Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. What are you doing? Thank you.

Testing. All right. Good evening. It is Wednesday, May 27th, 2026, 7 p.m. Planning Commission meeting. Thank you for joining.

Recording in progress.

All right. I'd like to call this meeting to order. Are there any disclosure of participation by teleconference pursuant to government code section 54953.8.3?

There have been no requests for remote participation.

All right, thank you. Roll call and declaration of conflicts.

Commissioner Atwal. Please speak into the microphone. Thank you. Commissioner Chavez.

Present, no conflicts.

Thank you. Commissioner Shrout.

Present, no conflicts.

Vice Chair Blachey-Blateng.

Present, no conflicts.

And Chair Penning. Present, no conflicts. Thank you.

If you could all please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. 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 for all. All right, thank you for that. Can I get an opening director's report, please? Yes, thank you. There's no director's report. Okay, moving on. The City of Tracy will continue to allow for remote participation by members of the public at tonight's meeting by using the following option. Online by logging into Zoom using the link provided under public comment, raise your hand to speak by clicking on the hand icon on the participants panel to the right of your screen. This procedure will be used to receive all comments received from Zoom during items from the audience and all new business items. Let's move on to the consent calendar, item 1A, the minutes from the previous meeting. If we've all had a chance to review them, and if so, I will entertain a motion.

A motion to approve.

Second it. We have a motion and a second. Can we get a roll call vote?

Commissioner Atwal?

Yes.

Commissioner Chavez?

Yes.

Commissioner Shrout?

Yes.

Vice Chair Boachie-Boateng?

Yes.

And Chair Penning?

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay, item two from the consent calendar, items from the audience. Now please sign in, if you do have a couple things to say, feel free, but please sign in on the podium before speaking. We invite members of the public to use Zoom to comment on our items from the audience. This particular one, opening one, is for items that are not on the agenda. and online by logging on to Zoom using the link provided. Are there any public comments received by email for items that are not on the agenda?

No emails received.

Any comments from Zoom for items that are not on the agenda?

Nothing on Zoom.

And looking out to the audience, would anyone like to speak on items that are not on the agenda by a show of hands? Doesn't appear to be a show of hands. We will now, the public comment period for items from the audience has now closed. Any comments that were received after the close of the public comment period will not be included in the record. All right, moving on to public hearings. New business items 3A. Bear with me here. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and upon its conclusion adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council take the following actions. Waive the first reading by substitution of the title and introduce an ordinance approving an amendment to the Ellis specific plan to allow wall signs up to 250 square feet with approval of a conditional use permit. Application number SPA25-002, exempt from the Quality Environmental Quality Act, also known as CEQA, pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15061B3, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility of a significant environmental impact, and two, adopt a resolution granting a conditional use permit to allow the installation of three wall signs, two of which are 193.7 square feet and one which is 143.1 square feet on the Sprouts Farmers Market grocery store building located at the southwest corner of Coral Hollow Road and Ellis Town Drive. Assessor's parcel number 240-140-70 Application number CUP25-005 exempt from the Quality Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15311 pertaining to the construction of minor structures accessories to existing commercial facilities including on-premise signs. The applicant is Add Art Incorporated and the property owner is Ellis Village Center Regency LLC.

Staff report. Thank you, Chair, and good evening, Commissioners. My name is Martin Vargas, and I am the project planner with the Community Economic Development Department. The project before you tonight is to review and recommend approval for a specific plan amendment and conditional use permit for the installation of three wall signs on the Sprouts Farmers Market Grocery Store building. So a development review permit was approved by the Director of Community Economic Development on May 28th, 2025, which was for the construction of five commercial buildings, including the construction of a 24,000 square foot Sprouts Farmers Market grocery store building and related site improvements known as the Ellis Village Center. The Ellis Village Center is on a 6.45 acre site located at the southwest corner of Coral Hollow Road and Ellis Town Drive. The Ellis specific plan currently refers to the Tracy Municipal Code sign ordinance for standards regarding wall signs except as modified within the specific plan. The maximum wall sign size of 100 square feet is the established standard throughout most areas of the city and applies to many supermarket shopping centers and anchor stores such as Safeway, Raley's, Save Mart, and FoodMax. However, the city is able to establish standards within the specific plans that differ from the Tracy's municipal code including the site ordinance. An example of this is the city's I-205 corridor specific plan. which allows wall signs greater than 100 square feet up to a maximum of 250 square feet with approval of a conditional use permit. If the size of the sign is appropriate scale with the building face on which it is proposed. Examples of stores in the I-205 corridor specific plan area with wall signs up to 250 square feet include big box retailers such as Walmart, Home Depot, and Winco. The maximum wall sign size, yeah, it's 100 square feet, sorry about that. And so this is the project location here. In the location map you can see that the Ellis Village Center is located at the southwest corner of Coral Hollow Road and Ellis Town Drive. And that the Sprouts Farmers Market grocery store is also located on the southwest corner of the Ellis Village Center. So project description. So this project includes an amendment to the Ellis specific plan to allow wall signs of up to 250 square feet with approval of a conditional use permit. And it is also to grant a conditional use permit to allow the installation of three wall signs, two of which are 193.7 square feet and one of which is 143.1 square feet on the Sprouts Farmers Market grocery store building. And so we'll go in more detail in the specific plan amendment. So the purpose of the specific plan amendment is to allow businesses within the Ellis specific plan to obtain a conditional use permit for wall signs that are greater than 100 square feet, which is the current maximum size. Conditional use permits allow individual projects to be evaluated on a case by case basis to ensure a larger size wall sign works with a specific proposal. And we'll go in details about the conditional use permit. So the conditional use permit would grant approval of the three wall signs, two of which are 193.7 square feet, and one of which is 143.1 square feet. Currently, the maximum size for each wall sign is 100 square feet, but with approval of the specific plan amendment, these proposed wall signs could be approved with a conditional use permit. The Sprouts Farmers Market grocery store is located at the southwest corner of Ellis, corner of the Ellis Village Center, which is approximately 307 feet from Coral Hollow Road and approximately 301 feet from Allistown Drive, behind other buildings. The location of the Sprouts Farmers Market grocery store could make a 100 square foot wall sign challenging to view. So the proposed wall signs are appropriate in scale with the building face on which they are proposed. And then the wall signs comply with other regulations including the total maximum sign area allowed for the building and the maximum width of the wall sign. So this is the Ellis Village Center site plan with wall sign locations. The wall signs you will be recommending approval are wall signs 1, 6, and 7, which are highlighted in yellow. Wall signs 2, 3, 4, and 5 are for reference only and will be approved under a separate permit since they are meeting the current standard of 100 square feet or less. So wall sign 1 is facing the north elevation, what is the front facade of the building. Wall sign 6 is facing east towards Coral Hollow Road, and then wall sign 7 is facing south. And this is the north elevation with wall signs. So here you can see wall sign one. This wall sign is 193.7 square feet. And you can also see the four other signs that will be approved under a separate permit, which is the wellness, fresh, local, and organic wall signs on the building. They're a lot smaller so they don't need a conditional use permit for approval. And this is the east elevation with wall signs. So this one is the one that's 143.1 square feet. And it's also facing east towards Coral Hollow Road. And then this is the south elevation with the wall sign number seven. So this one is 193.7 square feet. And this one is facing south. And all three wall signs appear to be appropriate in scale with the building face on which they are proposed. And that concludes my presentation. And staff is recommending that Planning Commission recommends approval. We are available for any questions. The applicants, David, Brandon, and Joy are here today to answer any questions regarding operations. So, yeah. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Vargas. Appreciate that. Would the applicants, do they have any opening comments? Or you're more than welcome to. And same thing, if you don't mind, please sign in. Sure.

