Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress.

Can you hear me? Operator error. Sorry about that. Good evening. It is 7 p.m. Wednesday, July 8th, 2026. Welcome to the Planning Commission meeting. I'd like to call this meeting to order. Are there any disclosures 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, please.

Commissioner Chavez. Commissioner Buache-Boateng.

Present and no conflicts.

Commissioner Atwal. Present, no conflict. Vice Chair Schreuer.

Present, no conflicts.

Chair Penning.

Present, no conflicts. And if you could all 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. All right. 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 and under public comments 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. Director's report.

Thanks, Commissioners. Daniella Green, Assistant City Attorney. I actually do have one for the Director's report. It came to our attention this evening right before the start of the meeting that the link posted online for the agenda is the correct link. However, the link that was on the posted agenda outside on the bulletin board as well as at the library and in the newspaper was the incorrect Zoom link. To remedy that situation tonight, we have someone sitting in on the incorrect Zoom link directing all participants to the correct Zoom link that was posted on the city's website. We do not believe there's a Brown Act issue for remote participation tonight because we are taking care of it with the participant in the incorrect Zoom meeting and because we did have the correct link posted online more than 72 hours before today's meeting.

All right, thank you. Anything further, Director's Report?

No, nothing further, thank you.

All right, any presentations?

No presentations.

All right. We'll move on to the consent calendar. Item 4A, minutes. Have we all had a chance to look at the minutes? I wasn't present at the last meeting. However, I did watch it the very next day, so I'll be able to chime in on that. Can I get a motion?

I motion to approve the consent calendar.

Second.

We have a motion. It's been seconded. Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Chavez. Commissioner Atwal.

Yes.

Commissioner Bache-Boateng.

Yes.

Vice Chair Schwab.

Yes.

Chair Penning.

Yes.

Thank you.

All right, moving on, item five, items from the audience. And if you do decide to speak up, please sign in before speaking up here at the podium. We do invite members of the public to use Zoom to comment under items from the audience. So this particular one are for items that are not on the agenda. Online, by logging into Zoom using the link provided, are there any public comments received by email for items that are not on the agenda?

No emails have been received.

Okay. Any public comments received via Zoom for items that are not on the agenda?

None on Zoom.

Looking out in the audience, show of hands, would anyone like to make comments for items that are not on the agenda? It doesn't appear we have any show of hands. 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. Excuse me. Item 6A. Conduct a public hearing and upon its conclusion, one, ADOPT A RESOLUTION MAKING A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO, A, AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT A PETITION TO THE SAN JOAQUIN LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION, ALSO KNOWN AS LAFCO, TO ANNEX 17 PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 762 ACRES INTO THE CITY LIMITS OF TRACY LOCATED IN THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE CITY'S TRACY SPHERE OF INFLUENCE, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF ARBOR ROAD BETWEEN CORAL HOLLOW ROAD AND MCCARTHUR DRIVE ANNEXATION AREA. AND B, DETERMINE THAT THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ALSO KNOWN AS CEQA, FOR THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN AND THEREFORE PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183, NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS NECESSARY. AND TWO, WAVE THE FIRST READING BY SUBSTITUTION OF THE TITLE AND INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE. approving the pre-zoning of the annexation area to light industrial and agriculture to be consistent with the general plan designations, application number AP26-0002 and B, Determining that the pre-zoning of the annexation area is consistent with the impacts identified in the environmental impact report prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act for the city's general plan and therefore pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15183 no further environmental review is necessary. Staff report.

Thank you, Chair, and good evening, Commissioners. My name is Genevieve Federighi with the Community and Economic Development Department, and I'm the project planner for North Annexation. Wait for our PowerPoint to come up. Perfect. It was letting me. We're just having a little bit of issues with the clicker. One moment, please.

Can we get IT assistance to toggle the slides? Or can you do it, Miranda?

I was playing with it earlier.

chair penning if i could suggest a five minute recess so we could get the technology issues sorted out i think that would be for the best absolutely yeah it is 708 let's take a five minute recess thank you thank you

We'll go ahead and cut the recess short. We'll get back into it at 7.10. Staff report.

