[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-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",[32,74,86],{"_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":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6543380,"mediaKeyId","3610541-d3ef67ad806de2663196daead430486b","parentId",3610541,"title","Planning Commission split on Tracy Hills Commerce Center; motion to recommend approval fails 3–2","audioSeconds",7417,"startMs",3763000,"endMs",11180000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3610541-d3ef67ad806de2663196daead430486b&start=3763&end=11180","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3610541-d3ef67ad806de2663196daead430486b/thumbnail_3763000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6543380/Tracy/San-Joaquin-County/California/Planning-Commission-split-on-Tracy-Hills-Commerce-Center-motion-to-recommend-approval-fails-32","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6543380-7e1711647f812867d65ce573fa5b59fb/orig.mp4?Expires=1770442911&Signature=U~BFfDyRKiITp75INXTjjl0mwQe4thuS1iCWk~nyG2fsLoPeOV8faJVMdUQLDqigfGYF1SupMqE4OThg2ifsI4icld8FAiP6Lu0ImBV~mMq38SHAdHUtk1KZTLq4GyYcA~W6ZqizskMoJAjFaKncAWMJhdyIMno9sLbTVnJ-tZ6h0jsGKGLRAAEAOghOuMdMAViFPltHgLDQ92EZEm5QfxNQnIglU527kF2xfjy0kHXkpEzrDgy3pHJhmCF5c8V1AjEWf04RJwbvPSLPs5qd56W6jjYGG7oDa-uLx6BVQJVgTZxIolFipwITUtbVw7DTt678DnRPBaPoN6hbc7jhCQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-29T07:23:39Z","article","The Planning Commission considered the Tracy Hills Commerce Center, a proposed industrial project on approximately 97.45 acres at the southwest corner of Corral Hollow Road and the Delta Mendota Canal that would build seven warehouse buildings totaling approximately 1,730,000 square feet and create a 16‑parcel tentative subdivision map.

Staff described the project as consistent with the site’s existing General Plan industrial designation and Tracy Hills Specific Plan (light industrial). The applications before the commission included a Specific Plan amendment (allowing architectural parapet height up to two feet above the 45‑foot light industrial limit for design variation and adding Appendix E design guidelines), a development review permit for the warehouse buildings and associated site improvements, and a vesting tentative subdivision map to create the individual parcels for buildings, basins and smaller commercial parcels along Corral Hollow Road. Staff concluded the project’s impacts were consistent with the Tracy Hills specific plan EIR (2016 subsequent EIR) and that, under CEQA Guidelines §§15162 and 15168(c), no new environmental document would be required if the project remains consistent with the prior approvals.

The applicant (Ridgeline Property Group) summarized the project history and multiple site‑plan iterations: initial proposals in 2020 were larger, and through revisions the proposed plan was reduced and refined into seven buildings on the 97‑acre site; the applicant emphasized that the current plan removes cross‑dock buildings and focuses on single‑side dock buildings, which the applicant described as producing fewer truck trips per door. Project benefits cited by the applicant included new street and Corral Hollow Road improvements, commercial parcels fronting Corral Hollow, LEED‑oriented/solar‑ready roofs, EV charging readiness and economic benefits including construction and permanent jobs (applicant estimated ~1,256 construction jobs and 975 full‑time permanent jobs), and public improvement funding.

The public hearing drew more than two dozen in‑person speakers and scores of WebEx participants. Labor representatives and construction trade unions urged approval, saying the project would create local construction and trade jobs and reduce long commutes for union members. Dozens of residents and nearby homeowners opposed the project, citing proximity to existing and growing residential neighborhoods (Tracy Hills, Ellis, Hillview), a local elementary school about 1,500–2,250 feet from the site, concerns about truck traffic on Corral Hollow Road, potential air quality and health impacts from diesel emissions, nighttime lighting, noise and safety for schoolchildren, and the perceived mismatch between industrial scale and adjacent housing. Several speakers asked that the developer move the project to a location farther from homes and schools.

