The City of Tracy Planning Commission on Nov. 19 continued a decision on a proposed three‑story self‑storage facility near the I‑205 freeway after members split on questions about zoning, visual impact and whether the project should be limited in height.

Staff presented the application for a development review permit (referenced in the packet as D25Dash009 / D25Dash0009) and a conditional use permit (CUP25Dash003) for a storage facility on a 2.35‑acre vacant site owned by Tiger Tracy LLC, saying the site is designated commercial and the conditional use permit allows storage in the general highway commercial zone. Project planner Genevieve Federighi described a three‑story building with a single‑story office at the front, perimeter landscaping and an eight‑foot wall along the freeway with additional tree screening.

Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant on multiple points: whether storage with roll‑up doors facing the freeway should be classified as light industrial, what protections apply within 500 feet of the freeway, and whether the city’s development review findings and CEQA treatment (staff cited CEQA Guidelines section 15332, the infill exemption) were appropriate. Assistant City Attorney Daniella Green told the commission that removing a condition from the noticed materials would require approving the project “as amended” and that any deleted condition must be placed on the record and included in a motion.

Developer representative David Brown told the commission the project requires three floors to be economically viable but said the applicant would work with staff to reduce the overall parapet height by about 4–5 feet and consider screening mechanical equipment to lower rooftop height.

Commissioners were split on whether to impose a site‑specific height limit: some argued that the building (staff noted an approximate 40‑foot height) would stand noticeably taller than nearby two‑story structures and that the rear roll‑up doors visible from the freeway would create an industrial appearance; others said the general highway commercial zone lacks a numeric height limit and the commission has discretion for site‑specific conditions. A motion to approve the project with a reduction of up to 5 feet and a narrow deletion of condition C5.1.g failed to secure a majority and thus died.

The commission then voted to reconsider and continued Item 1A to a future meeting, directing staff to return with verified heights for adjacent buildings and other background information for the commission to use in deciding whether and how to limit height or add conditions.