. And that's why it's been escalated to you because there's a conflict in that interpretation. So it could have either been staff made the decision and then it was appealed to you. But rather than having that happen, staff brought it to you as is the director's purview as a first matter.

Yeah. Again, it's the greater body as far as having this decision to be made rather than just one individual being the director in this particular instance. That's why it was elevated up to the Planning Commission to have the full Planning Commission hear all the evidence Here's staff. Here, obviously, the applicant. And that was the whole purpose.

Gotcha. And I respect the process. I just was confused on, like, well, you guys were saying pretty much they didn't follow the rules. It should be. If you don't follow the rules, in my head, cut dry. I feel like we're looking at, like, real tedious things. Well, it didn't say this year. It just seems like such a small issue that's making it bigger. That's why I'm like, it's taking a little longer to process. No, I totally understand. Try to get what's going on. My head is just as simple as, okay, you guys, if it's nothing against the law, let them pay this stuff, and let's move on, sell it. Does the city of Stockton get anything from it?

No. I think the key comes down to what was stated in the presentation. I just want to refresh you again as far as, I don't know if I'm saying it in a different way than what Scott did, but remember we're talking about a non-conforming use. Right now the property is zoned in residential, so residential low density. And the general plan calls for that. The zoning calls for that. The area nearby it, adjacent to it, is the same. It's low density residential. And so the intent going forward is really to put it into that use, the residential use. That's the intent behind the general plan and the zoning ordinance. So what you're considering here is something that's Perhaps we feel it's lapsed. We're using, again, I don't want to repeat what Taryn indicated is how we feel it's been lapsed. We're using the business license. There's no sales activity occurring on that site. And there's a lot of leniency in the code itself, even in the business license. It can expire and you can still renew it within the one-year period. So they could have done that, but there was nothing done to... to establish that, reestablish the business license. So there were a lot of opportunities. And again, Scott clarified it. It's how we use in our area of planning to determine if there's actual activity going on, such as sales, because again, that's what the use was approved for, truck sales. And it's not the maintenance that they're referring to as far as maintaining the property. That's not generating anything. It's not generating sales tax. It's the truck sales that's generating the sales tax.

I feel like I should now rebut this, but then we're going to keep doing this over and over again.

I'm going to stop you.

Okay.

I'm going to stop you right now because I feel like we're just spinning our wheels right now. So I would say if no one else had any direct questions for her that I would like to take. move on real quickly because I do think we're kind of starting to rehash a little bit. So what I will do is let me have you take a moment here. I can have you come back. I can call you back up again. But it does have me move on to public comment, which I assume we don't have any since we don't really have public So that makes that easy.

And this isn't a public hearing either.

Obviously, but it actually has. Oh, we do. We did have a suspension for public comment. Never mind. I spoke out of turn. It's on my agenda. But there's not a public here besides the folks that are either part of the applications or staff or kids.

There is no blue cards chair.

Well, there's a couple seats I can't see, but I don't think there's other public. So there's no comment, so we'll move on to that. She does give a chance to do a rebuttal, so I don't know if you can rebut that. The fact of the matter is that as I see it, you feel that you've maintained the industrial nonconforming use by maintaining the property. You didn't have to have a business license to do that. That is, I assume, kind of a...

The only other thing I was going to say was we do agree that we have to use the property as required under our nonconforming use for trucks and everything that Scott was saying. But what I'm saying, when you define it, it's use and maintain. So we're not saying we can just do willy nilly on it.

Yeah.

So that's so that couldn't even do truck sales and based on the bankruptcy.

Yeah. But that's it's not necessarily a question. It's more about did you maintain it? Now, is that enough to keep nonconforming use or do you need a. business license to have the nonconforming use based upon what the use is. It's a little complicated, but I think I have it now. So I think I have enough to think about it. So I appreciate it. Thank you. Um, let's see if I have anything else in here. Uh, I would invite discussion. This is the scary part. Um, from my fellow commissioners, this is for us. Uh, we don't really bring it back because this is not a public meeting. So we're just going to keep discussing it. Do we have any, any discussion on the matter further? Or do we have a call for a motion?

I feel like, uh, if we have no plans, we would like let them sell it in whatever capacity. Because if not, I feel like it's just going to sit, right?

