Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Can you scoot it a little bit more to your right, it looks like. There, now we can see you.

Oh my gosh, you guys, I owe you Starbucks or baristas. All you guys, thank you for your patience.

Okay, I'm going to hang up on the cell phone now.

Thank you. Holy Toledo, it was a simple thing.

Good evening. I know this is good enough, but what?

Hello. There it is. All right. Red is off. Counterintuitive. Good afternoon. Good evening. It is November 19th, 7 p.m. This is the Planning Commission. I'd like to call this meeting to order. If you would please stand 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. Okay. Do we have any actions pursuant to AB 2449?

Yes, we do. We have Commissioner English on via WebEx. Commissioner English? Yes, I'm here. Can you hear me? Yes. Can you please state the reason why you'd like to AB 2449?

Oh, yes. I would like to join WebEx because I had a medical procedure done and I'm not able to actually right now walk into a facility.

Okay. Thank you.

So do a voice void for that? Is that how that works?

Yes.

I'm all in favor of voice vote. Say aye.

Aye.

Aye. We have three ayes. All right. Roll call, please.

Yes.

Correct. Yes. Yeah. Good catch. We have a three voice vote for yes to allow Commissioner English to participate via WebEx.

Thank you.

Can I get a roll call?

Commissioner Atwell.

Present.

Commissioner English. Present. Commissioner Orcutt. Vice Chair Boakye-Boateng? And Chair Penning? Present. Thank you.

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 on to WebEx using the link provided. And 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 WebEx during items from the audience and all new business. All right, let's talk about last November 5th, the regular meeting minutes. Have you had a chance to look at them? And if so, I'll take a motion.

So I make a motion. Oh, sorry.

I make a motion to accept the last meeting's minutes for I have to state the date, right? Sorry, because I know Etwal wasn't here. So, the meeting that was called to order on November 5th.

I second. Can I get a voice vote, please? All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

So it's only two. We were missing two commissioners and one's not present. Does a two-voice vote count for acceptance?

We have our assistant city attorney, Daniela Green. She's joined via WebEx. I think maybe she can comment on that. Daniela, did you hear his question?

Yes. I did I let me check on that. I'll get back to you if we can drop the item to later in the meeting. I think we might have to bring it back, but let me just double check.

OK, you want to let us know before the end of the meeting?

Yeah, I can.

OK, perfect. We can move on to directors report.

Thank you, chair. There's no director's report for this agenda, alright?

So I'm going to open up to items from the audience. Just real quick though, please sign in before speaking. There's at the podium, there's a sign-in sheet and a pen. We invite members of the public to use WebEx to comment under items from the audience for items that are not on the agenda. Look over to my right first. Do we have any online speakers from items that are not on the agenda from WebEx?

No. We have one hand raised on WebEx. Okay. Jackie, you've been unmuted. Go ahead with your comment or question. This is for items from the audience for items not on the agenda.

Oh, okay. Should I unmute myself again?

Are you here to comment on an item that is on the agenda?

Yes.

Okay. Please wait until the chair opens the public hearing for that item and then we'll unmute you and you can share your comment or question. Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you. With that chair, we do not have any comments on WebEx.

Any emails received for items that are not on the agenda? No emails received. As I look out to the folks in the audience, are there any comments from anyone out there with items that are not on the agenda? Show of hands. Doesn't look like we have a show of hands. All right, we will move on to new business. Item 1A. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and upon its conclusion adopt a resolution approving the following actions. One, determine that this project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines. Sections 15332 pertaining to certain infill development projects. Two, approve a development review permit D25-009 for the construction of a three-story approximately 130,480 square foot building and related site improvements on a vacant 2.35 acre site. Three, grant a conditional use permit CUP25-003 to permit a self-storage facility located at the accessor parcel number 214-020-40. The applicant is Kitchell Development. Sorry if I pronounced that wrong. The property owner is Tiger Tracy LLC. Staff report.

Thank you, Chair. My name is Genevieve Federighi and I'm the project planner for Joe Pombo Self Storage Facility. I'll wait for the PowerPoint to be on the screen.

Perfect.

The project is located on the north side of Joe Pombo Parkway. It is just north of Grant Line Road and south of I-205 Freeway. It's a little hard to see here, but it's just next to Kaiser and just north of Bottoms Up Coffee. The project includes a three-story, approximately 135,000 square foot self-storage facility. The office portion is single story at the front. You'll see that on the elevations in a moment. It's approximately 950 square feet. The site is currently vacant and the application before you is for a development review permit as well as a conditional use permit. The site has a general plan designation of commercial, which allows storage facilities, and it is zoned general highway commercial, which requires a conditional use permit for storage facilities. Additionally, the site is within 500 feet of the freeway, so it would have come to you for development review anyway. Here is the site plan. So in the middle, shaded in gray, is where the building is. On the south side, that's where the front of the site is. So there'll be entry points. On the left side is shared with the Bottoms Up Coffee Shop. It's half developed already. And then on the other side of the site will be the other entry point. The circulation goes all the way around the building. There's heavy landscaping along the north side, which is along the freeway, and they did use a mix of fast-growing trees as well as slow-growing, much bigger trees just so that we get screening in the future that's a little bit bigger, but also we get some screening in the near future that grows a little bit faster. And there's a lot of accent planting on the south side of the building, which is the front. That'll help kind of add some additional screening and break up the appearance of the structure. Here are our elevations. So on the top is the south elevation, which is what you would see from Joe Pombo Parkway. The office is on the right side where that orange canopy is located. They used a mix of different materials as well as colors and a couple of pop-outs to add interest to the structure. On the bottom you see the north elevation which is what you would see along the freeway. We did work with the applicant to add a lot of glass on this side to really enhance the appearance as you're driving by. The bottom dock doors will be screened. There'll be a solid wall on the north side adjacent to the freeway as well as all of that planting. The east elevation is where the office entry is. So this is what you would see if you're standing on the Kaiser site. And then on the bottom we have the west elevation. So here are the renderings. So the top one is what you would see driving on Joe Pombo Parkway. And then the bottom one is what you would see from the freeway. Again, there's a lot of different materials, a lot of moving parts to really add a lot of interest to this three-story structure. On the top one, you'll see that first, the office on the corner there is just the single story. So people will know exactly where to go, where to enter, and it will attract people to that area and the parking is right adjacent to it. That concludes my presentation and staff does recommend approval of the project.

Thank you very much for that. Before I open to public and bring it up here, is he a developer here? Did they want to say a few words or anything?

We have a representative here, but there's also several people online if you do have questions.

Okay. So they don't have a presentation, we can move on from that? Correct. All right, thank you. Before I go to the public, I want to kind of bring it back to the Commission for initial comments, thoughts, questions.

I do have some. I was curious, do you have the elevation of the freeway? So what you see in the rendering is not what you see from the freeway. You're going to see over the wall. So my question becomes, are we interested in building the wall higher to block the view, or other design elements do we want to add? What's the thought on there from the planning team?

So for the high above the wall the goal is that that enhanced screening so the trees along the freeway will add additional height to the screening. If we can go back to the PowerPoint we can look at the elevation instead of the rendering because you're right the rendering is from above but the elevation gives us a little bit better of a view of what we'd see from ground floor.

And what are the heights of the trees at maturity or half maturity? I thought the wall was 8 feet.

The wall is 8 feet, and then we have oak trees being planted, so those will be very big, but we know that those take a long time to grow, so we asked for additional trees that I think are 35 feet that'll grow fast in the meantime to add a lot of height.

Okay. And then my other question was, I looked on the, I think it was the resolutions, I didn't quite understand this one. I think it was B8. It says no signs, no business identification signs are approved with this permit. Yeah. Not allowed to have signage on their...

No, that's just a standard condition of approval. We require their sign permit to come in after and get a specific permit for the signs. But that's for like monuments out front.

I'm talking about ones along the building. For all signs. It's just a separate process that we do. Okay. Are we going to see that?

No, that's just something that's submitted to us and then we forward it to building.

Okay.

So the signs are just based off of the size. So we don't review the design of the signs. We just make sure that it's within the amount allotted for the site.

Okay, so I imagine there's one that's going to be along Pombo Parkway that says self-storage here or whatever.

Yeah, and the monument sign is shown on the rendering, and then I think they have wall-mounted signs on both sides of the structure.

Okay, and then in your presentation, you said Bottoms Up was halfway developed. I'm like, halfway?

The driveway, sorry. Oh, the driveway. Yes.

I've been to it a couple times. All right. And then last on that rendering, I see tons of... garage doors like are those roll-up door storage units themselves they are yeah okay so there are they i imagine they're a different price from an inside storage unit and what have you yeah and even inside there's a large variety of different size units so anyone should be able to find something they're looking for at the site i think that's all i really had

And then if I could interrupt, I did want to mention that we're recommending one of the conditions of approval. It's C5-1G be deleted. It was included with a prior project, but the type of use is different, so it's not relevant to this project. So engineering is recommending that we delete it.

C5-1G be deleted.

Good evening commissioners, assistant city attorney, Daniela green. If that's the case, then the project would need to be approved as amended.

Can you elaborate on that a little bit please?

Right? So, because you're deleting a condition that was published, you cannot approve the project as it was noticed. So you would need to approve it as amended with the requested amendment from staff being put on the record in any motion and 2nd, from the from the commission.

Okay, so once we get there, if it goes through, we'll deal with that.