Thank you, Chair. We'll start with the project location. This is a very zoomed out version of the city, so you'll see the red circle at the very north end, and that's the area we're going to be looking at this evening. The project includes an annexation of pre-zoning of approximately 762 acres. So that land is currently within San Joaquin County and will be annexed into the city of Tracy. Pre-zoning of the area will include light industrial and agriculture to be consistent with the existing general plan designations. This is a city initiated project and there is no development included with this application. The annexation area is shown here in gray and outlined in red. This is the very north, again, of the city. This exhibit shows the pre-zoning designations, so the areas shown in dark green will be zoned agriculture, and then the color that's kind of showing up as dark purple brown will be industrial, and these lines are exactly consistent with the current general plan designations of the areas. I also wanted to point out on this slide, all the property owners are shown and the city actually owns about 515 acres of the 720 or 62 acres that are proposed to be annexed. Here is an existing aerial. So you'll see there's not much development out there. There are several single-family homes. There is an existing industrial development. And again, no development is proposed at this time, just a change of the jurisdictional boundary. So the process for this annexation is requesting a Planning Commission recommendation. It will then move forward to City Council for consideration. If City Council approves the annexation, we will initiate the process to LAFCO for annexation. That concludes my staff report and we're available for any questions. Staff is recommending that Planning Commission recommend City Council approves the project.

Thank you very much for that. Prior to going out to public hearing, are there any initial comments, questions from Commission?

Thank you very much. This is different kind of annexation that I've seen because typically there is some development associated with it. I'm wondering whether the motivation is because the city owns about 515 acres of land. Is that a motivation or there are some other reasons?

The annexation will just give us jurisdiction over our own property. And then in evaluating the area, since it's not a straight line, it made sense to include the other properties as well.

Thank you. Another one unrelated, but it's got to do with the Tracy Royal Fire District. The land is going to be still under the Tracy Royal Fire District. I'm not sure about the demarcation of the fire districts. What is the motivation for doing the annexation without changing the fire district associated with that?

Yes, thank you for that question. That's at the request of the fire authority. It's primarily for financial reasons. The rural district receives a certain amount of funds during under the current situation and their request is for it to continue as is and the city is in agreement with that.

Thank you. So that's just for practical administrative reasons?

Yes.

Okay, thank you. That's all, Chair.

Any clarifying questions?

Can you put the map back up of one more go back? Yeah, that one. Just because I know the Bichettis and I know some of these families, how do they feel about this? Is this something that they came to you or because it makes a straight line, as it were? I don't understand how... you can incorporate their land. That doesn't make sense to me. And how do they feel about that?

Yeah, thank you for the question. So this project did require a 20-day notice. So we did send them a notification 20 days ago. We have not heard from any of the people that were noticed. So not only are the property owners included in the annexation notice, but also any areas within 300 feet. Um, the areas are within the sphere of influence in the general plan. So it is assumed that the city would be growing out to that area.

So this doesn't mean that that means that they can do things on their own land within city instead of County now.

Exactly.

It's not like you're taking their land.

Correct. And, um, we made sure to include, to ensure that it remained agriculture as it is now.

Okay. And then, um, The kind of north area there, how do we not, why is there that little strip that we're not, what's the deal there?

Yeah, thank you so much for pointing that out. So the two, the strip as well as the two properties to the left there that kind of dip down, those are actually county properties and they're slated to be part of the regional park. So it was requested that it's not included in the city.

Okay, thank you. All right, doesn't look like there's any further clarifying questions. I'll save my comments for public hearing. Excuse me. So now I'd like to open up the public hearing and please, once again, please sign in before speaking up here at the podium. First off, are there any public comments received by email for item 6A?

No emails received.

Are there any public comments via Zoom for 6A?

None via Zoom.

And once again, looking out in the audience, anyone would like to make a comment on item 6A, show of hands? No show of hands. The public comment, the public hearing for this item is now closed. 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 if I can kick it off. So you mentioned, I think it was the first or second slide. that there's no plan, go back one more, there it is, on the bottom, no development included with this application. So I can only assume there's an idea, there's a future plan, again, I know it's not on the agenda, but it's kind of, without knowing what the future looks like on that map, it makes a decision a little bit difficult, right? Because I mean, are there any future development plans for this property?