Well, that's potentially the possibility. That's not necessarily the question. The question is more, did they follow the law as far as being non-conforming? Is it OK that it's not non-conforming because they continue to maintain it? Is that going to work for our definition? And I don't know how, if we decide to say no on this, I'm not sure how we're going to rebut that. That would be a question for Mike. Because we have to, we were voting in the affirmative that we're declining it when we vote, correct?

Chair, if I may, just because I understand this to be a procedural question. You may uphold staff recommendation. You may also choose to vote against staff recommendation. The findings, would you mind going to that slide? There are three required findings. You would just find them in the affirmative in order to affirm that the legal nonconforming use has continued. I believe the applicant included in one of their letters several statements as to why they believe that the findings have been made. You can certainly adopt those or any of your own findings in addition that you think are relevant to support that determination.

Okay, that's helpful. OK, so that would be, essentially, that's a little different. This is definitely different than we've done before. So this is why we're having a little bit more of a struggle with it. So essentially, did you have a comment, question?

Yeah, I just had one question. I don't know the legality of all of it, but say they did, on a timely manner, they got their business license, if they did, but they had nothing to sell. How does that work?

Right. So from a staff, from just a procedural standpoint, how we operate, if someone comes in to buy a legal non-conforming site and they want to establish a property on it, they call us and say, hey, we're looking at buying this. The way we verify or initially verify that operations are occurring on the site is simply to just look up and see if there's an active business license. And if there is, we go, OK, it looks like it's good. There'd be no way for us to know for sure without physically every time someone inquires about a site or every time someone comes to get a business license to physically drive down to that site and see if there's something occurring. And then ask around and see if anything happened in the last year. We use that business license as a proxy. So for lack of a better term, if they would have kept their business license active, they could have gotten away with not having an active nonconforming use because the proxy would show it occurring because that business license never lapsed. So it's a really weird, nonconforming uses live in a very odd place because it's very hard to pin down what's occurring and what's not and how it's acting. So if they would have kept their business license active, it just would have sort of continued to persist on paper, and it would have just sort of been around.

I'm sorry.

I'm going to have to cut you off, because we're not in an open session right now. We've gone back to us. So you guys are done for the moment, unless I bring you back. Sorry. Because otherwise, we're just going to continue to beat a dead horse. Yes?

I don't know. This is a lot. Outside of the business license thing, I just, I'm a little worried because then what are we setting here? That means that anybody can just kind of do what they want, go against what these things are that they're supposed to follow. And you can just have a piece of land, whatever, and just kind of leave it until you're ready to do something with it. You don't have to follow the things that everybody else has to follow and do. For me, there is nothing there. What the land is supposed to be used for is not being used for that. If you can't use it for that, then I'm sorry. To me, it's just kind of abandoned. You're not using it for what you're supposed to be using it for. after the fact, you want to come and pay the taxes and do all this stuff, then we're going to have every business coming in here that's been sitting around for a good two, three, four, five years that want to come back now and say, oh, yeah, well, this happened. And now we didn't get this. We didn't get that. And I think there's been every opportunity for them to make this right. And I just can't follow that trail of all of a sudden. And then getting this today was kind of like a slap in the face for me, to get all this today. And if you took this much time to do this, then there should have been this much time to make sure that all your I's were dotted and T's were crossed. And I don't know. That's just how I'm feeling about this today.

Okay, yes. Mr. Carter? The button's just, don't worry. I see you. Go ahead.

No, I'm just going to be like that. I'm struggling because I understand everything, but there's one thing that my brain is going back to is that if And I apologize if I heard this wrong. However, what my brain heard in the 500 different scenarios that we kept playing over and over again was that if we don't grant this, the property will just end up being abandoned. I live on the other side of the highway. I am a huge proponent for housing. I know exactly what housing means to the south side of Stockton. I know what detriment we have as far as environmental hazards go on the south side. I know that We have the highest rate of asthmatic cases on the south side. Our life expectancy is actually cut much shorter on the south side. So to hear you state, if we don't get our way, we'll just abandon it, sounds like what everybody else just chooses to do on my side of town. It doesn't fly well with me. Again, I've worked for multi-million dollar Fortune 500 trucking companies. I understand what it's like for them to be dissolved. I've watched many go through it. I've been part of it. But that doesn't negate your responsibility for keeping up on your many business licenses that you have. It's nobody's... responsibility but your own. So if you let go the person who is supposed to be managing your business licenses, then it's your responsibility to go back and look at all those. And if maintaining that business license was going to keep you from being in the hot seat today, then you probably should have done your due diligence and whether this was because we didn't get notice of this on Tuesday when you sent it or what this this this is no I know So that is where I'm at with this.