Right, but the motion needs to stay as amended.

Thank you. Commissioner English, are you there? Do you have any questions, initial questions?

I do have clarifying questions. Commissioner Joseph, you asked one of mine, so that was good. I was reading the General Highway commercial What qualifies this to be under the general highway commercial? And the reason I'm asking is in the past up to even the storage unit in Dancy Danner, storage units or storage are considered industrial, light industrial. And this says general highway commercial. Do we have to bring this back and add another for the findings? Because it is under the 500, right? That's another reason why we're doing it. Back in 2016, I think, when it went to council, this is another reason why we're doing the 500. But also, For me, in the past, even with Allen Bell, one time I asked a question when there was a storage unit going on Dancy Dancer, a clarifying question is, is this considered industrial? And it was stated to us, yes, and this is why it qualifies to go there, because it's a lot of industrial trucking, and that's in that area. But this here is... highway commercial. So do I mean, it's a good project, I don't see anything. You know, I see this kind of small for that, for that area, it's kind of big for that area, I take it back. But do we need to bring this back to add the zoning to change from commercial highway to industrial because it falls under industrial or does light industrial, because I couldn't find it, does light industrial fall under general highway commercial? That's the only thing. The project is a good project, I think, but we need to be careful when we accept the project under these conditions and not under industrial. Does that make sense?

Yes, it does. Thank you so much for the question. So it does fall under warehousing and storage. So if it was going in light industrial, it'd be a permitted use. The reason why a conditional use permit is included with the application is to allow this use in general highway commercial which the code does allow. So the findings specifically for the conditional use permit are related to the use, and those are included already.

So the code allows a light industrial. I couldn't find it, but also my binder is put somewhere else. So that's why I just want to make sure. I know the conditional use permits for that, but the zoning itself, we don't need to change that to be industrial. That's my question going forward for future use.

Correct. Yeah, the conditional use permit does allow this kind of use in general highway commercial.

Okay. And what's the height on that building again? Compared to Kaiser, it seems a little bit taller, right?

It's a story taller. So it's three stories, where Kaiser's only two stories.

And that falls on the guideline for commercial highway?

Yeah, there's actually no height maximum in general highway commercial.

There isn't?

Correct.

I thought that was in the past. I've got to look that up. I know there's been a lot of memos and things down since 2016, but I didn't think that changed. So thank you for clarifying that. I just want to go on the record as far as the zoning. Thank you. That's all I have.

I got just a couple questions. I want to first talk about the 500 feet. What's the property line that But it's up to the freeway. Is it less than 500 feet?

It's directly adjacent to the freeway.

So here's what I need help understanding. Where does the 500 feet rule apply and not apply then? We had this meeting two, four meetings ago about a 500-foot easement where you can't build 500 feet within a freeway.

Oh, are you talking about the restriction for warehouses that have to be a certain size that they're within 500 feet of the freeway? So that reduces the size for industrial buildings. This doesn't fall under that regulation.

Because it's not a warehouse, considered a warehouse? Correct. So with that being said, can they, so there's no height limit then for that particular project that is not considered a warehouse or there still is?

In this zone, there is no height restriction at all.

Even that close to the freeway? Correct. Okay, thank you for that. Second question, there's no CEQA requirements for this?

No, it's considered an infill development, so it's exempt from CEQA.

Even though it can result in traffic noise and additional traffic and additional noise, which is a CEQA requirement as well.

It falls within the threshold, so engineering evaluated the project and didn't see anything that would be a significant impact.

When you say evaluate, help me understand, what did they evaluate? The project's not approved.

Commissioners, Al Galley with DEDCED. This project is layered on top of a previously approved project, which was a hotel. I don't recall the name of the hotel. But that particular hotel project, we did study extensively the impacts of that hotel. So if I recall correctly, we evaluated it for storm drain and traffic, as well as sewer, now based on the results of those we wrote conditions of approval for that hotel to mitigate its project to mitigate its impacts okay so that that hotel unfortunately did not move forward and so a new ownership group has taken over and wants to take that land but change the use and from a hotel to a storage facility but the same traffic, those same memos for all those different utilities are still valid due to the fact that this is actually a less extensive use. It went from high traffic of all those vehicles to a smaller amount, as well as there's a reduction in sewer generation, a reduction in water use other than the landscaping. Now, because those studies are still valid. And so we took those same recommendations and essentially applied them to this project. And so there's still going to be utility connections for water, sewer, storm drain. There was a recommendation for a traffic signal improvement for an audible pedestrian crossing at Joe Pombo and Grant Line Road. Now, the reason why we We made that recommendation for the hotels because the hotel has more pedestrians. We assumed that those hotel goers would be walking around to the different restaurants or the two gas stations nearby. And so now we have a use in which there's a reduction of pedestrian traffic and therefore we recommend removing that audible pedestrian upgrade to the traffic signal. And so I'm hoping I answered your question.

You did, but I'm still kind of curious. Maybe it's for a different conversation because it's not really part of this. However, it does, my brain, you know, stick to this. I guess, you know, what traffic study would trigger a SQL requirement? And again, for now, it's kind of rhetorical because it doesn't really have to do with this, but my brain just kind of got stuck on that a little bit. So, you know, what study would have to be done to trigger a CEQA requirement for any project, not just the hotel that was clearly not, you know, no longer there. But again, it's not on the agenda. I understand that. But it's just, you know, maybe a sidebar conversation so I can better understand what triggers a CEQA requirement, at least for traffic study for sewer, like you had mentioned.

Do you mean that, like, if there's a traffic memo, it recommends mitigation measures that the project needs? Oh, I see. Mitigation measures that a project needs to implement, those are fleshed out through the technical memos. CEQA may be happening, may not be happening. Usually they're kind of independent, you know.

Yeah, the traffic analysis can occur regardless of the sequel review process. So the sequel review for the previous hotel was similar to this sequel review, which is finding of an exemption. But in that case, on the previous project, Al had mentioned that they did do traffic analysis in that particular project. So they relied heavily on that for this project because they were able to conclude that this particular project would have far less traffic than the hotel.

All right. Thank you. That's definitely cleared up. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Chair pending, I can add to that too. So, per the 15332 exemption, you have to hit still a threshold of significance in order to not require any further analysis. And that should be in the city's thresholds that we have. So, if we can determine that based on the amounts that the. We used to use trip generation and CEQA. Now we use VMT in order to analyze traffic impacts. If we're not hitting significant, then that would help qualify a project for an exemption under 15332. But you still have to hit the threshold of significance, just like you would in any CEQA analysis to trigger study beyond an initial study. So a mitigated negative declaration or a full EIR.

So neither one of these projects met that threshold?

Yes, that's correct. Okay.

All right, thank you very much for the clarity. All right, I would like to open up the public comments for item 1A. I'll look over here first. Are there any public comments received via WebEx for item 1A?

No WebEx comments.

Any public comments received by email for item 1A? No emails received. All right, looking out here in my front, are there any members that would like to speak on item 1A? No show of hands. All right. The public hearing for this item is now closed. Any comments that are and were received after the close of the public comment period will not be included in the record. Back to Commission for more conversation or an amended motion.

I do have I do have a question. I was curious when Kaiser was allowed to build and the CEQA document was put in place for that did we limit their height. In terms of the height of the building that they put there?

No, it's just what they chose to build there.

Okay. And then we're allowing these guys to go higher. Is that what we want as opposed to the same height for all the buildings in the area? Because I think this is going to be the highest building. Is that correct? The highest building. And I'm kind of considering the other side of the freeway too until those other hotels go in. I can't remember how high those were that are by the mall or whatever. Those are 47, right? Is that what it was? Or I should ask, is Best Buy or World Market, how high are those compared to as you travel through the area?

I mean, Best Buy and, sorry, I don't know, World Market are just a single story. So they're definitely shorter than this structure. I was trying to think of the couple of medical buildings across the street. I can't confirm that those are three stories. But if Kaiser did come in and say they needed more rooms to be added, they could go up a third story. So that could be a potential in the future as well. Let me see what that is.

I'm just kind of considering the aesthetics as you drive from the freeway perspective. Even though that's not considered the front, it's kind of the aesthetic that you've got to drive by and look at for the thousands of people that live in Tracy and the millions that live in Stockton Modesto that drive through Tracy.

Yes.

So the, so I, my, my concern is just this being the standout building is a storage facility, quote unquote, not a warehouse, but for all intents and purposes, almost the same thing. And is that what we, is that what we want? Right. That's, that's what I, that's my concern. Yes. As a commissioner, I think, Everything else looks great on this whole project, but it's like, hey, this building is going to stand out almost a story higher than everything else, so it's naturally going to draw your attention. And I'm not so sure I want to see that as opposed to, hey, it's a storage facility and it's just as high as the other buildings, maybe a foot higher, whatever, give or take from the parapet walls and all the stuff that goes on top. But that's my only real concern about this. Commissioner English, thank you for bringing that up on the hype. that I'd be concerned about. Oh, the other question I had about CEQA was when was the original CEQA document, like, approved for the area, and then do we not believe that different animals and whatnot can go and burrow in that area to be eradicated or mitigated?

So there is still a requirement that they have an inspection before they do any ground disturbance. And so they'll go out there and make sure that there's nothing on the site.

Gotcha. Okay. Yeah, that's my only commissioner input is the height of that thing.