My handwriting is not that good, but first, I just want to say good evening, everyone, chair members, commissioners, and staff. My name is David Sajan. I'm the applicant on behalf of, I'm with Ad Art Sign Company on behalf of Sprouts. I really wanted to say a special thank you to Brandon. He's the district manager for Sprouts, and he really wanted to be here to attend the event and just answer any questions about the store itself. For those of you that don't or haven't shopped at Sprouts, I think you're going to really enjoy it. It's fantastic. I became a Sproutie instantly. But they really put together a nice building, a nice project. Signs are important to them from a visual standpoint. But another reason I'm excited to be here is our plant's right in Stockton, California. The signs are going to be kind of local, but I really came up here to speak. I just want to thank staff. We've been working on this for since September and they work tirelessly and it takes a lot to get here. And so I just really want to say thank you, Martin, to you and your team and answer any questions that you folks may have.

All right. Thank you. Appreciate that. Just real quick, prior to going to public hearing, does any of the commissioners have any clarifying questions for Mr. Vargas?

Just a clarification regarding the new size standard. Is it that anything above 100 square feet but below 250 square feet will be conditionally permitted or is going to be permitted as of right?

That's correct. So anything over 100 square feet and less than 250 square feet will need a conditional use permit to get it approved. And it would need to come to Planning Commission for approval.

So does the signs in every other city have the same dimensions?

Yes.

And just to clarify the previous question, so right now the condition is for 100 square feet. And anything above 100 square feet has to have a CUP.

Within the Ellis specific plan, yes.

No, regardless of the Ellis specific plan?

No, only for the Ellis specific plan and currently in the I-205 corridor specific plan, we have allowed this amendment.

The question is if something comes over 100 square feet, it has to go through CUP.

That's correct.

Then why are we putting 250 a limit if... Tomorrow a sign comes for 210 square feet, 170. If it again has to come to the CUP, what's the purpose of putting 250 limit?

The 250 limit, well, just to clarify too, I mean, I think you already heard, but the citywide sign ordinance only allows a maximum of 100 square feet for wall signs. And there is no opportunity to submit a request for a conditional use permit for a larger sign. It's only in the I-205 corridor specific plan that we currently have that. And this applicant is proposing to amend the Ellis specific plan to have a similar requirement. And so their proposed signs currently are 197 square feet. And so those would be approved under the conditional use permit. The first step is approving the specific plan amendment that even allows the commission to consider the CUP. And so we established, you know, the proposal is the 250 square foot maximum. It's just matching the I-205 corridor specific plan. I'm not sure if that completely answers your question. It sounded like you were wondering about someone else coming in later. No. That answers it? Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that.

My only question is, is this going to lead us into Raley's and Safeway being here next month? Or do they have their own permits already to go over that signage? Because I would imagine those are bigger than the $100.

The Safeway and Raley's signs are both within the 100 square foot maximum. They fall under the citywide sign ordinance, and so they do not exceed 100 square feet. If Safeway and or Raley's want to propose larger signs, they would have to go through the process of requesting an amendment to the sign ordinance that would then affect citywide. And then with that, they could, you know, request an amendment to the sign ordinance that would also allow, with approval of a CUP, you could get a larger sign. So that would be something, you know, that could be considered if one of them wanted to propose it.

