Planning Commission continues review of three‑story storage facility after debate over height, zoning and screening

A proposed three‑story self‑storage facility on a vacant 2.35‑acre site near Grant Line Road and the I‑205 freeway was continued by the Tracy Planning Commission on Nov. 19 after commissioners failed to reach agreement on building height and the project's classification.

The hearing opened with a staff presentation from project planner Genevieve Federighi, who described a development review permit (D25‑0009) and conditional use permit (CUP25‑0003) for an approximately 130,480‑square‑foot, three‑story self‑storage building. Federighi said the site is zoned General Highway Commercial and staff recommended approval with conditions, including an 8‑foot wall adjacent to the freeway and a mix of fast‑ and slow‑growing trees to provide near‑ and long‑term screening.

Commissioners pressed staff on two central questions: whether storage facilities should be treated as light industrial or be allowed in the General Highway Commercial zone via a conditional use permit, and whether the building’s three stories would make it stand out from nearby development. "To me it looks more like industrial," said Commissioner English, pointing to roll‑up doors and exterior docks that face the freeway. Federighi replied that the code allows warehousing and storage in the General Highway Commercial zone with a conditional use permit and that the proposed doors are the smaller, 8‑foot roll‑up doors typical of storage facilities.

Staff and Al Galley of the city's development division said the project had been evaluated against CEQA Guidelines section 15332 (the infill exemption) and that prior technical memos prepared for a previously studied hotel on the site were re‑used where applicable for utilities and traffic. "If we’re not hitting the significance thresholds for VMT and other tests, an exemption can apply," Galley said.

Several commissioners raised aesthetic concerns. Commissioner Atwal and Commissioner Orcutt argued for reducing overall height so the new structure would better match the adjacent Kaiser building and other one‑ and two‑story commercial uses. Commissioner Orcutt asked whether the applicant could lower floor‑to‑floor heights or reduce the parapet; the applicant’s representative, David Brown, said the developer needed three floors to reach a viable amount of rentable space but was willing to lower overall height by about 4–5 feet and to work on rooftop screening.

The commission heard motions to approve the project with a five‑foot height reduction, to approve as noticed with staff amendments (including removal of one engineering recommendation), and other variants. One motion that included the five‑foot reduction failed for lack of a second, and a subsequent motion produced a 2–2 split and died. The commission then voted to reconsider and ultimately voted to continue the item so staff can return with measured heights of surrounding buildings and additional context.

The commission’s action means the project was not approved tonight; staff will renotice the item for a future meeting after gathering the requested comparisons and clarifications.

The public hearing for this item had no public speakers for or against during the meeting.

Next steps: staff will research measured heights of adjacent buildings and other context requested by the commission and return the item to a future Planning Commission meeting.