Commissioner Atwal. All right. Just one. Sorry, go ahead. No, no, go ahead. Yeah, just a quick question. So is there a specific height around the 205 corridor or no? No, there's not. Okay, I appreciate that.

Commissioner Inglis?

I've had the same concern as Commissioner Atwal. I mean, I'm sorry, Joseph Arquette. I apologize. I'm still a little bit concerned because I see the loading docks, the roll-up doors. To me, it looks more like industrial. And correct me if I'm wrong, that's facing the freeway. And it's going to take years before we cover that. I mean, that's the problem we had years ago when Yellow Freight was going to be so close to the freeway. And this is what caused the 500 feet, all these different regulations that we put along our freeways. And it's pretty tall. And I look at the front that's going to be facing by Kaiser in those stores. But then when you look at the back, that's all you see. It looks like a warehouse storage. And I'm concerned because you do have those roll-up doors and you have the truck dock, it looks like, or trucks backing into that on the design A9. And I understand the trees, the shrubs, and we know here in Tracy, if you look at the design, those trees are not even, there's nothing along the eight foot wall. I don't see any thing that's covering those stocks. It's actually, to me, when I look at that, I'm looking at the other side of 205 while those warehouses are at and they're further out. And we all know oak trees takes, what, another 10 years, maybe? And they'll last forever. But I just wish our frontage along 205, we want it to be more inviting. The height, to me, I have a problem with. I just, I don't agree that the storage unit should go there because it is considered industrial, even though you said it qualifies for A highway commercial, I'm thinking more like the mall or like Commissioner was saying, Best Buy, something that's going to attract people into Tracy and not deterrent. Storage company, to me, is a storage unit. Am I correct that those roll-up doors, the dot, all of that is facing the freeway?

Yes, that's correct.

I do want to point out, though, that these are a little bit different than a warehouse. So when you see a dock door at a warehouse, there is a certain distance at the bottom, and then the truck's back into them, and then there are much larger doors. The maximum height of these doors are eight feet. So they're more of the type you see at a storage facility and not the same that you'd see as a dock door in a warehouse.

So you're saying the dock doors are eight feet, but then you're also telling us that the wall is going to be eight feet? Correct.

Actually, I'm looking for the wall. I see six feet on the trash one, but I don't see eight feet around the facility. Because my question was going to ask, based on that rendering, you also see a vehicle gate. And I'm kind of trying to figure out where that's at on the overview. On C-2.1.

The vehicle gate on the far left side on the rendering?

Yeah, are they on both sides? I don't see it on the...

It's at the very front of the site, so adjacent to the office. Let me look at the... So if you look at the crosswalk portion... Okay. It's in that area. Let me see what the best page is.

28 foot by 18. Cut into the parking space or...

Let's see. So if you look at CO.1.

Can you pull that up on the slide by chance so everyone can see what we're talking about?

I'm not sure if we have that one on the slide. They want the site. You can try the site.

Oh, that one will work. Yeah, that one will work, I think.

So it's hard to see, but if you go... On the right-hand side, back to where there's a little pop out of the tree, you see two little quarter circles. Oh, I think I have a laser pointer.

Quarter circles, that's where the gate's going to be? Correct. Okay. And then on this side, I assume that's it?

It's a little bit further. Yes. Okay.

Thank you. Can you point the gate again, please, on the right?

It's just there where the circle's on the end. Laser pointer was faster than me.

Not as accurate though, Joe.

So I guess the question I have is if it was a two-story building, would the architecture, could the architecture stay pretty much the same or would it be drastically different? And I'm assuming a two-story, meaning it would be the same or similar height to the Kaiser building and the surrounding buildings.

One of our representatives from the project might want to add some comments to that if you'll allow it. This structure is 40 feet. I can tell you La Quinta is 45 feet. So it will be lower than the new La Quinta if you've seen that recently. But if you would like to hear from the project representative, they might be able to add some additional information.

Yeah, if they don't mind commenting on the question.

David Brown, you've been unmuted.

Good evening, commissioners. Thanks for presenting the project today. Yeah, we've got no problem reducing the overall height of the building. We do need to maintain three stories. Unfortunately, when we evaluate new developments, we got to obtain a certain amount of net rentable square footage in order for them to be economically viable. So we really need to have that third story. But I've got no problem bringing down the overall building height you know, four or five feet, as long as we can screen the mechanical systems adequately. The facility is 100% climate controlled, so we will have air conditioners on the rooftop. We could evaluate potentially ground bounding those and, you know, reducing the height even further. But we do need the three floors, but we've got no problem working with you on the building height.

So then reducing it just may mean more lower on the ground, just removing dirt. Is that what I understand to make it the same, keep it the same height? You're just lowering the building based on the elevation of the ground.

Well, Mr. Commissioner, what we would do is we'd actually reduce the floor to floor height, particularly on floor two and floor three. They're designed to be about 11 foot seven, 11 foot six inches, I apologize, per floor. We could probably slash that down to 10 feet and then bring down the overall parapet height so long as that the mechanical units are screened adequately. Okay. Thank you for that.

And if I could add, I did just look up the Hampton Inn and Fairfield Inn. They are both three stories directly across the freeway.

Those are the two new developments that we approved?

The existing ones. So just east of Trader Joe's.

Farther down. Okay. I see it. Yeah, but the footprint is much smaller. When you look at those, it's right here. That footprint is much smaller compared to the other, the footprint that we're about to build. Yeah. Yeah, I think if we could shorten it just a bit so that it matches or is close to the Kaiser and the surrounding buildings on that side, I think it's a great idea to put that there because it's not a high-trafficked area for a fast food joint or something, you know, because it's so far off the beaten path. But it's tucked away nicely so that the use is perfect, I think. But those are my commissioner comments.

Commissioner Orcutt?

I don't know what the actual height of the Kaiser building is. I don't know what the height of the Kaiser building is and the parapet walls above it. So... UM TO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION TO SAY IF WE NEED A NUMBER I'D HAVE TO HAVE YOU KNOW YOU GUYS WOULD HAVE TO LOOK IT UP AND SAY OKAY THIS IS WHAT IS IN THE GENERAL AREA AND THEN WE PLUS OR MINUS A FEW FEET FROM THAT SO THAT THEY'RE THREE STORY DESIRES THERE AND UH IT MEETS THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS AROUND SO IT'S NOT THE STANDOUT BUILD ONLY STANDOUT BUILDING FROM THE OTHERS

So with that comment, it sounds like the developer is willing to lower the heights. We need to kind of bring it back to the Commission and, you know, kind of move forward what we want to do. Commissioner English, have you heard all the comments?

Yeah, I was able to hear Commissioner Orcutt a little bit better. It was hard to hear at first, but thank you for moving the mic. I do agree because, you know, That's actually the frontage for 205, and I try to avoid going 205 because it looks like hush-push anyway, but that's not a reason to deny or not. But whatever we could do, because that's the only building on that side of the freeway that I could think that's sticking out. I understand there's other medical buildings down the street further away, but this is actually right there under... under the 500 feet so i know that's a reason why you're bringing that that's another reason why the warehouses have to do that um We, attorney, I think what we need to do is also add that on the amendment to have them before, this is going to go to council. So we have to also amend that portion of the height. It does not go to council.

Oh, it does not.

So it's here. Oh, okay. So whatever the commissioners agree on with the height and the other amendment that was done earlier, if that could be done, then that's what we need to do.

Well, I'll ask Scott. So how do we, like, give them a limitation for the height, but at the same time allow them the flexibility that, hey, this is the right height in the area compared to Kaiser and the other buildings that are two stories high? I don't know what those heights are.

If the commission desires, the commission could make a motion that the building height be reduced by five feet and that the building architecture submitted during the building permit process complies with that requirement. The applicant's representatives indicated that he'd be able to lower the height by five feet by roughly reducing the height of the third and fourth floors by about a foot and a half to two feet each, and then reducing the height of the parapet slightly. That'll bring it down to 35 feet. I will let you know, too, I mean, like in our low-density residential zones, our single-family neighborhoods, there's a maximum building height of 35 feet Two-story house often, it probably wouldn't typically be all the way up to 35, but the zone in our single-family neighborhoods allows a 35-foot high house.

But is 37 the right height for the area? Right. I didn't want to, that's why I was wondering what is a good number or is there a range?

We didn't come prepared this evening with the, and I apologize for that, with the height of the Kaiser building. That would have been good information to have. You know, if you need to, we could continue this item and look into that and research it and bring it back to you. But I think in general in looking at it, it looks to me like it's at least 35 feet tall. That's my guess by looking at it just now, Ariel, you know, the...

street view images of the kaiser building the kaiser is 35 i'm just guessing but i believe it probably is does it have uh parapet walls too yes it does that make it higher than 30 no i don't think so i'm just guessing i you know okay i can't tell for sure there's a chance it might even be 40 feet it's somewhere between 30 to 40 feet okay because that's what i'm trying to work with here so that they can so we can make progress instead of staying in it you know

So just a quick question. If we put a criteria for this building, how will it impact on the existing buildings and the coming buildings?

If your approval and your conditions of approval related to this project are only for this project?

So then will it be fair for one project having certain height and in future if we don't have a set criteria and giving certain other buildings a smaller or bigger height?