Okay. Thank you.

All right. I would like to open up the public hearing. And once again, if you do decide to come up, please sign your name on the podium up there. First off, are there any public comments received by email for item 3A?

No emails received.

Any public comments via Zoom for 3A?

Not on Zoom.

Looking out in the audience, does anyone have any comments for item 3A by a show of hands? No show of hands. The public hearing for this item is now closed. Any comments that were received after the close of the public comment period will not be included in the record. We'll bring it back to Commission for any further discussion. I'll kick it off. Can you pull up slide five? So if this does get approved, now this has to do with the whole, the complete Ellis project. So then any other tenant that goes in there and they want a bigger sign than a, let's just, you know, hypothetical, right? So if another tenant goes in there and they want a sign bigger than 100 feet, do they got to go through the same process or is this a blanket for all the buildings there?

They would just have to go to the conditional use permit process to go over 100 square feet if the specific kind of amendment gets approved.

Right.

But it also has to fit in scale with the building. And currently, the only building that fits that size of sign will be the Sprouts building.

Okay, and that's kind of a great, great thing to say because my next question would be now, if this gets approved and someone else comes along, future tenant, wants a larger building, How would that look if it gets disapproved?

Well, first of all, the entire site is approved with the established shopping center buildings. And so that would be a whole new development review permit if they decide not to move forward with constructing the buildings that were approved and they want to somehow put either a larger Sprouts building or I don't know if there's really space on the site to create another second building that's actually larger than Sprouts. It's not really realistic, but let's just imagine that they did. It'd be a whole new development review permit. And then with this, in regards to the wall sign, though, if you can imagine a future where there was somehow even a larger or another equally large building on that site... If the specific plan amendment's approved by city council, then that other building could come in and propose a CUP for their wall sign if they want something larger than 100 square feet. So they would still have to go through a CUP? Yes, that's correct. Okay.

That's all I have. I have one more. What is the boundary of that going to look like on the backside? Because I know from my time in the Parks Commission, the sign in the back is going to face the water park. That's correct. So what kind of a boundary is there? Are they putting one in now? Are they waiting to see what happens? Is it just going to be fields? My worry is that any type of wall would cover it and it would be just kind of a sign in the middle of not facing nothing.

It will be facing the future Aquatic Center. I mean, this sign is approximately 23 feet tall. There's no proposed wall along the edge of the Aquatic Center that would block that sign.

That was just, I thought about that one because I know the Aquatic Center.

Yeah, thank you.

That's it. No comments. Looking over here. Go ahead.

Is it possible to implement the same citywide?

Yes, it is.

So can be considered in this meeting?

Thank you, Commissioner Atwal. You can't at this meeting because it wasn't noticed that way. We would need consensus from the commission for staff to bring the item back. Thank you.

Thanks for that presentation.

I think I'm on mic now. Just for clarification, this is just a detail thing, but I want to understand the mechanism for how we are going to be applying this in the future. Analyzing what we have, it looks like we are going up by about 2.5 times the limit, meaning that we are looking at assign the distance to the street increasing by about 1.5 times. So are we using some sort of distance metric in determining how how much you're going to do in future as you are doing CUP applications. And the other consideration is also that since you are looking at the amount of wall area and building size with respect to the sign, will it be that if, for example, a future applicant comes in for CUP, same building, but within the 250 limit, are we going to consider existing signs relative to this one, or we treat the building as a clean canvas? How is it going to work in future CEP regarding distance and surface area?

Yeah, so the regulations allow a lot of discretion through the CEP process. With the main guidance provided in the language is to determine whether or not the proposed wall sign is basically compatible with the building face it's proposed on. So if you imagine, say, certain grocery stores, I think someone mentioned Safeway, that that particular building facade is broken up into smaller elements where the signs occur, and there's really not space in those areas to create a 200-square-foot sign, most likely, without it being strangely awkward and feeling forced into that space. They'd probably have to actually come in with a new facade improvement that would create a different face to the building in order to accommodate a much larger sign. And so that's what this language does is it pretty much acknowledges in the I-205 area where it was originally approved first, that these massive buildings out there with the very big building faces could accommodate a much larger sign. And in fact, maybe in many cases, those larger signs seem more appropriate for the large building face. And that's what the proposal is here. When you really look at these building walls, especially the main front face, and you can see how the architecture was designed with the thinking in mind that Sprouts is going to have this certain size sign. So this was always part of their original proposal. They always had the hope to get this amendment approved to allow their larger sign because they felt it was most compatible with their building design. So in terms of future applications, those would have to be dealt with at that time through the CUP process using a similar amount of judgment on whether or not what they're proposing is appropriate for the building it's going to be placed on.

Thank you.

I have no further discussion. I'll entertain a motion.

So I'll propose a motion to move to recommend that the city council of the city of Tracy take the following actions first waive the first reading by substitution of the title and introduce an ordinance approving an amendment to the LS specific plan to allow wall signs of up to 250 square feet with approval of the conditional use permit application number SPA 25-0002 exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA pursuant to CEQA guideline section 15061 b 3 because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possible possibility of a significant environmental impact and second adopt a resolution granting a conditional use permit to allow the installation of three wall signs two of which are 193.7 square feet and one of which is 143.1 square feet and on the sprouts farmers market grocery store building located at the southwest corner of coral hollow road and ellis town drive accessor's parcel number 240- 140-70 application number CUP 25-0005 exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15311 pertaining to the construction of minor structures accessory to existing commercial facilities including on premise signs.