There's no future development plans at this time. We do evaluate what we assume will be there with the general plan designations. And so since it's consistent with that, it has been evaluated at that level.

So then I guess there's a built-in assumption that there will be future development. Correct. I mean, if not, there'd be no reason to annex it in, right? Correct. Okay. That's all I have.

I was going to say, Chair Penning, too, just to add further clarification, if there is a development project later, obviously then that would have to be reviewed depending on what the project is. Again, we don't know what it is right now. It could involve its own general plan amendment if we need to change the eventual zoning on it from agricultural to something else, and then that project will go through an environmental review and entitlement process, so it would come to potentially Planning Commission and City Council, depending on what projects go in that area. So this is only the annexation, only bringing the parcels into the jurisdictional boundary of the city with the assumed zoning that was consistent with the general plan designations.

No, thanks for that. So I'm glad you said that. So that being said, maybe go up one more. So there could be another, I'm sorry, the other way. There could be another designation to rezone it again.

In the future, when a different project comes along, that could be part of an application. Obviously, that's not before the commission tonight. That would be part of a separate and distinct entitlement process that would be subject to normal legislative approvals of the city.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Any comments?

When we talk about these taking these parcels from the county, why wouldn't we go all the way to Nagley? Why? I mean, it seems like it's pretty maybe piggybacking off what Chair said. Why these parts of land? Why didn't we go more? Or I don't just because I'm new to this and I just want to make sure that I know what we're talking about as we grow the city. It seems like it would be easy to go down Bethany all the way to Nagley and take it all.

Yes, so that area is outside the city sphere of influence there you're describing. So as part of our upcoming general plan update, part of what we'll be looking at is determining whether the city wants to consider revising its sphere of influence in the future. But for now, as part of this proposed annexation, we're looking at areas within the sphere of influence. We can't propose annexation outside of the sphere.

I believe this question has been asked, but looking at this map, there's this gap between that rectangular area at the top. Is that where the county has already planned for something, or why do we have that gap?

Exactly. That's county land, and it's planned for their regional park.

Yeah. When she says county land, she means county-owned, not just county jurisdiction, but county-owned land that is being planned for a future county park. Thank you.

I do have one more, actually. You had mentioned, and it kind of just triggered something in my head, but the sphere of influence. Now, is that line, I mean, it doesn't sound like it's very solid. It's a moving, it's a moving, the sphere of influence, like we're...

It's a solid line. It needs to get first approved by the city. And then it goes to LAFCO is ultimately, LAFCO is in charge of approving changes to a city sphere of influence, as well as changes to the city limit line. So it's set and it's firm, but it can be changed in the future if there's a proposal to, it has to go through that approval process. Again, I'm going through city council approval and then onto, and planning commission first, and then city council and then onto LAFCO. LAFCO is the ultimate authority that actually is able, that has the authority to truly approve changes to city limits or sphere.

And so are they the same ones? Okay. So you kind of said so LAFCOs. So they're the ones that would initiate the change if there were to be a change on the sphere of influence circle.

We would. The city would. We would propose the change. We would submit an application to LAFCO requesting either, in this case, annexation or changes to the sphere of influence.

Okay.

All right. Thank you.

Looking for a motion.

I move to recommend... that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution making a recommendation for the City Council to, A, authorize the City Manager to submit a petition to the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission, LAFCO, to annex 17 parcels totaling approximately 762 acres into the city limits of Tracy, located in the northern portion of the city of Tracy sphere of influence, generally located north of Arbor Road between Coral Hollow Roads and Makata Drive annexation area. And B, determine that a 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 SESSION 151A3, NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS NECESSARY. AND TWO, WAVE THE FIRST READING BY SUBSTITUTION OF THE TITLE AND INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE, A, APPROVING THE PRE-ZONING OF THE ANNEXATION AREA TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURE. to be consistent with the general plan designations application number AP26-0002 and B, determining that the pre-zoning of the annexation area 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 15183, no further environmental review is necessary.

I second. We have a motion that's been seconded. Can I get a roll call?