Okay. Any further comments, questions, and or do I have a motion? The affirmative would be that we're taking staff's recommendation, essentially declining the applicant, or we are saying no to the staff's recommendation and allowing them to, I guess, get their business license and keep the usage, essentially, would be the... Okay, let me see. I'm about to mess this up.

I apologize in advance. I'm about to mess this up. No, go for it, Commissioner. This is the first one like this. I would like to make a motion to... How do I say this? Well, I'd like to make a motion to, I guess, go off the recommendation of staff.

You can make it that simple.

Is it that simple? Do I got to read all of it?

No, you don't have to read it all.

You can make it real simple. OK. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

OK. So we're going to vote verbally. Are we just going to go down the line? Because this is the first we've done this.

We're going to do a roll call vote.

Just before we vote, if we vote yes as in support of staff?

Yes. Correct. Okay.

Chair Hull?

Yes.

Vice Chair Sanguinetti?

Yes.

Commissioner Graves?

Yes.

Commissioner Oaks is absent. Commissioner Crowder?

Yes.

Commissioner Ahman?

Yes.

And Commissioner Hernandez?

Yes.

Motion passes 6-0, with Commissioner Oaks absent.

OK. Any parties that wish to appeal this decision may do so within 10 days of this commission's decision pursuant to Stockton Municipal Code 16.100.020. Thank you. OK. How are we doing? It was kind of long. Do we need a break? Yes. OK. I'm going to call for a break, then you can ask staff the appeal question for sure. Five minutes? Yes.

Okay.

Yes, okay, so here we go. Now we get to move on to unfinished business, which as usual we don't have any. Luckily tonight we don't have unfinished business. I'm going to shut up. I've got too much unfinished business. Yes, you have unfinished business, but we do not. 8.1 is reports, communications, informational, and hopefully this is a short informational one, Scott. But it's an informational presentation on the stock and municipal code 16.20, which happens to be in our giant pile next to me, I think. Allowable land uses and permit and requirements.