I second. Let me take a quick pause, if we can. We have a clarification question.

I just want a clarification regarding the CEQA guidelines you're using. I'm seeing from what the Chair read out, we are looking at Section 15061B3. And for the suggested motion, we have 15311. Are there multiple CEQA sections you are using?

There's two. That's correct. There's two. The first one applies to the specific plan amendment, and the second one applies to the sign itself.

So there's no conflict there? No, no. We need both. Yeah. Great question. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. We had a motion. It's been seconded. Roll call vote. Commissioner Atwal.

Yes, and thank you very much for bringing the project and as it is consistent with the other Sprouts dimensions, so it's a yes.

Thank you. Commissioner Chavez?

Yes.

Commissioner Shrout?

Yes.

Vice Chair Bache-Boateng?

Yes, and thank you for the detail you put in the plan. I really appreciated the nighttime views. That was a question I was going to have. A lot of the questions that I had were answered in advance. So thanks for all the details.

Thank you. And Chair Penning.

Yes. Once again, thank you, Mr. Vargas, for that great presentation. And to the applicants out there, congratulations.

Thank you.

All right. Let's move on to item 3B. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND UPON ITS CONCLUSION ADOPT A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS. ONE, ADOPT A RESOLUTION A, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT A PETITION TO THE SAN JOAQUIN LOCAL AGENCY INFORMATION COMMISSION, ALSO KNOWN AS LAFCO, to annex approximately 1,350 acres into the city limits of Tracy, located at the southwest portion of the city of Tracy's sphere of influence annexation area. B, approving a general plan amendment for certain parcels within the annexation area. Application number GPA 26-003 and C, determining that the proposed annexation is consistent with the impacts identified in the environmental impact report, prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, for the city's general plan, and therefore pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15162, and 15168. C. Two, no further environmental review is necessary. And two, waive the first reading by substitution of the title, introduce an ordinance approving the pre-zoning of the annexation area. Application number AP25-002. Staff report.

Thank you. Good evening. This is Genevieve Federighi with the Community and Economic Development Department. I'm the project planner for West Tracy annexation. I'm going to go a little out of order here. The project consists of two pieces, the annexation and pre-zoning. So the annexation is for approximately 1,350 acres. So it will go from San Joaquin County into the city limits. The pre-zoning of the area is mostly light industrial, with the exception of highway services for an existing commercial development, which we'll go over. The second piece is the general plan amendment, and this is just to change the city-owned properties from park to public facilities. And this is a city-initiated project. This is the location map, so the black hatched area is what is included in the annexation area. The portion that's outlined in red is the Patterson Pass Business Park. In 1991, the city entered into an agreement with this area, with the property owners of the area, in order to provide them utility services, as it was not yet adjacent to the city. So we weren't able to annex it at that time. So an agreement was formed that once the area was completed, adjacent to the city boundary line, then it would be annexed. So that was several years ago, so we're including it with this annexation as part of the evaluation of the area. We have had recent interest in annexing other portions. We have a submitted application for a property out there. We're including the city-owned property and then all the areas within the 10-year horizon in the sphere of influence. So the sphere of influence is outlined in kind of the brown shaded line. And we'll get more into the specifics. So for the pre-zoning portion of the project, most of it is light industrial and then there's a small piece that is a commercial development which will be highway services. So if we zoom into that area, I'll zoom in with an aerial as well, it consists of four parcels. So here's an aerial. It's on the corner of International Parkway and South Schulte Road. It currently includes a gas station with an attached restaurant and then three tenant spaces. One's currently occupied by Subway and two are vacant. And then the area across the street, as we believe those will also develop as commercials, so they're included and proposed as highway services. For the second part of the project, the general plan amendment, currently the general plan designation for the city-owned property is park. It's been identified that a park is no longer needed in that location, so we are changing it to public facilities. And that designation is for government-owned parcels and includes civic uses such as libraries, police stations, fire stations, municipal offices, and courthouses or utilities. So the process for this project is a Planning Commission recommendation. After your recommendation, it will move to City Council for consideration. At City Council, they'll either approve or deny the project. The general plan amendment will stop there, but the annexation does move on to LAFCO for consideration.

All right. Thank you very much. Once again, before we go out to public, are there any clarifying questions from any of the commissioners?

Can you please move to the pre-zoning slide? Yeah, so the sphere of influence, so that is the dark brown line? Yes. Okay. Kind of the red-brown. And there is light brown as well in this slide. So is this not considered a sphere of influence where the California aqueduct is?

The light brown.

So does this also pertain to the sphere of influence or it doesn't?

That's the freeway. That light brown color is the freeway. That's it. Okay.

Yeah. Okay. So only the dark brown where it moves towards above the California aqueduct. So that is the sphere of influence.

Yes. And so the new city boundary line is proposed to be consistent with the current sphere of influence line.

Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Shroud, do you have a... I WANTED TO KIND OF PIGGYBACK ON WHAT COMMISSIONER ELWOOD WAS SAYING. IT'S NOT ON THE SLIDE, BUT IF YOU GO TO THE PRESENTATION IN THE BOOK, THERE DOES APPEAR TO BE ALSO A BROWN LINE COVERING A BOX AREA. IF YOU GO TO ATTACHMENT A? CAN YOU GO BACK A FEW SLIDES, THEN? MAYBE IT IS ON THERE? NO, THAT'S NOT IT. That's not it. I don't think it's on the slides. I'm looking at attachment A. That's not it. This is only part of it. The attachment A we have on our folders and our binders is different than this. It's more extended down. It's on the southwest side, if you will.