Technical details discussed included: project truck trip estimates (traffic study by Kimley‑Horn estimated AM peak hour truck trips at 44 and PM peak hour truck trips at 60 for full build‑out), internal on‑site truck circulation design (a new public street is proposed for north access and private internal drives provide truck courts and deceleration lanes), mitigation and timing for Corral Hollow and frontage improvements, and voluntary studies the applicant completed (health risk assessment and noise study) that the applicant said found no exceedance of thresholds. Staff and the applicant noted the site sits within an established industrial plan area and an airport overlay; staff described the proposed specific plan amendment and design guidelines as standard components for subsequent phases of the Tracy Hills Specific Plan.

Commission discussion returned repeatedly to the neighborhood impacts and the trade‑offs between employment generation and quality of life. Commissioners asked about sequencing (applicant said the first phase would build buildings 4, 6 and 7, with later phases contingent on leasing), trailer storage and staging, solar and FAA review for any rooftop solar, the Delta Mendota Canal boundary and coordination with the canal authority, and the limits of the Planning Commission’s authority (site is already industrial under the specific plan; the commission’s action would be to recommend approval to Council).

After the public hearing closed, a motion to recommend City Council approval of the Specific Plan amendment, development review permit and vesting tentative subdivision map (and to find no further environmental review required under CEQA Guidelines §§15162 and 15168(c)) failed on roll call. Recorded roll call (motion to recommend approval): Commissioner English — no; Vice Chair Penning — no; Chair Orcutt — yes; Commissioner Bache Bateng — no; Commissioner Atwal — yes. The tally was 2 yes, 3 no; the motion failed. The commission did not forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council.

Why it matters: The site has a long planning history as an industrial parcel within the Tracy Hills Specific Plan; the split vote reflects growing community concerns where residential buildout and new schools are closer to this earlier‑planned industrial area. The outcome leaves final determination to City Council; staff previously advised that the project is consistent with the specific plan and EIR if the design and impacts stay within prior analyzed scope.

What’s next: The applicant may revise the project or pursue Council review. If the council elects to consider the project it will receive additional public hearings; alternatively the applicant could continue to refine site design, truck circulation and mitigation commitments to address the concerns raised by commissioners and the public.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","May 28, 2025 - Tracy Planning Commission Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The Planning Commission split 3–2 against recommending approval of the Tracy Hills Commerce Center design review, specific plan amendment and vesting tentative map after a lengthy public hearing that drew speakers both in favor (labor representatives) and opposed (nearby residents citing traffic, safety and air quality concerns).","taxTitle","Tracy, San Joaquin County, California","taxId",3940,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6543381,"Planning Commission forwards 2023–2031 housing element to council after state pre‑clearance",2901,4278000,7179000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3610541-d3ef67ad806de2663196daead430486b&start=4278&end=7179","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3610541-d3ef67ad806de2663196daead430486b/thumbnail_4278000.jpg","/articles/6543381/Tracy/San-Joaquin-County/California/Planning-Commission-forwards-20232031-housing-element-to-council-after-state-preclearance","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6543381-0f1fe1ccf61edb0e3184c3b9ab8a6e1f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770442911&Signature=ckkBmD8W1kdWSPk0JAXpxCCNzk4XI9mdB65j-eB4-zFIsqUwC2WJv8N92j6U0BcbOtzI-slXqpW5RfKPFKo9s5pdeAoUyB7hzlbokWZ2~jDndW4NZRc0CrXxu-L~xaqn4nM64p13pAdl955NaGflUnFGz7~r-m9zpJbeNS13tjOzTBwsHo1EvlA-~OJOg3grnFl3vcfHuF9Kh7CGUUPd3c9cEaxR3pPj7YTQRwhZ-pf4xtpBLWmdf45quWaE-yVHr-bDFTmVsMz3H557A6vWAus8NLc6CubcMUDF9w9NRIXIXqTOlV2b30EXYbldZHxxNUKxKIGhY72NyBS0Y41Nyw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The City of Tracy Planning Commission recommended that City Council adopt the 2023–2031 Housing Element — the state‑required component of the General Plan that identifies existing housing needs, available sites, and programs to meet the city’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

Staff and consultant teams described the sixth‑cycle housing element as unusually complex due to a large RHNA allocation and multiple recent state law changes requiring jurisdictions not only to identify sites but to demonstrate those sites’ feasibility. The city’s allocation for the 2023–2031 cycle was cited as 8,800 units (San Joaquin County distribution shown in staff slides), producing a major rezoning and implementation program of roughly 200 acres requiring higher density to meet low and very‑low income requirements.