I'm going to go over page by page every single thing in that package. Should we go to the bottom of our stack? Right. So I won't rush, but it's not that bad, that long of a presentation. Don't worry about it. All right. So good evening. Tonight I'm providing an overview of Stocking Municipal Code Chapter 16.20, Allowable Land Uses and Permit Requirements. The goal is to explain how different land uses are evaluated and approved and to highlight the Planning Commission's role in reviewing development projects. So as stated, the purpose of tonight's presentation is to explain how land uses are evaluated, what approval processes apply to each use, and where the Planning Commission fits into that process. Under the development code, the planning commission serves as the review authority for seven types of projects here. We have commission use permits, tentative maps creating five or more parcels, plan development permits, variances, waivers when identified by the code, appeals of director decisions, and, like we just did, director decisions elevated to the commission by the director. In addition to those, Planning Commission also makes recommendations to the City Council on seven additional types of projects. We have general plan amendments, zoning map amendments, development code amendments, precise road plans, specific plans, street name changes when the street is inhabited, and master development plans. The starting point for determining how any land use is processed is table 2-2, commonly referred to as the use table. The use table contains 129 land use classifications listed along the left side. Some are very specific, such as body piercing studios, while others are broader categories like office. Every business or land use requiring city approval must fit within one of these classifications. Across the top are the city's zoning districts, beginning with residential zones, followed by commercial and industrial zones, then public facilities and open space. At first glance, the use table looks like a collection of letters and dashes. Those letters do indicate something. They show the approval process required for particular use within each zoning district. We have P means the use is permitted by right. L requires a land development permit. A requires an administrative use permit. C requires a commission use permit. E means the use is only allowed under limited circumstances identified in the code. A good example of that is telecommunications equipment is not allowed in residential zones except when it's a personal satellite dish. And a dash means it's just not permitted at all. So the required approval process varies depending on both the land use and the property's zoning. Let's look at an example using daycare centers. Hopefully you remember that you recently approved a commission use permit for a daycare center in Conway. As the use table shows, daycare centers are permitted by right in the commercial zones. allowed with a land development permit in the public facilities zone, require a commission use permit in the RM and RH zones, and are just straight up not permitted in all other zones. In addition, daycare centers have additional specific regulations shown there on the use table. And on the online version that we use on our computers, if you click on the link there on the use table, it brings you to those specific regulations that are applied in addition to the normal regulations you would apply to a commercial use. Once we have determined the required entitlement, staff works with the applicant to submit the appropriate application. After submittal, we conduct an intake review to ensure all required materials have been provided. Then the application is distributed to city departments and outside agencies for review. At the same time, staff will evaluate the project under CEQA to determine whether it qualifies for an exemption or whether additional environmental review is needed. Following the first review cycle, staff and applicant typically work through several rounds of comments and revisions. This is often the longest phase of the process as the project gets refined. Once all issues have been resolved, staff prepares the project for a public hearing if it's required. That includes drafting the staff report and resolution, assembling any exhibits and plans, routing the agenda item through multiple levels of review, including planning management, community development director, the city attorney's office, finance, the city manager's office if it's going to council, and others. This process does take some time. For example, a typical planning commission item appearing on tonight's agenda would have had to enter its first review in the system on June 4th. Once the review process is complete, the project proceeds to a decision, either approval or denial. So let's look at each level of approval, beginning with commission use permits, just to get us familiar with what these permits are. Commission use permits are intended for uses that have the potential to create significant impacts on surrounding properties, either because of the scale of the project or the nature of the use. These permits are decided by the Planning Commission and require that all findings established by the code are met. They also require a public hearing, mailed notice to the surrounding property owners, and publication of a legal notice in the newspaper. Here is a list of all of the commission use permit land uses where it's required in at least one district you get a CUP. They include uses that are often more controversial, like bars, cannabis businesses, and card rooms, as well as uses that simply have a significant impact on the surrounding area, like hospitals, animal shelters, and transit stations. Because of their potential impacts, these projects receive a higher level of public review and planning commission oversight. Moving down the line to the Administrative Use Permit, or an AUP. AUPs are intended for uses that may have the potential for a slight, although definite, impact on surrounding properties. These permits are decided by the Community Development Director using the same findings required for Commission use permits. After a decision is issued, nearby property owners are notified and have a 10-day appeal period during which time a public hearing before the Planning Commission may be requested. Some of you may remember the Miracle Mile Pawn Shop, which ultimately came before the commission through this exact process. A Heritage Oak Tree Removal Permit followed the same procedure recently as well, if you remember both of those. Examples of AUP uses. include mobile home parks, car washes, outdoor retail sales, outdoor storage, vehicle storage, funeral homes. As with every use in the table, the required approval depends on the zoning district. Moving down to land development permits, they apply to uses expected to have only a minimal impact on the surrounding properties. These permits are decided administratively by the director and require findings that are more objective and focus more on direct land use impacts instead of subjective factors. Unlike use permits, land development permits do not require a public notice. However, they still allow the city to apply project-specific conditions of approval to ensure compatibility with surrounding development. Examples of LDPs include indoor entertainment and recreation, medical clinics, vehicle sales, drive-thru facilities, and parking lots. And last but not least, we have the permitted or by-right uses. These projects generally require only a site plan review. A site plan review ensures compliance with objective development standards like setbacks, landscaping, parking, building height. Unlike discretionary permits, staff cannot impose additional conditions beyond those required explicitly by the development code. Site plan review approvals remain valid for one year, and we do accommodate extensions for those. Depending on the zoning district, by-right uses include single-family homes, multi-family housing, residential care facilities, churches, hotels, retail businesses, office banks, clinics, vehicle repair. In industrial, there's warehousing, trucking, and many others. In recent years, the state has adopted numerous laws requiring many residential projects to be approved by right. Examples include SB 79, SB 64, 423, AB 2162, SB 330, AB 609. You may have heard of these numbers around and a lot more. There's additional legislation introduced almost every year. It takes a lot to keep up with these. It is a significant undertaking to get our heads wrapped around these and make sure we're compliant. The California Department of Housing Community Development actively monitors local compliance. So if we're not compliant, we hear about it. Accessory dwelling units or ADUs, they're another major example of state preemption. The legislature continues to expand ADU regulations, limiting local discretion and requiring streamlined approval processes. These laws are updated frequently and significantly reduce the city's ability to impose additional development requirements. The state has seen ADUs to be a positive thing for housing and they've made sure that we get those permitted by right with as little hold up as possible. Another significant state law is AB 2097. You may have heard this kind of talked about a little bit every once in a while in our presentations here. This law prohibits cities from requiring minimum parking ratios for projects located within one-half mile of a qualifying high-frequency transit stop. This map shows the portions of Stockton where AB 2097 applies. So everywhere in the yellow areas of the city, we cannot impose minimum parking requirements. So if anyone wants to put in an apartment or some sort of retail use or anything like that in those yellow areas, whatever parking they wish to provide, they can. We can't force them to provide any parking. But any parking they do provide does need to meet city standards. So to bring everything back, the Planning Commission serves as the review authority for many of the city's most significant land use decisions. Whether a project comes before the commission depends on several factors, including the proposed land use, the property zoning, in some cases state laws that streamline the approval process. As a result, the Commission primarily reviews projects that are more complex, have greater potential impacts, or involve a higher degree of public interest. In other cases, the Commission does the heavy lifting for City Council and makes the recommendations to them to... to approve or deny projects rather than you guys making the final decisions. But the city council does rely on you for those recommendations. They expect you to go through the same scrutiny that you do when you approve a project to make sure these things are vetted out. And I want to stress, while it may seem that some projects, particularly affordable housing developments, that they should become for the Planning Commission, and it'd be great if they did, because you'd be able to kind of get in there and see these things come around. State law increasingly requires that these projects be processed administratively in order to streamline production. Like I said before, just getting to the planning commission can add six weeks plus to any project. And the state really wants these things streamlined, and the city does too. A lot of our streamlines kind of goes above and beyond what the state sometimes is calling for, depending on the use. And so to streamline these things that we see as a city benefit, like affordable housing, we don't go through the Planning Commission and we just apply the city standards to them to get them through so we can get that housing stock in place with as little impediment as possible. And I had a few more things to say, but in the interest of time, that will conclude my presentation. I'm really glad that the Commission is as thoughtful with looking over these things as you are, that you take the time to deliberate these issues, that you listen to applicants, you listen to Public, when they show up, it makes me think of Murray Ranch. You guys really listened to the public a lot on that one when they were talking about the impacts to their street. And that doesn't go unnoticed by staff. That doesn't go unnoticed by the public. That doesn't go unnoticed by council. The Planning Commission does a very good job to make sure these projects are reviewed thoroughly. And we are very appreciative of that. And with that, I conclude my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Yes, please. Sorry. I got you. I see. What's the first slide you showed with all the things we're supposed to be approving? I don't know if it was after this one. No, the second one, maybe.