What we have is a discretionary process. Like Genevieve explained, the actual zone that we're talking about here, the general highway commercial zone, does not have an established height limit for buildings. And that's mainly because... Over the years, the city hasn't determined there to be a need for it. We haven't run into a problem with a building too high that the city overly objected to. However, beyond that, being that this is a discretionary process both for development review and for the conditional use permit that goes along with it as well, the Planning Commission has discretion here. The fact that it's a conditionally permitted use means that in this zone, you have the ability to approve this use. Doesn't mean it's approvable outright on any site within the zone. Like a permitted use means it's just, you can build this. Like in the light industrial zone, you can build this and you're still going to go through development review, but the use is not in question. Here, it gets a little more site specific. It's okay. WE HAVE GENERAL HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ZONE IN MANY AREAS OF THE CITY, MANY DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. SO THE QUESTION FOR THE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE IS WHETHER OR NOT THIS PARTICULAR SITE IS SUITABLE FOR THIS USE. SO IT'S A DISCRETION. THERE'S FINDINGS YOU MAKE WHEN YOU APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. YOU DON'T HAVE TO APPROVE IT. you can approve it with conditions. The staff has recommended a series of conditions that be applied to it. You could recommend modification of those conditions. And if you also were unable to make the findings for approval, you could not approve it. So that's kind of what's before you tonight with this project being a conditional use permit. So going back to the Commissioner Atwell's question, This is a very site-specific issue you're dealing with. You know, it's a conditional use permit for this project on this particular site. So any decision you make related to reducing the height doesn't really impact later decisions for different sites, different projects throughout the city. That's a whole other thing not on this agenda.

So, no, thank you. Just to clarify on this, so if I am understanding correctly, what's in front of the commission today is to approve or deny the conditional use permit based on the recommendations. and the aesthetics, height, everything else, does it come under the development review permit or it has to be looked at at this point?

It comes under the development review permit but is also on the agenda tonight. So you're basically being asked to make a decision on the conditional use permit and the development review permit. And the conditional use permit, you can look at things based on height and other architectural characteristics of the building as well because it's related to the use in this case. I do want to make one clarification too. When we talk about the 500 feet, sometimes there can be confusion because we have a few different criteria related to this 500 feet. The city has what's called an I-205 overlay zone related to no warehouses within 500 feet of the freeway. But that overlay zone is only applied in our industrial zone. So it's that particular 500-foot I-205 overlay zone related to no warehouses is not applicable on this particular site. This is a commercially zoned site, and we don't have that in place here. But what we do have, and the reason Genevieve mentioned 500 feet is that our development review ordinance says that any project within 500 feet of the freeway needs to go to the planning commission for approval rather than the director.

So then if a project that is under commercial zoning, is there a height limitation in the city?

It depends on the zone. Every zone has its own set of standards, whether that be setbacks or height limits. Certain zones in other parts of the city do have height limits. Many of our commercial zones don't. And some of our industrial zones, some do, some don't.

Okay, so it's safe to say that if a project that is commercially zoned, so there is no height limit, it should be dependent on the applicant as well as the city staff to determine what suits best at that property.

Yes, and you know, in this case, city staff is making a recommendation, the planning commission is making the decision.

And with due diligence on the height, the city staff has looked into the project and making the determination that this project suits the particular site.

Yes, that's correct. I mean, staff doesn't really consider 40 foot for this particular building to be overly high. Like I mentioned, in our single family zones, single family homes can go up to 35 feet. 40 feet is only slightly higher than that. This is not out of character with development that occurs in commercial areas. commercial zones throughout the city.

No, thank you. Yeah, no, just bringing it back to the commission. So this is what I was just brainstorming and thinking. So not to put the contingencies on a one set of project and not having on the other projects. And the other thing is this is a different set of project. So if it would happen in Kaiser or if they come back to have two or three stories, I don't think nobody will object them. And that could happen with the population increasing in City of Tracy and Mountain House. That could be a potential. And in that scenario, if we will say yes to them and if we'll limit the height of this particular project, it would be looking from a different lens. So that's the only thing.

Yeah, I think the difference from that standpoint is when we're doing infill and we're, you know, sometimes, unfortunately, our planning staff doesn't have the information for the surrounding buildings. and that landscape. That's why it's important for us to drive, drive through the area and kind of get a look for yourself. That's how I noticed, Oh, the freeway is way up in the air, you know, and going, okay, we're going to see all that stuff down below, even though the rendering is from eye level when you're standing on the ground. Right. So, Oh yeah, there's a wall six feet high. It's going to block your view. Yeah. Six foot two, my forehead can see over the wall, but I can't. And, uh, those are the things that we have to kind of do to, to see. Um, but, uh, Chair, I'll make a motion if you'd entertain.

Can I get one second? Commissioner English?

Yeah, just one comment. I agree with staff, Scott, Claire, what you were saying about the overlay and all that, because I attended so many meetings. And I clearly understand that. I respect that. You guys did a lot of work back then and were still doing it. But that's the thing with me. is because what we're doing is this is actually a light industrial going in the commercial. And you guys are qualifying that to go under the commercial highway. But that's why we had that SACBAT or overlay back then because of the warehousing. And in my mind, and it's written everywhere in the books and several meetings, storage is considered light industrial or industrial. So just because it's going on there, I still think I have nothing against it. But at the same time, we're going against our own policies that we have in place because it's a commercial highway use. But at the same time, we're contradicting ourselves because what Mr. Claire, what you just said is correct, 100 percent. And you said because that's normally the overlay is for industrial in my mind. And in writing and words, it's still light industrial. And my concern, and I know it's going to happen in the future, we're going to go higher and higher in some places, and this is going to be out of place. And I agree with Commissioner Atwal. Maybe Kaiser might come back or maybe not, but that is just there right off the freeway. You're going to see it. We're going to go ahead and approve it or however you want to do it. I just think that light industrial does not belong on the commercial highway, especially that close to the freeway. I know in the past we had it because we didn't have policies in place, but now we have policy in place. This went back and forth for a couple of years and we have a lot of meetings on industrial issues. And also too, for our fire, you know, um, I know it was a huge thing when Amazon went in there, which was 15, that was a big concern with our fire department getting up there and there's a fire, you know, just, uh, we're just going to have to put more money into our fire department to get more equipment to get up there. Heaven forbid that anything would happen, but I hate to see a car fly off the freeway into that place too, but you know, that happens. Um, If we're going to make the amendment on both of them with type, then I'll go ahead. And if you guys want to make a motion, I just want to put there on record that what Mr. Clare had just said contradicts light industrial going into the commercial, the 500 overlay. But that's all I have to say. Thank you. I appreciate it.

I should probably mention, too, before you guys make the motion, I'm not sure have we fully – Asked for public comments yet? You did? You did. Okay. I think we have one person, if you have the public hearing still open, I think there's the applicant online might have a hand raised. I closed it, but I'm... Oh, okay. Okay. You closed it. You closed it. It's up to you.

I got one more question. Commissioners, just for clarity, if you're asking the applicant for clarifying questions, you can typically do that after the public hearing is closed because the applicant does have specific information. If it's just for questions, it's not time for the applicant to further kind of vouch for their project like they could do at the beginning of the hearing. It would just be for some clarifying questions for them.

So let me ask it this way. Does the applicant have a question that's a clarifying question that one of us has asked?

It would be if you have a question.

Maybe I misunderstood you, Mr. Clare. I thought you said they had a public comment.

Yeah, I didn't realize you'd already closed the public comment period. So if you've closed the public comment, I believe what the Assistant City Attorney is explaining is just that if you have a clarifying question you'd like to ask for the applicant, you could do that, even though the public comment is closed.

My question was, we were eliminating, I just want to make sure I write, C51G is in Gulf? Yeah.

Correct.

And then my concern about that is the IS THAT ON THE TREES, THE EXISTING TREES ON THE PROJECT FRONTAGE, WE'RE SAYING HERE THAT THE DEVELOPER DOESN'T HAVE TO PRESERVE THOSE TREES THEN? IS THAT BECAUSE WE'RE PUTTING NEW ONES IN WITH THE PROJECT?

Commissioners, Al Ghaly again with DED. I want to clarify that the update to the condition is to remove the audible pedestrian crossing recommendation for the traffic signal at Grant Line and Joe Pombo. If you look at the condition, there's a preamble, an introductory paragraph, and then it outlines to the off-site improvements. And the top one, that's the POMBO AND GRANT LINE, THAT'S THE CONDITION THAT WILL BE REMOVED.

OKAY. SO BUT THE TREE PART WON'T THEN? IF THERE'S TREES OVER THERE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO REMOVE THEM? BECAUSE THAT'S ALSO IN THAT SAME FARTHER DOWN ON THE PARKWAY.

YEAH. THOSE CONDITIONS WILL REMAIN. ONLY THE CONDITION THAT WILL BE REMOVED WILL BE THE AUDIBLE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING.

AUDIBLE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT THE COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION IMPROVING THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS TO DETERMINE THAT THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA. AND TWO, APPROVE A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE STORY APPROXIMATELY 44,140 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS WITH A REDUCTION UP TO FIVE FEET TO MATCH SURROUNDING HEIGHT BUILDINGS. AND THREE, TO GRANT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT A SELF-STORAGE FACILITY LOCATED AT ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 214-020-40 AS AMENDED. DID I GET ALL THAT?

WE HAVE A MOTION. CAN I GET A SECOND? It doesn't appear we have a second.

So can I have another motion?

Yes.

So staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and upon its conclusion adopt a resolution approving the following actions determined that this project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines sections 15332 pertaining to certain info development projects to approve a development review permit d25-0009 for the construction of a three-story approximately one three zero four eight zero square foot building and related site improvements on a vacant 2.35 acre site three Grant a conditional use permit CUP 25-0003 to permit a self-storage facility located at accessor's parcel number 214-020-40. The applicant is Kitchell Development and the property owner is Tiger Tracy LLC. Suggested motion move to recommend that the Planning Commission determine that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental CEQA Quality Act CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15332 pertaining to certain infill developments projects. Approve a development review permit D25-0009 for the construction of a three-story approximately 130-480 square foot building. and related site improvements on a vacant 2.35-acre site and grant a conditional use permit CUP 25-0003 to permit the use of a self-storage facility located at access to Spalser number 214-020-40. Number four, delete condition of approval C.5.1.G.

Before we get a 2nd on this, I want to clarify. I heard commissioner at wall and I apologize commissioner. You were fading in and out so. It sounded like your motion was more similar to that, but the height. And that's the part I didn't catch. So. All right.

My motion included the reduction of up to five feet to match the surrounding heights of buildings.

All right. So city attorney, I didn't catch that part. That's why I didn't second it. Is it too late to second his motion or does this one first die before we go back to his motion? How does that go? I apologize.

Sorry. No, you're. It's hard to hear our cat. You're fine, give me give me 1 2nd and commissioners just because commissioner English, and I are not in the chamber to the extent possible. You guys can speak into the microphones. That would be greatly appreciate it. Give me 1 2nd. I've got a friend.

Thank you. And I know the city attorney is checking, but I don't know if you guys could see me or if the staff, I couldn't hear Arquette and I didn't want to interrupt his motion. But when you lean forward, Commissioner, I could hear you clearly. And when you were sitting back, I didn't catch that. So I apologize for that motion.

No worries. I understand. Didn't know I needed to lean more forward. No.

See, I can hear you now. I clearly can hear you, but you were cutting in and out, and I think the city attorney agrees with that because maybe she saw me motion that I couldn't hear, and I was able to listen to Commissioner Atwan. I didn't hear the reduction on his either, so... I apologize, you guys. Go ahead. I see the attorney back.

So what would need to happen is now either Commissioner Atwal's motion would need to be seconded or it would need to not be seconded and then die. And then another motion could be made with the height reduction.

So we already made that motion with the height reduction. That's right.

But no one seconded it at the time.

Oh, OK.

So that motion died. It would have to be made again. OK. but right now we have a motion on the table from Commissioner Atwal, so we need to call for a second on that motion.

For Commissioner Atwal's motion, we do want to clarify as well, with the deletion of that one condition, it's actually just the one small portion within that condition that staff's recommending be deleted, just related to the... Grant Line Road and Joe Pombo Parkway. Yes.

Yeah, it's not the whole C5G1, 1G.

And then I have one more clarification. So I got an email from staff earlier today that it also looks like the resolution was updated. I believe it's for this item, correct?

Yes, the square feet mentioned in the resolution was incorrect.

Right, so then we'd need that amendment noted as well. So it would need to be the amendment included in the supplemental packets.

Okay, so all that. Let's go back to the first motion that wasn't seconded.

Now you're saying... Commissioner Atwal's motion right now.

Okay, so now does Commissioner Atwal need to redo the motion based on the new square footage?

No, so have we called for the second on Commissioner Atwal's motion? I do not believe we have. I believe Commissioner English made a comment before we called for a second.

Okay, I will second Commissioner Atwal's motion.

So now we have a motion and a second. We need a vote.

Roll call vote.

Commissioner Atwal.

Yeah, so I'll be a yes for this because of the consistency perspective. So going forward, if we have a regulation in that kind of zoning, then could consider differently. But at this point, because there's no height restriction, so I'm a yes for the proposal.

Commissioner English?

No. And my reason is because of the clarifying of the height restriction. And so mine right now is a no.

Commissioner Orcutt?

I also wanted to match the surrounding buildings. So with that, I'm okay with the height. Reduction, I won't really say restriction, but it's reduction so that it matches the surrounding buildings. So I'm a no.

Okay. Vice Chair Boaché-Boateng? And Chair Penning?

I'm a yes. Let me tell you why, though. I don't want to start kind of, you know, mirror what Commissioner Atwell was saying. I don't want to start putting limits on buildings that are applying for the proper zoning, the proper location. So I'm a yes for that.

Thank you.

So it dies.

So I'm going to lean on the lawyer for the part two. There was a second motion made, or actually there was a first motion made that wasn't heard. Do we go back to that? Because now we have an impasse.

No, because you had called for a motion on a second on the other motion, on Commissioner Orcutt's motion. So right now the project is dead. We would need a motion for reconsideration from one of the commissioners that voted in majority.

Maybe I misunderstood you, but I thought the first motion wasn't heard by Commissioner English. So now we went on to the second motion prior to her giving a chance to speak. So now the second motion was made. It was seconded by myself. We have a two to two vote, which is an impasse.

It has died. We're not at impasse. The project has died. What would need to happen is we would need a motion for reconsideration from either yourself or Commissioner Atwal to reconsider the project with a majority of the commission then voting in favor of reconsideration.

I understand.

So I will make a motion to reconsider the project. So with the reasoning, so if the staff can do some research and bring forward the height of the adjacent buildings, maybe we can look at that from a different angle in the next meeting. Because at this point, it's all hypothetical, and the other buildings can have the similar or the greater height. And the other thing I would request the staff, if they can see if there's a potential increase in the height of Kaiser or other buildings in works. And some more information, so how the projects are going around on the 205 side or the 580 side, so that we can make informed decisions. So I propose that this project should be continued for discussion for the next meeting with additional information.

If I can get one more minute, Commissioner, hang on. I need to.

Just give her a second.

Yeah, more information would be better anyway, so I'm all for that. I was hoping to...

Please bear with us.

Okay, so now that we have the motion from commissioner at wall to reconsider, I would now need a majority of the commission to vote in favor of the reconsideration. And then I would need a 2nd motion to continue the item to a future agenda date a date. Not certain. Staff would then have to re, notice the item and we'd bring it back at that date.

So let me bring this back. So the initial comment that Commissioner Atwal made right now was not a motion. It was a suggestion.

So I think it's a motion to reconsider. So I think if I understood correctly, it is a motion to reconsider the item. Then we will have another motion to continue. So I put a motion to reconsider this item.

I'll second that. We have a motion that's been seconded. Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Atwal?

Yes.

Commissioner English? Commissioner English?

Yes, because we have a debt of motion coming up, so yes.

Commissioner Orcutt?

Yes.

Vice Chair Boachie Boateng? And Chair Penning? Yes. Thank you.

Yeah, so as the motion is approved, I'll make another motion to continue this item for the future Planning Commission meeting with the information of the heights of adjacent buildings around the building that is in project plan for today.

I'll say a motion.

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

Commissioner Atwal.

Yes.

Commissioner English. Yes. Commissioner Orcutt.

Yes.

Vice Chair Boakye-Boateng. And Chair Penning. Yes. Thank you.

All right, so stay tuned for that one. It'll come back to us at a later date. The staff will put something out at some point. Sorry for the back and forth. We're just looking for a lot of clarity here. So there was a lot of great questions, a lot of good interactions.

So I appreciate the patience and the time and the little IT difficulties.

But let's move on to item. Yes, absolutely.

I assume that it will come back without the amends. Those will all be fixed when it comes back to us. And it would just be the information on the surrounding building.

Yeah, that's correct. Great question. All right, moving on to Item B. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and upon its conclusion adopt a Resolution 1, determining that this project is categorically exempt from the CEQA Quality, California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15332 pertaining to infill projects. And two, approving a development review permit application number D23-0010 for the construction of a four-story hotel with an event center and related site improvements on a 1.77 acre site. The applicant is Navdeep Grewal, and the property owner is Navdeep Grewal. And I completely apologize if I butchered the name.

Staff report. Thank you, Chair. Good evening, Commissioners. The project before you tonight is to review a development review permit application for the construction of a four-story hotel and event center known as Cambria Hotel. PowerPoint, please. How do I switch the slides? It's not working the controller. Oh, you're going to switch it for me? OK. Next slide. Perfect. Thank you. So slide two. So project location. So the four-story hotel and event center are located at 747 West Larch Road and 3837 North Tracy Boulevard, which is the southwest corner of West Larch Road and North Tracy Boulevard. The four-story hotel and event center is proposed to be adjacent to the existing Holiday Inn Express and Suites, the Chevron and Shell Fueling Station, and the I-205 freeway. So the scope of work for this project consists of the construction of a four-story hotel with an event center. The four-story hotel consists of 90 rooms, an outdoor patio area, a medium room, an exercise room, and bar and breakfast. The event center consists of a hallway, what they call a pre-function room, two ballrooms, and a rooftop terrace. The project is designated commercial in the general plan and it is zoned highway service in the Tracy Municipal Code. I also wanted to mention that travelers accommodations and services such as hotels with event centers are permitted in the highway service zone. The project site is located within 500 feet of a freeway and therefore the development review permit application requires a review and a public hearing by the Planning Commission. This is the site plan. The first floor of the four-story hotel is approximately 18,000 square feet. Second floor is approximately 13,500 square feet. The third floor is approximately 12,000 square feet. The fourth floor is approximately 12,000 square feet. The pre-function room is approximately 1,230 square feet. And the event center is approximately 2,250 square feet. The four-story hotel and event center is a total of approximately 58,000 square feet. The dimensions of the hotel are approximately 200 feet in length, approximately 65 feet in width and 45 feet in height. The dimensions of the event center and pre-function room approximately 83 feet in length, approximately 73 feet in width and approximately 11 feet in height. The project does meet Tracy Municipal Code off-street parking requirements and provides sufficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation The proposed project will have two driveway entrances that can be accessed from the public right-of-way on West Larch Road and one driveway entrance that can be accessed from the public right-of-way on North Tracy Boulevard. There are a total of 133 parking spaces being provided at the site. There are 81 parking spaces located around the hotel and event center. There are 52 parking spaces in the basement which is located underneath the hotel and event center. And there are 90 parking spaces required for the hotel use based on Tracy municipal code requirement of one parking space per one guest room. And there are 38 parking spaces required for the event center use based on Tracy municipal code section of requirement of one parking space per 60 square feet of assembling area. So which in total 128 parking spaces are required. This is the landscape plan. The project meets the trace of municipal code landscape requirements. The landscaping is comprised of trees, shrubs, and grass that are planted throughout the parking area along the street frontage of the site. The trees that are circled in red are red ash trees. The trees circled in green are Chinese pistache trees. The trees circled in purple are crape myrtles. And the trees circled in blue are London plane trees.