Commissioner Chavez? Commissioner Atwal?

Yes.

Commissioner Boachie Boateng?

Yes, and thanks for taking the time to explain some of the technical details of this unique application.

Vice Chair Shrout?

Yes.

Chair Penning?

Yes, and I want to piggyback as well. Thanks for the clarification on those questions. I appreciate it. Thank you. All right regular agenda there is none tonight so we'll move on to item eight one one last time item items from the audience so similar to the first one right we invite members of the public to use zoom to comment under items from the audience and once again these are items that were not on the agenda by logging on to zoom using the link provided are there any public comments received via zoom for items that are not on the agenda

No emails received.

No emails, no Zoom. Looking out in the audience, once again, show of hands. Anyone would like to speak on items that are not on the agenda tonight? No show of hands. The public comment period for items from the audience has now closed. Director's report?

Yes, Chair. There's no Director's report seating.

All right. Thank you. Items from the Commission. I would like to actually... Commissioner Stroud does not have an email. a city-initiated email, and he was kind of, he didn't know they were, he wasn't sure there was a meeting tonight, so he had to actually go online. So how do we get that? Who can help with that?

I'll speak to Gina tomorrow, and we'll put in the request to create your email address. Anything else?

For the alternate? Oh, yeah.

Yeah, there's, I guess in the last two city councils, there's, I guess there's an approved alternate position for the planning commission. So last night it was on the consent, so it wasn't pulled. So what's, how does that look? Do we have any clarification on that?

So I can speak to that. So what will happen now is we have to wait 30 days for the ordinance to be effective. So 30 days from yesterday would put us at August 30th. Six, the ordinance would be effective. After that point, if the ordinance doesn't receive a court challenge or anything like that, it will go through a normal recruitment process. Applications will be received. City Council will select an alternate member for the Planning Commission. I can speak from my own personal experience. When I worked in the City of Manteca, there was an alternate on that commission. It does help in case we have quorum issues. If multiple commissioners have to be absent, it allows the regular business of the commission to continue. The alternate is welcome to come to the meetings. They cannot vote if they are not sitting in the capacity of a member who's absent that night. They can comment as a member of the public, participate, go to events such as Planning Commissioner Academy. But unless someone is absent and they are sitting in their capacity as alternate, they cannot vote during those meetings.

So you mentioned they're welcome to come to the meetings. Is that going to be mandatory for that?

I'm not familiar off the top of my head. You know, obviously, you know, they might have some personal obligations to you that could conflict. So I don't want to say, you know, failure to come to any one particular meeting, even one absence would constitute their removal. So we would have to look at I believe the same absence policy would apply. I don't know if we've made off the top of my head. I don't know if we've made their attendance mandatory at all commissions, but we'll make sure that's clarified with the alternate before they come on board.

And the reason I asked, we were kind of talking about it. The reason is if this person, if their last minute they get a call, you've got to show up, but they haven't been to a meeting, how would they know how to conduct a business, I guess? So, again, I'm just thinking out loud. I would lean towards making it mandatory since they are going to get the stipend, I assume.

Again, I'm not sure off the top of my head if they get the stipend, but again, we can make sure that. And because it would only be one commissioner, we'd have to train. So the Brown Act training that you guys got at the beginning of the year, either my office or Scott or both of us can sit down and make sure that the alternate at least has some basic kind of Brown Act training. If they can't come to the meetings, obviously we'll make, for whatever reason, if they have a previous existing family obligation or an emergency, we'll make sure we encourage them also to watch the meetings to keep up on the conduct and the business of the commission. I just can't answer for you, like off the top of my head, whether or not attendance will be mandatory at every meeting for the alternate commissioner, but we'll make sure we get you an answer to that.

Yeah, those are just sort of looming questions we had. I appreciate it. Thank you. Anything else?

Make a motion to adjourn. I have a motion to adjourn. Seconded.

We have a motion. It's been seconded. Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Chavez. Commissioner Atwal.

Yes.

Commissioner Boche-Boateng.

Yes.

Vice Chair Shrout.

Yes.

Chair Penning.

Yes. Thank you very much. The meeting is over at 728 p.m. Thank you.

Recording stopped.