Oh, we're back.

Sorry, all the way back. Oh, the stuff that falls under us.

Oh, the commission use permit stuff? Yeah. All these?

So I guess my question is, You show a couple of different lists. Like we've had some cannabis stuff come through. We've had some daycare. We've had different things come through. So it's a great list and everything, but we don't get all of this right. Right. It all depends. Done in-house, so to speak. I don't know if that's right. We're like, you guys take care of that.

Yeah, so this list is all uses that require a commission use permit in at least one zone. So some of these may require it in a residential zone, but it might be permitted by right in a commercial zone. so if they come to us with something in the commercial zone you wouldn't see it because it's it's uh permitted by right use okay so just because you just because it's on this list doesn't mean it doesn't mean we see it correct it has to be in there yes it has to be in the right zone okay uh for it to come up to you guys that's that's what the so if you go back further on daycare centers, it's permitted by right in all these zones, so C-O-C-N-C-G-C-L-C-A-C-H-C-D, and you guys would only see it if it's in those two zones, R-M and R-H, which you did. In Conway, it was R-H. Because I just know there's a lot of home healthcare places. Yeah, but if someone proposed a daycare center downtown, We would just process it as permitted by right use. We do a site plan review and make sure that the code standards are applied, and they do it. You'd never see it.

On that table, or 2.2, is there anywhere in it, I don't recall seeing it, that has a complete line across that doesn't have a dash in it?

I don't believe so. I can't find one. I'd have to look through. I doubt it. There's some that come really close, but usually open space is the one that gets you on trying to find one that's allowed in every single zone. Like if you look just on this one, it's public safety facilities. It gets real close. It's a commission use permit everywhere except for public facilities where it's a land development permit, but then open space is not allowed. So I don't think any use is allowed in every single zone in the city.

I can't find one.