Hold on. Can you go back one real quick?

Yeah.

I like the red with that red track. Okay, that's what I was just trying to follow. Okay, thank you.

Yeah, of course.

Good job.

And these are the elevations. So the exterior of the four-story hotel and event center is comprised of cement plaster and metal panel systems to enhance the architectural elements. The cement plaster will be painted in white and gray colors, and the metal panel systems will be painted in orange, brown, and gray colors. There will be multiple glass windows that will be installed throughout the four-story hotel and event center to allow natural lighting to enter. There will be an interior hallway to go from the four-story hotel to the event center. There will be two exterior entrances to enter the hotel lobby, one of which is on the north side and one of which is on the south side of the building. And there will be two entrances to the event center, which will be located on the north side of the building. The exterior front entrances of the four-story hotel and event center will have a canopy located above each entrance. Enhanced lighting will be installed throughout the site of the building and in the parking lot to increase a sense of safety and visibility on site. The architecture includes reasonable design elements to achieve consistency with the city's design goals and standards. And this is a rendering of the four-story hotel and event center as well as the public right-of-way. Here you could get an idea of what the project would look like on the southwest corner of West Larch Road and North Tracy Boulevard. Along with this project, there will also be improvements to the public right-of-way such as sidewalks, crosswalks, light standards, traffic signals, and the widening of West L'Arche Road. And that concludes my presentation. Staff is recommending approval. We are available for any questions. Applicant property owner Navdeep is also here present today to answer any operational related type questions. And then also Sherrod, the architect, is available online for any building structural project type questions as well. Thank you.

Thank you. That was good. Again, prior to going back out, I want to kind of give the commission some initial comments if they have any initial thoughts. Commissioner English, can you still hear us?

Yes. Good presentation. I like the design. Just one question, a clarifying question. The two ballrooms, I think he mentioned that earlier. Do you know how many it would hold? Like, is it 100? Is it 150 or 200 for events? I know sitting is different than, you know, if you have the ballroom just standing. Ballrooms or event centers are greatly needed here in Tracy, so I just want to get an idea of the capacity of each of the ballrooms so they have the dimensions for it. That's all.

Yeah, good question. I would like to introduce Sherrod. He should be available online. He could probably give us an estimate of the amount of people that are allowed in each ballroom.

Sherrod, you've been unmuted.

Yes, good evening, commissioners. This is Sherrod Lal. I'm the architect. And we expect this meeting room to be used for various types of functions. So there could be seminars and presentations, corporate seminars, as well as on the higher end, there could be weddings. So we expect anywhere between 120 to maybe 280 people that could be visiting the ballrooms. And they are split so you could have a smaller space given out to two different events or the entire ballroom with the door open up at one single space.

Thank you.

Anything else?

My client also is there on site, so if you have any operational questions, you should be able to answer them.

That's all I have right now, Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Orcutt.

Yes, I do have a couple. Would the developer be amenable to consider moving the trash receptacle? And the reason why is a visibility thing. So I was going to ask the engineer, ALI, IF YOU WOULD MIND, IF YOU HAVE SOME ROUGH NUMBERS ESTIMATES FOR THE TRAFFIC THAT PASSES THROUGH THE, IF YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE ELEVATION SLIDE. IF YOU HAVE A ROUGH NUMBER, I'M ASSUMING THE EAST ELEVATION IS WHAT YOU'RE SEEING ON TRACY BOULEVARD, CORRECT? AND SO MY QUESTION IS BASED ON A VISIBILITY, I think there's going to be more people driving down and seeing the east elevation, which is right where the trash receptacle is, as opposed to the north elevation on Larch. Thank you. Is that a true statement? More traffic on Tracy versus Larch, right? And I was going to ask you the numbers, but I'm sure you don't have them type of thing. But either way, and so because of that visibility picture, I WAS THINKING, YOU KNOW, AS I LOOK FROM THE BIRD'S EYE VIEW, IF THERE'S A POSSIBILITY OF MOVING THE TRASH RECEPTICAL OFF OF TRACY BOULEVARD, MAIN THROUGHFARE, PEOPLE FROM DENNY'S AND THE GAS STATIONS RIGHT THERE USING IT, TO MOVING IT JUST WEST TO THE OTHER END OF THE PROJECT. THAT WOULD BE MY QUESTION, IF THE DEVELOPER WOULD BE AMENTABLE TO RELOCATING THAT. And then the other, I guess my other point was going to go to the terrace view or my questions is I'm assuming there's going to be a wedding and I'm invited to the reception and I go and I have a beer with me or whatever. And we go upstairs to the terrace, continue talking with the guests and having a good time. I don't necessarily want to overlook the trash receptacle right there from the terrace view, trying to look out and see the traffic and all the other things. So that was kind of my second point about potentially moving the trash just to the other end. And then my question was, will there be will they be allowed to have alcohol from their event onto the terrace? Or I assume so, but. didn't know if there was going to be a bar. Because I know there's a bar in there somewhere, but are they allowed to take their drinks to go have them on the terrace? And then that kind of hopefully solidifies my point of potentially moving the trash.

Yeah, Planning Commission can include, you know, a recommendation that the project site be changed so the trash enclosure is in the location that you're suggesting. In terms of whether alcohol is allowed on the terrace, I think that might be something the applicant will respond to. It really relates more to what ABC allows, and so that might be something they can speak to. And you can also ask them if you're interested to hear what their feedback would be in terms of relocating the trash enclosure. You can do that as well.

Okay. Well, then that would be my question to the applicant.

I can answer the question on the trash enclosure. We can certainly move it away further from the street, but we'd like it on that end just because the deeper you bring the trash trucks into the site, they tend to break up the paving throughout the site. We can certainly bring it back and provide more planting cover on the other side to screen it, maybe swap it with some of the parking spaces. but we won't want to take it all the way back to the other side.

What would be the objection to the opposite corner?

What happens is the trash trucks, they go circulating around the site and they basically tear up the whole site because of the weight. So in the front area, we can limit the damage to a certain section of the pavement. It's a long-term for the ownership, less maintenance for the pavement.

Well, all the sites have that same problem from that standpoint, so I totally understand that.

Yeah, they do have it. It's an issue that the developers have to deal with it. Secondly, as far as the terrace on the second floor, on the roof, it's limited to the central part of the building. The perimeter has landscaping planters. So the guests never really walk out of there because there's drainage around the building on the second floor. So the view looking down won't be an issue. But we can certainly work with staff and come up with a better location for the trash enclosure. I think we looked at it in various other corners to place it. But we found this the easiest. They come in, pick it up, and then go out the other exit.

I was just trying to get it out of the public eye. So that's my suggestions, you know, from the standpoint of, I think, the opposite corner. But then when you look at that other corner, depending on how you – if you put it on the north wall versus, like, the west wall, the west wall in that corner or whatever is – Not as bad, I guess, from at least the Tracy Boulevard traffic, but you may be seeing it from the large road traffic. So if it was deeper in that corner, that was my suggestion. But if you wanted to work with them to put it somewhere out there so it's just out of the view of that intersection and everybody that's passing by, that's what we usually try to do. That's why I was kind of surprised that it was like, wow, right there where all the traffic was. But it sounds like there's amenable work with the work with staff to make that happen.

Great. And also in terms of the design, we have made sure that it looks it kind of blends into the building. So once we move it to maybe not as visible as it is, you know, it'll probably disappear at least from the intersection.

OK. And then the the other question I had was circulation. When, this may be operational, when you pull in to drop somebody off at the event center in that parking lot area, will they be able to make the U-turn to drive back out? Is there enough space there? Is the spacing requirement okay?

So the entire site is, you could go both ways. You could go right, you could go left. So if someone comes in through West Larch Road and they want to drop someone off at the hotel or event center, they could continue down, they could exit off Tracy Boulevard, or they could go all the way around the hotel and exit back out West Larch Road. Oh, to maintain and then just turn right instead of maintain left.

Okay, gotcha. Yeah. All right, thank you.

Yeah, you're welcome.

That's all I had.

So is it possible to see the zoning map around this site? So just wanted, so is there a map where we can see where the city limits are or the sphere of influence?