I think I understand what you're saying. So there is areas that are in the sphere of influence for the city that are not part of this project. So only the black hatched area is part of the annexation area.

Okay. Thanks for that clarification. I appreciate that.

Anything else? So another follow-up question. So as now the city is proposing to annex to the sphere of influence, does the sphere of influence moves to or no?

No, the sphere of influence does not move with this. That's a separate process to modify our sphere of influence with LAFCO.

So suppose now at this section the city has incorporated and reached to its sphere of influence, will that process happen to incorporate certain other from this part beyond to its sphere of influence?

It does not happen automatically. A city may have a sphere of influence line that's contiguous with its city limit line. A city interested in expanding and growing in the future will establish a sphere of influence line beyond their city limit line. And it may do that in more areas than one. You don't necessarily have to have a sphere that expands beyond your city limit line in all areas surrounding your city. You might identify certain directions from the city that you want to grow, maybe more to the west, maybe more to the south. In this particular case, we have an existing situation where the sphere is, of course, beyond our city limit line, and this proposed annexation will be taking in a large part of it, like Genevieve explained, the portion that's in what we call the 10-year sphere of influence. So in the future, the city can always consider future modifications to the sphere of influence. We're about to begin our general plan update process this summer. It'll probably take three or four years to complete, but I do know that one of the first parts of that general plan update process that we want to focus on is identifying what if any changes should be considered for the sphere of influence. So there'll be upcoming discussions with planning commission and city council about that. and perhaps there will be significant or some form of changes to the sphere. And then those, once approved by council, it's really a recommendation or a direction for staff to submit the application to LAFCO. And then LAFCO has to approve not only annexations, but also any changes to our sphere of influence.

Okay, thank you.

I have a question for staff. Looking at the redesignation of the two parcels along Schulte Road from park to public, facilities. What public facilities are in mind to occupy these two parcels within the future? And if we're unsure of which facilities will be occupying this area, why does staff recommend we reclassify or redesignate as public facilities as opposed to additional industrial area?

At this point, thank you for that question. So at this point, the move away from parks, obviously, is because there's no longer direction to create a park on the site. So the next question from then became similar to what you just asked. Why not industrial? Why public facilities? And the decision to move towards public facilities is mostly based on the ongoing talks of potentially locating certain public facilities on that property. One being potentially like Valley Link maintenance yard facility. There could be potential for council to consider bus transit maintenance on that site as well, possibly a police substation. There's a number of different public facilities that have been contemplated for that site. And based on those ongoing future decisions that will be happening, public facilities seem like the best general plan designation for the site. Thank you.

So another quick question on this, if we are looking on the slide that's in front, existing versus proposed. So in this one, so on the south side of 580, there's again the brown, dark brown line. So does that mean that is also the sphere of influence?

Yes, that shows the sphere of influence. So anything that has a color and is not gray is within the sphere of influence. And then that black line is the city limit line where the brown is showing the sphere of influence.

Okay.

All right. Thank you very much for that staff report. I would like to open up the public hearing. And then once again, please sign in before speaking. If you do, come up to the podium. We'll look out there first. Anyone like to comment on item 3B from the audience? Show of hands. No show of hands. Are there any public comments received by email for item 3B?

No emails received.

Are there any public comments received via Zoom for item 3B?

None on Zoom.

Okay, no comments. The public comment period for this item is now closed. Any comments that are received after will not be included in the record. We'll bring it back to commission for further discussion and or a motion.

I most recommend that the City Council of the City of Tracy conduct a public hearing and upon its conclusion, take the following actions. One, adopt a resolution A, determining that the proposed annexation of approximately 1,350 acres located in the city's sphere of influence adjacent to the southwestern boundary of the city's Cordes Ranch specific plan area. The project is consistent with the impacts identified in the city's general plan environmental impact report EIR and therefore pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act CEQA guidelines sections 15162 and 15168C2 no further environmental preview review is necessary be approving a general plan amendment to change the land use designation for APNs 209-230-29 and 209-230-30 from park to public facilities and C authorizing the city manager to submit a petition to the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission for the annexation and of approximately 1,350 acres into the city limits of Tracy and to waive the first reading by substitution of the title and introduce an ordinance approving the pre-zoning of the parcels located within the annexation area.

I second that.

We have a motion that's been seconded. Can we get a roll call vote?

Commissioner Atwal.

Yes.

Commissioner Travis?

Yes.

Commissioner Shrout?

Yes.

Vice Chair Bwache-Bwating?

Yes.

Chair Penning?

Yes. Thank you, Genevieve. Appreciate that.

Who seconded? I'm sorry, I didn't hear. Atwal? Commissioner Atwal. Okay. Thank you.

All right. Moving on to Item 3C. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and upon its conclusion adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council take the following action. waive the first reading by substitution of the title and introduce an ordinance repealing and replacing section 10.08.3180 of the Tracy Municipal Code regarding accessory dwelling units of title 10, planning and zoning of the Tracy Municipal Code, exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15061B3. staff report. Back to you.