Consultant Veronica Tam (Tam & Associates) and Michael Baker International staff described the legal and programmatic changes since the last cycle, notably expanded site adequacy rules and requirements to demonstrate that rezoned sites are feasible for redevelopment and can accommodate units over the eight‑year planning period. Staff emphasized that the housing element includes implementation measures requiring future rezones, adoption of updated elements (circulation, safety, land use, environmental justice) and other actions to meet the state’s certification standards.

Commissioners asked how the implementation process will be sequenced and how the city will track and complete rezones and program actions. Staff answered that the city must adopt the housing element and then implement rezones (roughly 200 acres mapped in the draft) and related general plan amendments; staff indicated the rezonings and environmental review (EIR) for implementation measures will proceed with public hearings this summer and later in the approval process. The consultant and city staff explained that while the draft housing element does not itself change parcel zoning it does require subsequent mapped rezones; the state will certify the adopted housing element if it meets HCD requirements and staff indicated HCD had provided pre‑certification guidance.

During public comment, the Building Industry Association registered opposition unless the city resolves an unrelated CFD processing issue for a separate Ellis project (BIA asked the city to either process the CFD, remove the CFD requirement, delay adoption until resolved, or exclude the Ellis units from the RHNA count). Staff acknowledged the BIA’s letter and asked for resolution through administrative channels. Several public speakers urged adoption to unlock development and job opportunities; others raised concern about feasibility of meeting RHNA goals and the city’s capacity to implement the required rezones.

The Planning Commission voted to recommend City Council: (1) determine the housing element exempt from CEQA under the common‑sense exemption (CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3)); (2) direct the city manager to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Recorder; (3) adopt the 2023–2031 Housing Element; and (4) direct staff to submit the adopted element to HCD for certification. The roll‑call vote was unanimous in favor.

Why it matters: The housing element sets city policy and creates legally binding obligations to zone for sufficient capacity to meet RHNA. Staff noted the implementation work will include rezoning about 200 acres to accommodate higher densities, updates to other General Plan elements, and continued negotiation with HCD. While there is no immediate penalty for not meeting construction targets, staff and the city attorney explained that once the element is certified by HCD projects that meet the new zoning and affordability standards will be difficult to deny under state law.

What’s next: If City Council adopts the element, staff will proceed with rezoning and the required implementation measures (public hearings, draft EIR for the rezones and amendments). Staff recommended returning to commissioners and council with rezoning packages and environmental review later this year.

","After months of revisions and state‑level exchanges, the Planning Commission voted to recommend City Council adoption of Tracy’s 2023–2031 Housing Element and to file a CEQA notice; staff said the draft has pre‑certification guidance from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6543386,"Planning Commission recommends small‑lot zoning, approves 324‑unit Tri Way project",3652,533000,4185000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3610541-d3ef67ad806de2663196daead430486b&start=533&end=4185","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3610541-d3ef67ad806de2663196daead430486b/thumbnail_533000.jpg","/articles/6543386/Tracy/San-Joaquin-County/California/Planning-Commission-recommends-smalllot-zoning-approves-324unit-Tri-Way-project","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6543386-fe23b6b7454cd835957da2d00faa807f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770442911&Signature=mXw~DM9bHZRseLO~JiqAbnNNqXJOjK2uLjlEqpE8SGL2t4LZQDATN~cK7IfSOxqYtLUFFmZV-KlRAiX1SAsmtK0Vfo0AZqkiizOpF5NeWRVO81JykEJfHgjAouE8f8EAZlw-ijeKfuZKJ7UkGQjIGDdvbSmnd9kgQ38PObj6pRtOkxNjoU9AfQayRyr~INC4FuB0jGMhLwMUSX3eutnZmTsBFBLxRxzHKyaUPLC~mwBQvSwKwhmLTyPA~65iVnYi3xAQfX6hI6ySCX~j25OkH5BFcAKI8vJVmO5KlX96JCLzXN9GzowyEWiWU-F1D4biEkmalpBmhDLr6LdfMK~2mw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The City of Tracy Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt a new “Small Lot Residential (RSL)” zoning district and approved entitlements for the Tri Way project, a 22.6‑acre development proposing 275 homes plus 49 junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) for a total of 324 residential units.