I don't have a map with me right now, but so this site is located on the southwest corner The site on the southeast and the northeast are within city limits. The site on the northwest is within the sphere of influence, but it's not within city limits.

So how the contingencies on the intersection and the large road, so they'll be managed?

Al Galley again, I don't quite understand your question. Can you please repeat it?

So the large road, does it fully come in under the city limits?

Oh, I see. It's large road. I'd have to look at the map itself to confirm if Larch Road is fully within the city limits. Traditionally, when parcels are annexed into the city, the whole road is annexed, so the south side is annexed. So I'd assume that the entirety of Larch Road is within the city so that we could maintain it so there's no confusion. You don't want to split a road in the middle, then the south side is maintained by the city, then the north side is maintained by the county. That's not good practice.

Okay, so in such kind of a project, so will there be a partnership with the county?

This particular project, I don't believe that would be necessary because I'm operating under the assumption that the entirety of Larch Road is already within the city of Tracy and that we are the one required to perform maintenance on it, despite that only the south side is within the city of Tracy limits. I appreciate that.

I got a couple, kind of a little bit what Commissioner Atwell was saying. Now, if you look at, I'm looking at the map right now, it's on the, like you said, the southwest of Tracy and West Larch. Now, I guess a question looking on my right, first of all, you talked a little bit about Larch Road. It's in dire need of help. Is there future plans for that?

Correct. In our current adopted 2012 Transportation Master Plan large is planned to be a four-lane arterial and there are actually parcels to the east of this in which they've already dedicated the right-of-way to create and construct for the city to widen the road to have and achieve a four-lane arterial. This particular property owner Oh, this parcel, actually, and a previous owner already dedicated the land for that correct right-of-way. So there is a plan for a large road to be widened.

And how far west will that go?

I believe it goes all the way in terms of west.

For the widening? The widening. For the improvement project, yeah, the road improvement project?

I believe it's for the entire roadway segment of large roads. So it's termination at, I think, Carl Hollow.

Okay, perfect. Then kind of a question for the developer. Now, on the kitty corner, on the northeast corner, there's a truck station, a refueling station, a truck overnight. You know, they stay there overnight. There's a lot of truck traffic to and from that gas station to the freeway. I'm assuming the front of the hotel is on Larch Road. I mean, is that the best location for this hotel with all that truck traffic coming and going throughout the day, throughout the night, throughout the weekends? It's a rhetorical question, but it's something that just popped in my mind. You don't have to answer me. I would beg you to answer yourself that question. Because of the location of it, look at that truck stop. It's very busy. I go down that road to and from Discovery Bay, and it's a lot of trucks from the freeway just past Large Road. It's just something to consider. So, again, it's not really a question. It's more of a consideration for the developer. Other than that, that's all I have.

Well, from that, the sound would travel. They have the terrace and the event center closer, you know. You know what I'm saying? The rooms are farther back. That would be my only thinking to add to what you're saying. That's a good suggestion.

It's just a consideration because it's so close to the freeway. I don't think it's an official truck stop. However, it's a gas station that allows overnight truck parking, truck car wash, or truck wash, whatever you want to call it. There's 90% trucks here and 10% cars on any given day. It's just an observation. Anything else?

I'm thinking if you move the building all the way over, instead of have it centered on the plot, if it moved back, you would lose parking spots.

Commissioner Orcutt, can we get you to lean forward a little bit?

We're just kind of curious about moving the building all the way over. What direction is that? West to the property line or a setback, whatever it is. how that would affect parking over by the event center and circulation. That's all. It's just different considerations.

Yeah, that truck stop, that truck area just brings a lot of consideration, which I'm quite sure you've done your due diligence. It's just that's what popped into my head.

Actually, sir, the entrance...

If you don't mind, come up to the podium. Yeah.

Can you please wait to speak till you get to the microphone and please introduce yourself? Hello. I appreciate it.

I'm Navdeep Garewal and my wife, Gurinder Garewal, respected commissioners and staff. We actually first planned something different, but the city said we need some kind of, what I say, the meeting place or conference room is needed. There are not many in any hotels. I may be right. So then we change it. Instead of putting a gas station in front, we brought the conference center. But the main traffic for us will be on that day or there is something going on. And they can get in from Tracy Boulevard Inn. But for the hotel entrance is, if I can see that picture back, can you please bring back the... Like the previous picture I like to see rendering. If you see, sir, there, if you go more on large road as you take a left turn, and the entrance is more west for the hotel people. Once they move from here or they get in from Tracy, so they will be back there. If you see the other awning on the backside where the red strip is. So they will be, once I know there are truckers there. But once they are out of this, they took a turn in, they will be away from truckers. And for the, they can go into the basement for parking or they are behind toward the Chevron for parking. But we cannot, how we can move this, either we can move it to the Chevron side, just flip it totally, which is, I don't think is a, way to do it. Considering there are trucks, there is a problem, but that's, I think, that we came up with the best idea. And especially these days, if the banquet hall, there was a question, I think, you put in the drop off and go. Yeah, a lot of people come on Ubers when there is a dinner party or something. And still we provided plenty of parking on the, and in the basement too. And the staff for hotel in that event is only two. Whatever the people come for to bring the food, that will be for a party room. So I don't see anything else we can do about it. And we are putting, Mr. Ghali also suggested putting what they call a traffic light which is stop sign now. So as we are doing that one, it will move the traffic a lot better than what is doing at the stop signs. So there will be a light, right, traffic light there. Yeah, and you can mention more about it.

Thank you. Since I have you up here, I do have one more. Actually, I do have one question for the public comment. On page... Page three here, it says here, the four-story hotel will have a bar and breakfast.

Now, it says and breakfast. Is that a restaurant? No, it's all hotels like standard. They provide breakfast to any of the... The people staying there before they leave. It's the same concept.

So there's no restaurant on site? We just like... Is it like a buffet breakfast or a grab-and-go?

It's a buffet, like bread or bagels and that kind of stuff.

Okay.

It's not like on order site. It's like there is an egg, there are boiled eggs, there are other eggs, bacon and all those things.

But it's not like a full restaurant. Okay.

Yeah, anybody want a beer at night? comes in, they can order food from outside. There will be only packaged food at night along with if anybody want to drink or beer or something.

But there's a full bar there, so that's what I'm confused. Is the bar part of the area?

Is it just like a grabbing?

I don't understand. What will be the area of the bar?

Like, I think this question is, let me ask Sharad Lal, the architect. He answers it.

Is he on the line now? He's on. Can he chime in?

Can he join in? Yes, Commissioner, I'm back. Yeah, I wanted to answer a couple of questions. The first one was the siting of the building on the site. One of the issues that we have is because of the four story, the fire department needs access on all sides. We can't have a zero lot line on any side. So the building positioning is pretty much fixed. As far as the noise from the truckers, the hotel windows and the exterior wall ratings are all designed to take care of the freeway and pretty good quality sound continuation in those features of the building. So I don't think that'll be any issue. And as far as the bar, there is a small bar that's attached to the hotel. And, you know, it does serve, I don't know exactly what it serves, but, you know, it's not a, people coming in the evening, the manager's hours, and, you know, it just functions pretty much in the evening time up to a certain time, you know, between six to eight or something like that.

Actually, we have to, like if we have a banquet hall, something is happening, a wedding, we need to have a bar, like the bar license, and that bar will serve that place too. That's adjacent to the banquet.

Thank you.

That answers the question.

I appreciate that. All right. I would now like to open up to public comments. Looking over to my right, are there any public comments received by email for item 1B? No comments received. Any comments, WebEx?

Yes, Chair, we do have one hand raised in WebEx. That is Jackie. Ms. Jackie, you've been unmuted. Go ahead with your comment or question.

Yeah, and my concern about this project is mainly my piece, the noise and crime disturbances that will arise from this project, considering that I will be facing the hotel. Usually large road is known for like, there's a lot of traffic that travels to here mainly in the morning in the afternoon as well. And, um. There's times where even for us to merge onto to get out basically to the road, we either have to wait for, you know, the traffic to kind of die off. And as I was hearing, there might potentially be a light coming soon to that intersection, Tracy Boulevard and large road. Now I'm concerned as to how much more will the hotel entrance on large road back up our traffic already. Um, so those are kind of like a couple things that I'm concerned in regards to this project.

All right. Thank you very much.

Um, I will also like to add 1 more thing. Um, we are considered county, um, from what I. From what we've known is every time we have a. Anything related to the city from the. From the road towards the hotel is, um. Tracy, and from the road towards large. Towards, um, like the leak, um, we are counting.

Understood.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment. Are there any other public comments, WebEx?

No additional comments via WebEx.

Looking out here, show of hands. We have one. Please come on up. Write your name on the clipboard and let us know what it is and speak into the microphone.