Thank you. This is Genevieve Federighi with the Community and Economic Development Department and I am the project planner for the city initiated project to update our accessory dwelling unit ordinance. So accessory dwelling units are an additional independent dwelling built on a residential lot. The city's last update to the ADU ordinance was in 2018 and there were pretty minor revisions. Several state bills have passed imposing new limits on local authority to regulate ADUs. Since our current code is inconsistent with state law, we're following state law currently. So the goal is to update our ordinance so we can use our local ordinance. Additionally, the 2023-2031 housing element included updating the ADU ordinance as an implementation measure. So the proposal from staff is to repeal and replace the entire code section for the ADU ordinance. I'll go over some of the major changes. Changes to single-family lots include allowance of multiple types of units on a single lot. You could potentially have a junior accessory dwelling unit, which I'll explain in the next slide, a conversion ADU, an attached ADU, and a detached new construction ADU. The proposed changes also removes all off-street parking requirements and includes relaxed development standards for certain types of ADUs. So Junior ADUs, a brand new type of ADU. This includes an ADU created within the walls of proposed or existing single-family residence. The design includes less than 500 square feet. They may share central systems, contains a basic kitchen, utilizing small plug-in appliances, and may share a bathroom with the primary dwelling. A lot of times we see garages being converted to these Junior ADUs. Also new is ADUs for multifamily residential lots. So multifamily have two different types of ADUs, detached ADUs and conversion ADUs, which is converted from non-habitable space. For an existing development, the maximum number of detached ADUs is eight, but you are not allowed to exceed the number of primary dwelling units on a site. So if you have a fourplex on a site, you can have up to four ADUs. For conversion, you're allowed up to 25% of the existing primary dwelling units on a site. For proposed development, you can have two detached ADUs and conversions not permitted because you can't convert a proposed development. Those are the major updates and staff is available for any questions.

All right. Thank you once again. Again, before we go out to the public, any clarifying questions from the commissioners?

So does the California law supersedes or the city law supersedes?

The California law. So we're currently following California law.

Okay. So if we are currently following it, so does that mean so whatever changes has been done, they are exactly same as they are in the California law?

Exactly. Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Chavez.

So I have a question about the junior accessory dwelling units. I notice here that these units are to be no more than 500 square feet and may share central systems. Are there minimums for JADUs? Like, for example, I know that garages are speculated to be opportunities for residents wanting to have a JADU, but if theoretically someone took their master bedroom or their office and connected it to the central systems, including a basic kitchen, as well as a bathroom, would that qualify as a JDU? I guess, are there minimums?

There's no minimums in our code. There are minimums in the building code that make it a habitable space. So that would apply in that case.

Thank you.

And I should also add too, there's certain amenities required within the unit that would have to be accommodated as well. So, you know, it can't be five square feet. You have to be able to accommodate all these different elements. And then like Genevieve explained, there are building code requirements for in order to make that a space that's livable.

So you gave us an example of the conversion ADUs, like a garage. Would a detached one be like a tough shed in the backyard, something like that, where you could put, Room and if you had a big enough one, that's what you're talking about something that you bring in and build not in a not on the permanent structure like building a You know back house, so to speak a small little house. You're talking about something that is Not portable but Isn't a foundation and all that right and

So conversion is any type of structure that's existing on the site. Again, you have to meet the building code. So it'd be difficult to convert a Tufts shed, but if you could meet the current building code, then you could do so. Okay.

All right. Does it appear to be any further clarifying questions? We will now open up a public hearing. Are there any public comments received by email for item 3C?

No emails received.

Any public comments received via Zoom for Item 3C?

None via Zoom.

Looking out in the audience, show of hands, anyone like to comment on Item 3C? No show of hands. We will now close the public hearing for this item. Any comments that were received after the close will not be included in the record. We'll bring it back to Commission for any further questions and or entertain a motion.

I was reading the height requirements for the detached ADUs. And there's a point where there's a limit of one story for the detached ADU. But then we spell out conditions and the height can be increased to up to 18 feet. And it concludes that, yes, you can also have two stories. It is not clear what triggers between one story and two stories. What are the conditions that allows a detached ADA to be two stories?

So the single story, there's a new state exemption that allows single story ADUs, different heights depending on how they're designed, to have a setback, a side and rear setback of four feet. If you want to go two stories, then the regulations of the zone still apply. So for LDR, the rear setback is 10 feet in most cases. So you would have to apply the 10 feet rather than the four feet for a single story.

And so in those cases that she's describing, if you're meeting the actual setbacks of the zone, you're allowed to build to the height of the zone. Is that correct, Genevieve? Which in most of our residential zones is 35 feet. So essentially, because the idea would be you could actually have the house in that same location.

So when you talk about the setback, are you talking about setback from the street or setback from the property line?

The property line.

From the property line.

Yeah. In most cases, that's occurring in the backyard. So it'd be the back fence. But you can actually have ADUs in the front yard as well.

Okay. That clarifies it. And any impact, for example, with the junior ADUs on our housing elements? For example, if someone does a conversion within the same house, we are increasing livable space. Does it help us in a way in our housing element? Or this is just...

we have to do annual reporting to the state. And included in that information, we do have to provide information on the number of permits issued for ADUs, including the ones you're describing.

Thank you.

So kind of piggybacking on that question, so now are ADUs and JADUs, are they considered, would they be a part of the housing element? A little bit more clarifying, I guess, right?

Yes, they are.

So they would be. I know it has different categories of high density, low density, medium, and so forth.

There's a specific number that's identified in the housing element in terms of what we can count towards affordable housing. Okay. All right. Thank you.

This amendment is just so that we can control our own town, right? We want to We want to be able to control what we do, not the state control what we do in town. Is that what I was getting from you saying?

Yes, but the code is consistent with state law. It's just when you give someone the state law, there's a handbook that comes with it that's like 60 pages long. So our hope is to make it very clear for residents and builders and kind of boil down and have it easy for us to explain. But still, it's consistent with state law, so it's one and the same.