Because something that would be good for housing isn't necessarily good for industrial, which isn't necessarily good for open space.

It's got a few pages in 2.2, so it's easy to miss it, especially with my eyes. Yeah.

All right, excellent. Thank you. We are still in the eight, so that would normally be Mike's informational stuff. Did you have anything you wanted to add?

I'll be real quick because I understand everyone gets something.

Was it approved, I think, on the project?

Yeah, I do want to point out on Tuesday, as everybody knows, Council held the first meeting here in the chambers. And it was a pretty good turnout. The audience filled a good majority of these seats out here. But Bear Creek South was the project that was on there, and obviously the Planning Commission made a recommendation on that one. It was tight because not everyone was there. There were actually, I think, one recusal, and then there was one absence. And so the vote ended up becoming, I know you guys probably remember this, but it was four to one. And so it was approved. And last night, not last night, Tuesday, and I want to say night always, but council's meeting during the afternoon, they approved it unanimously. for approval and then I you guys probably know the next steps is the city manager filing an application with LAFCO so that's the next step for that project and we have to have a tax sharing agreement in place so those are all things that are becoming hurdles right now for our annexations but that's something we're working on

Where is the tax sharing agreement?

So still being worked on with the manager's office, working with the San Joaquin County office, and trying to negotiate those. They are considering some projects to be one-offs, to be able to take them forward as a one-off agreement. So anyway, I don't want to get too detailed as far as what's going on, but there's definitely negotiations ongoing. One other thing that if you guys didn't get a chance to take a review of, I think it would be a good thing if you could. Stephanie, our director, amazing director, did an awesome presentation. Our whole staff worked on, the executive staff worked on putting together that presentation. They worked hard on it. And it's pulling a lot of data, too, that it's real facts as far as what's in that presentation. But it's a presentation on building permits, even planning activities, as far as getting those issued in certain time frames. We definitely hold ourselves accountable when applications come in. We don't want to just sit on these things. We realize there's money behind them and interest in trying to move forward with them. So we have to make sure we're accountable to doing what we're supposed to be doing. So we do have turnaround times that are posted as far as what our intentions are to allow, I'm just gonna give an example as far as 20 days for first plan review and then subsequent plan reviews might be 10 days as far as turnarounds. But obviously a lot of that counts on the city staff and then the applicants themselves. And I think that's an important part of kind of sharing with council and even you folks to understand that all these applications really count on both sides. As far as we make comments, they have to react to the comments and get it back in. Well sometimes they have poor designers or architects and they don't turn things in right away. But they tell the applicant that they did. So there's a lot of that that may be going on. It's not all the time, but it definitely happens. And we have to usually verify, no, we sent this out on whatever date. But anyway, it's a really good presentation. If you want to take a look at it, watch the council meeting.

Does it involve a seller? Yeah, it does have a seller. Oh, that piece of crap program.

Anyway, we're doing really good as far as with fine-tuning it, but Jeff, to your point, it takes a lot of work, and that's what we've been doing over a good number of years.

I know there's a lot of work to it, but I don't like Acela, but I know the purpose of Acela.

Okay. Anyway, that's it. Also, we've just completed a transportation master plan that's part of our public facility program, so that's a big accomplishment for us, getting that master plan moving forward so we can take a fee program to council.

Excellent. That's it. All right. Fantastic. OK. So I will start off Commissioner comments by saying I'm excited that we're in our new facility. It's the first commission, planning commission, in this new building. So probably will be, hopefully, I would assume my lifetime that we'd be here. Maybe we'll get that post out of here sometime in my lifetime, but probably not. But it's hard because I can't see people walk in from here. But anyhow. And so I think nice job. That was a unique thing for us tonight that we had a decision on. It's always something different. I've done this now working on three years. Four years. Oh, my, four years. This is my fourth year. So, yeah, so that was interesting. But that's my own comment. Do I have any other comments? I know we're probably getting tired.

I do.

Go ahead.

Your transportation plan. I noticed my name was on the list. online of being part of that group, but I wasn't ever notified about being there for that. I know there was a meeting the other day, because I just saw it today, the summary of the meeting. And I don't recall being told about the meeting or anything.

Does this automatically come on? Okay So I have a feeling it may have been sent to a certain email that doesn't always seem to work It was sent to my well, it was you didn't get because there was an invitation sent out to the entire IWG that on my AOL account and invite but I saw some

A statement today about how the meeting was held and it was done the other day or whenever.

