[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6344518,"mediaKeyId","2250680-023f11d6e3ea3ce7366f8ce2f172f822","parentId",2250680,"title","Planning Commission forwards broad Development Title text amendments to Board of Supervisors","audioSeconds",280,"startMs",1810000,"endMs",2090000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2250680-023f11d6e3ea3ce7366f8ce2f172f822&start=1810&end=2090","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2250680-023f11d6e3ea3ce7366f8ce2f172f822/thumbnail_1810000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6344518/San-Joaquin-County/California/Planning-Commission-forwards-broad-Development-Title-text-amendments-to-Board-of-Supervisors","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6344518-1031b77cb5bb70cc325eeb0a3f97ddbd/orig.mp4?Expires=1773304673&Signature=NwQUuAYXlE6Mf-zkTfqoMFjLG2bdeO1wuu0rVrBJFKb0Y70BSpDsQWaxrPK00-OFo7fKfu~iALpWTaKT-D~pG7qe2AaJTw2dFdE4L9aXq2P0q2ZjnRDwuPrMj3ZlgHEWxj2LGjk-gowTnLEWhRlsw~in~3P1E9-f9FvizKkfRHorH0HE8EHK~gYMrWxpOHHrM7YVIdXOutvegBfF32R~7SaH2IP83A2j4HfJI7C9DEwLdhnd~Pes8zQTOzQq-qjrgm1PjMco3DyA8gm8a70N~0T~CISMJcydxrs8nqMpahZ0WccpTwm94e0oZ--iW5EDBldMQoM2DEiTIF5~eIMB0Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","San Joaquin County CA","date","2025-02-07T14:42:11Z","article","The San Joaquin County Planning Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to forward Development Title text amendment PA24533 to the Board of Supervisors with the recommendation of approval. Staff described the package as a set of corrections and clarifications to the Development Title approved in 2022, addressing usability issues, reinstating requirements that were unintentionally omitted, and updating tables and text across multiple series.

Megan Ayure, staff presenter, said the amendment affects Series 200, 400, 700 and 900 of the Development Title. Notable changes include clarifications to setbacks, permitting thresholds, and accessory/temporary use regulations; minor adjustments to height limits, setback exceptions, tree requirements and parking; and revisions to the mobile food vendor rules to introduce locational criteria and an appropriate permit level. Under the proposal, a single mobile food vendor without seating or restrooms would require only a zoning compliance review, while multiple vendors or sites providing seating and restrooms would require an administrative use permit. The draft adds locational limits: new vendors would not be allowed within 200 feet of a permitted residential use or residential zone and not within 400 feet of another vendor (except on an approved multi-vendor site) or within 400 feet of another eating establishment.

Series 600 changes would clarify when private rights-of-way in antiquated subdivisions require an administrative use permit versus a zoning compliance review; series 700 amendments would adjust minimum parcel sizes for new Williamson Act contracts consistent with recent general plan changes; and series 900 edits would distinguish agricultural buildings from equipment storage, reinstate a “development project” definition, and correct errors in the home site parcel and residential care facility large definitions. Staff said the amendments are consistent with the general plan and exempt from CEQA because they do not cause a physical change in the environment.

The commission asked few questions and described the changes as straightforward. The motion to forward with recommendation to the Board of Supervisors passed 5-0.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","San Joaquin County Planning Commission • Special Meeting • February 6, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The commission unanimously recommended approval of text amendment PA24533 to the county Development Title, which clarifies permit processes, reinstates some prior requirements, and updates standards for mobile food vendors, private rights-of-way, and Williamson Act minimum parcel sizes.","taxTitle","San Joaquin County, California","taxId",3688,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6344523,"San Joaquin County Planning Commission denies request to split 10-acre Tracy parcel into two 5-acre lots",1461,294000,1755000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2250680-023f11d6e3ea3ce7366f8ce2f172f822&start=294&end=1755","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2250680-023f11d6e3ea3ce7366f8ce2f172f822/thumbnail_294000.jpg","/articles/6344523/San-Joaquin-County/California/San-Joaquin-County-Planning-Commission-denies-request-to-split-10-acre-Tracy-parcel-into-two-5-acre-lots","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6344523-239abe791a9828804be8693b6797f517/orig.mp4?Expires=1773304673&Signature=HarFyq5KISwbczOBCPUBxcdriXmXIPdeQtOcyPwYoDDLCpj1qOusm9bBecwdquv2rVKNmmzg5Bv54sERVvSUyoIMKKg8YETTH~2S-Wg8UuyaBYuMgROWvkTgeIWeoOs5fLap4bMtcVHcA336t9ZqLzTK0tozyhgKKCkoryxg3vWmnyVLS82GtSKZtszzUrD6NP6xSzlBdMPkU-xj0Q4bm-~kgvFbpD~HsVE-JfmCtvrAPcaTdRmreyGg-t0AOwl2jNCp9gNGaqWnzV1az9Ip~30xE9PuACA4AXW7veI-bHxbOuijjtKEvLL7Xkc39vggWqka8q6TiHfd~D6VI-87ng__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Joaquin County Planning Commission denied a request to subdivide a 10-acre parcel in Tracy into two 5-acre parcels and to grant a variance reducing the AG-40 zone minimum from 40 acres to 5 acres. The motion to deny variance PA 2400078 and minor subdivision PA 2400079 passed by a 3-2 vote; commissioners Midgley, Milas and Roostaler voted yes, while Commissioners Sengham and Hernandez voted no.

County staff recommended denial, saying the application could not satisfy the required variance findings (findings 1 and 3) or the minor subdivision findings (findings 1 and 2). Stephanie Stowers, principal planner, told the commission the parcel was created by a 1913 Tracy Garden Farm map and was recognized with a certificate of compliance in 1988, but that the parcel does not meet the AG-40 40-acre minimum and staff could not make the findings required for subdivision or variance under the development title and general plan.

The applicant’s representative, Anjali Sarai, spoke for the Sarai family, saying the property has been in the family for 29 years and that the proposed split would allow two brothers to continue living on the family homestead rather than selling. John Glick of Corteroli and Associates, the applicant’s land use consultant, argued the county’s later rezoning (from EA-10 to AG-40) created a special circumstance that should allow the variance, and he disputed staff’s characterization that surrounding parcels were created consistent with later zoning. Glick cited the 1913 subdivision map as evidence that the prior parcel pattern predated the AG-40 minimum.

Public comment included two speakers in favor. Donna Barbera Diaz, a homeowner at the San Joaquin River Club, said the area is residential in character, that heirs and descendants of former farm owners want smaller parcels, and that she had not observed opposition from neighbors or from the irrigation district. Staff confirmed that the county circulated the application to affected agencies and received only routine comments; no agency responses constituted a major objection, staff said. Environmental health and public works comments would become conditions of approval if the commission chose to approve the project.

Commission discussion noted the tension between family property interests and county-wide zoning standards. Some commissioners expressed sympathy for the family’s circumstances but said approving a variance where required findings cannot be made would create an unfair exception and could invite many similar requests.

The motion to deny was made and seconded on the record; the commission chair announced that the applicants may appeal the denial to the Board of Supervisors.","The Planning Commission voted 3-2 to deny a variance (PA 2400078) and concurrent minor subdivision (PA 2400079) that would have split a legally nonconforming 10-acre parcel in Tracy into two 5-acre parcels in the AG-40 zone, concluding staff could not make required findings.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning Commission forwards broad Development Title text amendments to Board of Supervisors

San Joaquin County Planning Commission denies request to split 10-acre Tracy parcel into two 5-acre lots