The state's basically taken a lot of our control? You know, so really, we're not allowed to be more permissive than what the state's mandating. We can only be more restrictive.

Yeah.

Actually, no, let me reverse that. We can be more permissive. We can be more permissive. We can allow more than what the state's saying we have to allow, but we can't allow less than what they're requiring. Yeah. If that makes sense, yeah.

Anyone like to entertain a motion? I will.

I SUGGEST WE MOVE TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TRACY CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND UPON ITS CONCLUSION TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTION. WAIVE THE FIRST READING BY SUBSTITUTION OF THE TITLE AND INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REPLACING ARTICLE 23 SECTION 10 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT OF TITLE 10 PLANNING AND ZONING OF THE TRACY MUNICIPAL CODE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE SECTION 15061B3 BECAUSE IT CAN BE SEEN WITH CERTAINTY THAT THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF A SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.

SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION. IT'S BEEN SECONDED. CAN WE GET A ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE?

All right. Commissioner Atwell.

Yes.

Commissioner Chavez.

Yes.

Commissioner Shrout. Yes. Thank you. Vice Chair Blaché-Blotting.

Yes.

And Chair Penning.

Yes. And once again, thank you for that report. Appreciate it. All right. Moving on to item 4A. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct, I'm sorry, that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution finding of the City of Tracy's Capital Improvement Program, CIP, for fiscal year 2026-2027 is consistent with the city's general plan pursuant to government code section 65103C and 65401. Staff report, please.

Commissioners, real quick, before we jump into this item, there's just something I wanted to point out. We do have a city engineer here tonight, so I don't want to step on his toes. The item will need to be approved as amended. There was an error with one of the whereases in the resolution. It's the third whereas. It currently reads, City staff is providing a proposed capital improvement program to City Council in 2024 for budget adoption for fiscal year 2026-2027. It's not 2024. That whereas should read 2026. So when we get our motion and second to approve this item, we will need to approve it as adopted or as amended to 2026.

Okay, thank you.

Staff report. Good evening, Commissioners. This is Evan Marcello. I'm the City Engineer for City of Tracy. Tonight's item is the annual review of the City's Capital Improvement Program, which is also known as CIP, for the fiscal year 2026 and 2027. The purpose of this agenda item is simply for the Planning Commission to evaluate and confirm that the proposed Capital Improvement Program is consistent with the City's general plan. This is not the action to approve or fund any projects. It is solely to make a determination of consistency. The CIP is a list of proposed capital expenditures for the upcoming fiscal year, including construction, maintenance, improvements to the public facilities. The city adopts the CIP as part of the annual budget. For this year's program, projects are grouped into eight categories, which are listed in attachment eight of the staff report, along with detailed project lists. If I may, the categories are group 71, general government and public safety facilities, group 72, traffic safety, group 73, safety I'm sorry, Group 73, streets and highways. Group 74, wastewater improvements. Group 75, water improvements. Group 76, drainage improvements. Group 77, airport and transit improvements. And Group 78, parks and recreation improvements. Each of these categories includes projects that support and align with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's General Plan. The staff report provides a full consistency analysis for each category. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution finding that the City of Tracy's capital improvement program for the 2026 and 2027 is consistent with the city's general plan pursuant to the government code section 6165 rather 65103C and 65401. Again, as just a reminder, the item needs to be approved as amended to correct the clerical error. I'm happy to answer any questions.

All right. Thank you very much. Again, once again, we'll keep it up here for clarifying questions, which I have one, if you don't mind. I guess, why is this coming to Planning Commission, not Finance?

It's the responsibility of the Planning Commission to make the report of general plan conformity for this item and any other types of report of general plan conformity. So anytime we do such things as vacation of right-of-way, purchase of property, we always have to go through a report of general plan conformity, and that's also the requirement with the CIP. And we do this on an annual basis every year.

This seems more, I mean, if you look at all the details, great detail, but it seems more of a financial plan.

It's a step that's required to be done prior to us adopting the budget each year. But it is actually, what's happening here is not so much finance, it actually is based on identifying whether or not these CIP projects are consistent with general plan land use policies. Okay, understood. And not just land use policy, but other policies within the general plan.

That's correct.

Yeah, I'm still a little unclear, but I can table it for now. I just don't understand. I've been here for three years, but I haven't seen this, number one. Excuse me. And it just seems like this is so much more of a financial responsibility.

The idea is that the cities are supposed to follow their general plan. And so anytime you're purchasing property, vacating property, or approving a budget for CIP projects, which become infrastructure projects within the city, that they are conforming to your general plan. Again, the idea is we need to be able to demonstrate that the actions we're taking are consistent with our general plan. It's a state requirement that we do this.

Yeah, I'm still a little confused. This seems more like a big blanket approval than a particular line item.

That's the nature of the CIP. It's the nature of the CIP because there are so many, so many CIP projects. It's really the only way we can do it is just in one bulk approval. If you have any specific questions about any of it, even certainly here to help answer those questions. But again, it's about whether or not these projects... fall within the general plan policies. And they've been grouped together as even explained into these different categories. And for each category, all of the general plan policies that are relevant and that show consistency with the general plan are being identified. So that's really what it comes down to.

And so what I did see on here, and I'll give the other commissioners a chance, of course, what I did see on here is are we recommending approval to council, or is the approval stop here?