Yeah, so it was a two-part invitation. The city manager's office leads the IWG group. Which I've been there with you before.

But this one I didn't know about.

That's weird because they sent out the invite, but I will double check that your email's in there. Maybe it was some sort of admin error. But we're going to have a follow-up meeting. You will most definitely receive an invitation to that. I would like to. The Transportation Master Plan.

That's an important subject.

It is. It is. The Transportation Master Plan, I believe, was posted online in May for public comment. So we're working with our industry working group to get some feedback from different stakeholders, at which point any questions Final edits will be completed, and then we can take it to council for adoption. And to Mike's comment, that plan will then be used to steer the fee program, which then our intention is to bring the new PFF program before council this winter. is that the only thing holding up the new pff program the transportation that's the last master plan so there was a number of master plans adopted uh since 2021 that all are now feeding into the new water and all that yeah so this is the last piece we did our parks plan you may remember last year So this is that final piece. This was quite the undertaking. Lots of people had to look at it. Lots of technical folks with more knowledge than I when it comes to transportation. So we are looking forward to having it adopted and so that we can move forward. Yes, they are the sub-consultant that is leading that effort. Thank you.

Excellent. Thank you. Commissioner, I'm in.

First I missed everybody I was like a log just like it's been like six months. I've seen you guys I was able I attended the council meeting on the opening and the ribbon and all that stuff on Tuesday It I've been at council meetings where we have approved things and they've gone on and to go to council, and I don't know, I just get super excited sitting there knowing I had like a little part in that. And it was really nice being there that day when it got approved, because you just never know what the council's going to do, because a lot of them meet with people separately and all that, and maybe they'll have a different... perspective on it, but it was really nice that it passed unanimously and I was just sitting there all proud. I can never talk on it because I vote here, but it's just really kind of a proud moment when I'm sitting there and something that we all decided on actually gets passed. Let's see. I was able to hear Stephanie's presentation. It was wonderful. I think hopefully the people that are watching and that were out there have a better understanding. I really like the fact that the council that we have now is trying to really bring each department in and have them speak on what they do and why they do it and how they do it. As long as I've kind of been around watching these things over the years. I don't think anyone's ever done that before. So I'm hoping that the public is getting educated on how things work a little bit with their local government. Let's see. Why do I have Trans-Pacific Model Department here? I don't even know where I wrote that down. Everyone's talking about this lovely little pillar here. What I was told, this is going to take like another million, move this baby so we were already over budget so I think it was Nick yeah it's another movie because of what it holds up this entire building so I know maybe in the future we'll get a beautiful grant for two million they'll be able to do that let's see I today was phenomenal a little bit I hope I wasn't too rough on them but I This seat that we have, I learned so much. I know sometimes it can be overwhelming, the reading and different things that we have to do, but I usually just close myself in the room the week before and start taking my notes and stuff and You know, I take this very seriously. And I just wanted to, I'm going to always thank staff. Thank you so much. When I don't understand something, you guys are really good about calling me back and breaking it down to me like I'm a five-year-old. Because a lot of, some of the wording sometimes can be a little tough to take. This is what you guys do for a living. So you guys know all this stuff. But it's just the more, now that I'm kind of a year and some change into this now, I can't believe what I've learned in that year. So I do want to say thank you. Thank you to those on the dais that have experience with this stuff. You've really helped me just kind of get educated on what this means and how important Planning Commission is. I really was, like you guys all know, I was a little terrified to say yes to this and, you know, what do I know about this? But now I get what this is for and how important this is to our city. So I just wanted to stop. We always got to stop and say thank you. So I just really want to tell staff thank you so much for all that you do behind the scenes. And to the dais here, thank you guys so much for all the support and everything that we give each other. Love the fact that we come in here and we're hugging, we're saying hi. This is a whole different Dias on Thursdays than it is on Tuesdays. And maybe they'll watch this and maybe learn from us how this can actually be up here. Let's hope.

All right. Anyone else? Comment? Yes.

I support that 100%.

Mr. Graves, I would like to make a motion to adjourn in the meeting.

I'll second. Well, there we go. We'll take a verbal vote, I guess.

If you'd like to do an all in favor.

Let's do an all in favor. How about that?

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

There we go. Okay, we are dismissed. Good job. Nice.

Let me just double click it.