Staff presented the project as a mix of 96 semi‑attached duet homes, 113 alley‑loaded single‑family homes and 66 front‑loaded homes, at about 12.2 dwelling units per acre. The project includes a 3.5‑acre public park (larger than the 2.6 acres required), a public loop road with two east‑west connections to Valpico Road, frontage improvements on Valpico, approximately 2.1 acres of expanded regional city basin area and a pump station. Staff recommended the Planning Commission find the zoning text amendment exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the “common sense” exemption (CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3)) and that the rezone and project were categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines §15183 as consistent with the certified Tracy General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

The Planning Commission heard questions from commissioners about park siting, park construction timing, bike/pedestrian connections, basin and pump‑station needs, and whether the proposed “small lot” zone was consistent with other nearby jurisdictions. Staff explained that parks and recreation staff requested the park be located closer to Valpico to ensure public access, and that a condition requires the park to be completed by the time 50% of homes are built; frontage improvements and Valpico widening are part of the project’s mitigation and frontage obligations; and that the new RSL zone was proposed as a citywide district to allow a consistent small‑lot product in multiple locations rather than a site‑specific planned unit development. The applicant, Brookfield Residential Properties, described the site plan, building typologies, and public benefits including the park, trail connections and pump station.

Public comment at the hearing included one speaker expressing general support and raising traffic questions; staff noted they had received four letters of support for the project (from the Law Offices of Stephen Hassing, the Building Industry Association of the Bay Area, and the property owner W. Tadros and the current on‑site business).

Following deliberations, the commission moved and seconded a recommendation that the City Council approve: (1) a zoning text amendment creating Article 9.5 (Small Lot Residential RSL) in the Zoning Code; (2) a rezone of four parcels from Light Industrial to Small Lot Residential; (3) a vesting tentative subdivision map to create 275 residential lots and common areas; and (4) a development review permit for the 324 units. Commissioners voted in favor of the motion. The staff‑recommended memorandum included minor condition modifications (C1, C3.13, C3.14, C3.15, C4.21, and F2(3)) and a correction clarifying that the public park parcel is to be dedicated to the City rather than to the HOA.

The project team and staff said they will take the Planning Commission recommendation to City Council for final action.

Votes at the Planning Commission (item 1A): The motion to recommend approval passed on roll call (5–0). Recorded roll call: Chair Orcutt — yes; Vice Chair Penning — yes; Commissioner English — yes; Commissioner Atwal — yes; Commissioner Bache Bateng — yes.

Why it matters: The RSL zone creates a new citywide option for “missing middle” and small‑lot ownership housing that staff said would help Tracy meet its higher‑density General Plan designation and accommodate the state’s housing goals while providing a neighborhood park and trail connections. Conditions require the park and frontage improvements be constructed as the project is built, and CEQA findings rely on existing General Plan EIR coverage.

What’s next: The Planning Commission’s recommendation is forwarded to the City Council, which will consider the ordinances and resolutions needed to adopt the zoning amendment, rezone and entitlements. City staff said the park dedication correction and the memorandum changes will be included in the materials sent to Council.

Ending note: The project team and staff emphasized coordination efforts with agencies (BBID for a larger trail connection) and that some long‑range circulation projects tied to Valpico will be completed as growth occurs and as additional right‑of‑way improvements permit wider configurations.

","The Planning Commission voted to recommend city council approval of a zoning text amendment, rezone and entitlements for the Tri Way project — a 324‑unit small‑lot residential development with a 3.5‑acre park and frontage improvements on Valpico Road.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning Commission split on Tracy Hills Commerce Center; motion to recommend approval fails 3–2

Planning Commission forwards 2023–2031 housing element to council after state pre‑clearance

Planning Commission recommends small‑lot zoning, approves 324‑unit Tri Way project