The approval stops here. It's a report of general plan conformity, and this is just an action taken by the planning commission, and then your report is essentially provided to council as part of that, the budget process approval.

And, Chair Penning, just to clarify, too, so I'm looking at the last page, right? So the last category... is Parks and Recreation Improvements, CIP Group 78. This category consists of parks and civic amenity construction, improvements and maintenance. The category includes park improvements, bikeway improvements, playground equipment replacement, aquatic center, et cetera. So a good way to read it is that if you go down to the land use policies, the goals and objectives, which are also all available in the general plan, that's where we get all this from, you can say is a balanced and orderly pattern of growth in the city consistent with the CIP to include park improvements, bikeway improvements, playground equipment, aquatic center, etc. And you can go through the list that way and say, is this consistent for the general plan reading, right? Are we following our plan in putting our CIP monies towards that?

Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. Looked at my left, looked at my right.

Just a note, when it comes to judging the consistency, it's clear to be able to follow to determine what is included versus what is not. One limitation that I have in particular is I'm not able to judge as to whether that particular amount that is being put towards the project is actually consistent with how much priority the general plan is giving to that particular project. I'm not assuming that that is part of the evaluation.

We're not here to talk about the dollar amounts. It's not about the dollar amounts. It's just about the project type and whether the project itself would be consistent. Okay.

Right. The money part, that all goes to the Finance Committee and to City Council. So you're just looking at it for a general plan consistency. Land use purposes only, really, is what you're here to do.

Okay. So that's how I evaluate it. First of all, look at, okay, are we including the right things? And that one is, we've gone through that. Another thing is we have this spreadsheet attached. How are we supposed to read that? Is that part of the evaluation that we are doing here?

It's attached for the purposes of that being the full complete list of all the CIPs, the staff. It's an enormous amount of information. So that makes it very challenging. So the purpose of the, and what EVEN has provided through the staff report is just sort of a summary that groups these various different, because basically the spreadsheet identifies what group number they're in, so you have to kind of cross reference. But if you look at the group numbers that EVEN described, and then here's the list of general plan policies that relate to those in each category. And so essentially really what it comes down to is projects in these categories we're saying are consistent with the general plan.

Okay. And another final clarification, this is a public hearing. I'm assuming the whole city is here. Will they get an opportunity, will the community get an opportunity to evaluate some of these details in a different forum so the Planning Commission is just focusing on what is included versus what is excluded?

Well, the focus as part of this night is just about report of general plan conformity. Beyond this point, city council would make decisions on whether they're moving forward with the CIP and approving it and moving forward with the various projects with inside it.

Okay, then I have some clarifications on the spreadsheet. I'm going to drop those and go there's a different form for that. Thank you. All right.

I'd like to open up public hearing. Are there any public comments received by email for item 4A?

So, Chair Penning, just to clarify, I don't believe this is a public hearing item because it wasn't agendized as a public hearing. I believe this is just a discussion item, so we don't need to open a public hearing, but we will need to open for public comment. It seems like a distinction without a difference, but there is a legal difference. Yeah.

Not a public hearing. It's a public meeting, but not a public hearing. Right.

So you'd open for discussion. You don't have to, you know, gavel in or anything at a public hearing. But so when the item goes, it just goes for public comment, not for a public hearing.

All right. Are there any public comments received via email for item 4A?

No comments received.

Are there any public comments received via Zoom for item 4A?

Not on Zoom.

Does it appear no one's in the audience? We will now close the public hearing. comment for this item. Any comments that are received after the close of the public comment period will not be included in the record. We'll bring it back to Commission for discussion and or a roll call vote.

I move to recommend that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution finding that the City of Tracy's capital improvement program for fiscal year 2026-2027 is consistent with the general plan pursuant to government code sections 65103C and 65401.

I second. We have a motion. It's been seconded. Can we get a roll call vote please?

commissioner at wall oh um so sorry about that we just want to make sure you're adding us as amended because there was that little minor edit to the resolution just want to make sure that the language for the motion and approval is as amended on the resume thank you okay i'll just it's shots out i'll just cover it again i move to recommend that the planning commission adopt a resolution finding that the city of tracy's capital improvement program

2026-2027 is consistent with the general plan pursuant to government code sections 65103C and 65401 as amended.

Thank you. All right, Commissioner Atwal.

Yes.

Commissioner Chavez.

Yes.

Commissioner Shrout. Yes. Vice Chair Boaché-Boateng.

Yes.

And Chair Penning. Yes. Thank you.

All right, moving on. Item 4A, no regular agenda. Items 5, once again, items from the audience. We invite members of the audience to use Zoom to comment under items for the audience. Again, this particular one are for items that are not on the agenda. Are there any public comments via Zoom for items that are not on the agenda?

None via Zoom.

Are there any comments via email for items that are not on the agenda?

No emails received.

No public folks in the audience. We will now close the public comment period. Final director's report. Thank you, Chair. There's no director's report this evening. All right. Any final thoughts from the Commission? Nope. I will entertain a motion for adjournment.

I motion to adjourn. Second.

We have a motion for adjournment and a second. Can I get a roll call vote?

Can I ask, sorry, who... Motioned and who seconded?

I motioned.

Thank you. Thank you. Sometimes it's hard to tell the voices. All right. Commissioner Atwal.

Yes.

Commissioner Chavez.

Yes.

Commissioner Shrout. Yes. Vice Chair Bwache-Bwating.

Yes.

And Chair Penning.

Yes. 807, meeting adjourned. Thank you.

Thank you. Recording stopped.