Yes. Hi, my name is Mohammed Amini. I'm the developer for the gas station across the street, which we're building right now. Actually, I was on site. We are connecting electricity tonight and I fully support this project. It's going to be very beautiful to have all corners of Larch and Tracy Boulevard to be fully developed. We're doing a nice gas station. drive-thru Starbucks. We have QSRs in place. So hotel goes very nicely with the aesthetics. And as far as the whole like trucks and stuff like that, there's plenty of beautiful hotels right off the freeway that are next to truck stops. So modern construction can take care of that. And also I like how you're going to be, because we had to do a lot of offsite work to improve the large side dedicate right away. they're doing that too on that side. And the only way to continue to do that is to build stuff. If you don't build anything, you can't widen it. So we're only widening it by our area until somebody else develops it next one and the next one. Then you have to keep dedicating that road. So if nothing gets built, that road never grows. So, and the lights and all the, all the sidewalk work around the Larch and, um, CHASEY BOULEVARD, WHICH WE'RE DOING ON OUR SIDE, TOO, IT'S GOING TO PAIR VERY NICELY AND TIE IT ALL OFF. SO THAT'S MY COMMENT AND I SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT. WE WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT. ANY COMMENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WILL NOT BE INCLUDED. WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO COMMISSION FOR ANY FINAL THOUGHTS OR A MOTION.

NEW SPEAKER I DID HAVE A QUESTION FOR AS I MADE THE SUGGESTION THE DEVELOPER IS AMENTABLE, DO I NEED TO STATE THAT IN MY MOTION AS AMENDED TO WORK WITH STAFF ON MOVING THE TRASH OR RECONSIDERATION OF THE TRASH OR WHAT DO I NEED TO SAY?

YES, YOU SHOULD MAKE THAT PART OF YOUR MOTION. AS CLEAR AS YOU CAN IN TERMS OF THE SPECIFICS.

WELL, I WAS LOOKING AT THE PATIO AREA AND NOT KNOWING HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE IN THE PATIO. IT'S LIKE, OKAY, JUST MOVING IT DOWN 15 FEET. You know, now you're in front of the people on the patio, and I'm like, it's either got to be all the way down or on the other corner somewhere. So is that what you want to see for specifics or want to hear?

Yes, yes. If you could give a rough distance, that would be best. Okay. Here it goes.

Uh, wait, I have a question. Sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. Can you hear me? Okay. Before you make your motion, um, I'm looking at the project. It's a good project. So I normally go to the site to get a visual. So I just want to make sure, because it's actually on large road and not Tracy Boulevard, but that corner. Going to legacy feels is that correct?

Yes, heading north on Tracy Boulevard will lead you to Legacy Fields. Yes.

Okay, so that's much needed. And is the applicant going to be responsible for doing the signal light or is that City of Tracy and the applicant?

It would be the applicant.

Okay, so this is needed really badly there and I also agree with chair. About the track traffic that is 1 of the busiest streets. I think it's going to be good for legacy fields or people coming from town for other events and Tracy, because it's right off the freeway. And hopefully that they could repair that road, because that truck stop, I call it a truck stop. I know it's called something else, but. I don't care what time of day you go there. It's busy. And I don't think it's like an overnight thing. I see some trucks there for a couple of days or maybe they'll even come back. But that's here nor there. But I think the signal light will help anytime that we have events at Lazyfield. So I think it's a good project. I hope to see the signal light go in. And I know that they're responsible for widening their portion. I get that and hopefully when they do what in that portion the sidewalk would go in because I didn't see it on here but that's normally what they do as far as the construction would have the sidewalk on large road, correct?

There would be furniture improvements on large road, yes.

Thank you. Appreciate it. That's all I have.

Thank you Commissioner English.

I'd like to make a motion. Let's hear it. I'd like to make a motion to approve a development review permit application number D23-0010 for the construction of a four-story hotel and event center and related site improvements on a 1.77 acre site with an amendment for city staff and the applicant to work together to relocate the trash enclosure farther west potentially even on the east wall for the best site location for that enclosure. And to determine that this project is categorically exempt from California CEQA pursuant to guidelines section 15332 pertaining to infill projects.

I second that.

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

Commissioner Atwal.

No, thank you for the applicant for bringing the project forward and to the architect and the applicant for the willingness to make the amendments and bringing the signal light there. Absolutely large road and Tracy Boulevard. This will be a future good addition. So yes, for the project. Thank you.

Commissioner English.

Yes, it's a good project. And to the applicant, look at South Tracy. We need you over there. That's just my two cents. But no, I think it's a good project and it's going to help a lot with legacy fields. Thank you.

Commissioner Orcutt.

I, too, would agree that it's a good project. Glad you're bringing it to the city, Tracy. And the design elements look good. Staff are considering those. I do think it's going to be a beneficial, good meeting space as well. So I'm a yes vote.

Vice Chair Boachie Boateng? And Chair Penning.

Yes. And just real quick, that was a very great, comprehensive, you know, presentation and a very, you know, understood the questions, the answers. I appreciate that from the developer as well. Thank you very much.

Yes. Thank you.

Congratulations. All right. Congratulations. We shall Okay, just one last time. Are there any items from the audience for items that are not on the agenda? No show of hands. I'm going to give it one more chance to my right. Any items from the via email, WebEx, for items that are not on the agenda?

No WebEx comments and no emails received.

All right. Prior to the final directory report, I want to circle back to what Delora had said earlier about approving the minutes. We only had two minutes.

Uh, so, hi, chair pending, uh, Daniela green assistant city attorney. So there's a couple options here with the minutes. So, if either commissioner at wall or commissioner or cut. Have viewed the video from the meeting on the 11th, and then read the minutes they can announce on the record that they have done. So. And that the minutes are, or are not an accurate representation of what occurred at that meeting. And that they were absent, but they are prepared to vote because they reviewed the video. If that is the case, then we can vote and then the minutes would be considered final tonight. If not, because we do not have three members able to vote, then we would need a motion and a second to continue the minutes to the next meeting.

All right. So I'll look to my left and to my right.

Yeah, so I did attend the meeting virtually and viewed the meeting minutes. So I concur that they are the correct representation of the meeting that happened at the last planning commission. So I'll be able to vote.

All right. So we have three that can vote that were actually at the meeting and if not, they have read and or watched the video. So I kind of want to bring it back. to the minutes from earlier in the meeting. We've had a chance to read it. The three of us have had a chance to read it. Can we get a motion to approve? Voice vote?

Well, no, Alice. Doesn't Alice?

Yeah, she'll be able to speak to that as well. Yeah. Well, yeah, proposing to accept the minutes from the November 5th regular meeting.

Yeah, I concur with that. Though I was not present, I watched the video for the meeting as well as read the meeting minutes, which are the correct representation of the meeting that happened at the last Planning Commission. So a yes for the meeting minutes to get accepted.

Commissioner English?

Yes.

And yes from Chair Penning. So we have three voice votes in yes. Thank you for that.

Just to clarify on the record, Commissioner Orcutt, are you abstaining?

I am abstaining, yes. I didn't watch the video, and I was out to dinner with my daughter. It's her birthday.

All right. Thank you. Final Director's Report.

Yes, thank you, Chair. One item I wanted to bring up under this director's report is a follow-up to Commissioner English's question at our last Planning Commission meeting. She was checking on the status of the Tracy Senior Apartments Project, which was approved in early 2024. She mentioned that there had been some constituents inquiring about the status of that. And so I went back and spoke with our planning staff and also our economic development staff that has been involved in some of the funding efforts for this project. And I was informed that the project is moving forward. They're finalizing the funding necessary for that project now, and they expect to be able to begin construction in 2026.

Commissioner English, did you catch that?

Yes, that's really good news. Thank you.

Perfect. All right, I have nothing else from the Director. Any final thoughts from the Commission?

I do have a question. I don't know who attended the planning conference that we used to get to go to. I was wondering if you had a quick synopsis, because that was always the latest and greatest things that were happening in California, and I was curious what those were, if you could give us a sound bite on those.

Yes, Chair. Thanks for the question. I also did not attend the planning conference this year. I know that Marty was present at it. I don't know if he has a few comments he'd like to share of some of the things he picked up. This was his first California APA planning conference.

Yeah, so it was my first conference and my first APA conference as well. It was quite the experience. It was really nice to meet other planners across California. You really get a bigger picture on how Many different planning jobs there are. Here in the city, we do a lot of current planning, and in a lot of different cities, they focus on other stuff, especially the bigger cities. But it was really quite an experience. It was very informative. It was great meeting a lot of new planners, and I would definitely go back again.

How about any of the topics? Were there any that concerned? Because I think previous ones that I attended, there was like farm to fork because Sacramento was faced with a lot of front yard farming. And that was kind of a big thing for conferences. Then it was cannabis was kind of a big topic. Was there anything that stood out at this conference that should be kind of look at where we can kind of go and peruse and.

It was quite diverse. There was topics regarding code enforcement. There was actually topics regarding building, structural stuff, not just planning. There was topics regarding fire, fire safety, and how CAL FIRE has planners to ensure fire safety throughout California. A lot of the seminars that I attended were mostly like case studies seminars. Things that have been in the past, not to do it again. Don't repeat history on some of the issues. But specifically, I can't really remember. But it was very informative, and it was really a great time. Absolutely.

Yeah, without being there, too, I mean, I've In addition to speaking with Marty, I did speak with a few of the other planners. I think some of the big picture topics that were covered related to a lot of the housing policy stuff that's been coming out of the state. I mean, all the cities really for this past year or more have been really struggling to keep pace with the constant updates to state housing laws. And so a lot of the topics and discussions were regarding some of those items.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's all I had.

All right. I'd like to make a motion to adjourn. I would like to make a motion to adjourn. Second that. Second. Voice vote. All in favor say aye.

Aye. Aye.

All right. Thank you guys. Appreciate it. Thanks for showing up. Appreciate it.

Can I rush home? I think I can.

Congratulations. Grab dinner and get on the road.