If you want to go ahead and start the recording, Sandy, all right, good evening, everybody.

I will now call to order the Elk Roof Planning Commission regular meeting Thursday, November the 6th, 2025 at 6 p.m.

I'll begin with our land acknowledgement.

We honor, respect, and acknowledge Elk Grove's first inhabitants, the Plains Miwok, who lived as sovereign caretakers of this land and these waterways since time immemorial.

We commemorate and advocate for their descendants, the Wilton Rancheria tribe, the only federally recognized tribe in Sacramento County who endure because of the bravery, resiliency, and determination of their ancestors, tribal members, and leaders.

Will you please take a moment to silence your electronic devices?

And Sandy, will you please read the customary greeting?

The El Cruel Planning Commission welcomes appreciates and encourages participation in the meetings.

The commission reserves the right to reasonably limit total time for public comment on any particular noticed agenda item as it meeting as it may deem necessary.

If you wish to address the commission during the meeting, please complete a speaker card.

They're located in the back of the room and give it to the clerk prior to consideration of the agenda item.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Commissioners Sandra Poole.

Verinder Singh.

Present.

Vice Chair Oscar O'Khan.

Present.

And Chair Juan Fernandez.

Present.

Welcome back.

Will you please join us in a moment of silence?

Thank you.

Do I have a motion for the approval of the agenda?

Mr.

Chair, I move.

We approve the agenda as presented.

I have a motion to have a second.

Second.

In favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Agenda passes five zero.

I will now move to the public comment opportunity.

Members of the audience may comment on any item not on the agenda that is of interest to the public and within the jurisdiction of the planning commission.

The planning commission cannot take action on non-agendized items and under public comment until the matter has been specifically included on an agenda as an action item.

Sandy, do we have anyone sign up to speak?

We have no speakers for public comment.

All right, I will open and close the public general comment opportunity, and we will move to the consent calendar items.

Do I have a motion for the regular meeting minutes of October the second, 2025?

Chair Fernandez, I move for approval of the minutes of October 2nd, 2025.

Second motion and a second.

All in favor, I.

Abstention by Vice Chair O'Connor.

Passes four zero one.

Okay, and do I have a motion for the regular meeting minutes of October the 16th?

Chair, I move to approve the regular meeting minutes of October 16th.

I have a motion.

I will second all in favor.

Any opposed?

Alright, you were sent to abstain.

All right.

So I was in here either.

Oh, that's right.

Okay.

So three zero.

Two abstentions.

Motion passes.

All right.

Will the clerk please call the first item for tonight?

Item 5.1 is orthology winery amendment.

It's project PLNG 24056.

Good evening, Commissioner.

Sarah Kirsch-Gessner, Elkgrove Planning Department.

The project before you tonight is the Bartholomew Winery Amendment.

The project consists of a request for a text amendment to the Elk Grove Municipal Code, Title 23 zoning to allow outdoor event center use as an ancillary use with approval of a conditional use permit within the agricultural residential zoning districts with certain parameters, which will be discussed later in the presentation.

The project also includes a conditional use permit to allow the ancillary outdoor event center use with up to 18 events per year with amplified music sound, as well as a conditional use permit amendment to their existing conditional use permit to expand the hours and days of on-site wine tasting and allow additionally additional winery events with amplified music and sound.

The project site consists of an approximately 10-acre parcel located within the Eastern Elkgrove community plan area.

The parcel is currently developed with two single unit residential dwellings, a food store, excuse me, a 3,200 square foot storage wine production warehouse and four acres of vineyards.

The project site is surrounded by residential uses to the south and west, as well as vacant commercial land to the north and commercial and institutional uses to the east.

For some background information, the planning commission approved the original conditional use permit in 2019, which allowed the establishment of a wine production facility for the Bartholomew Vineyard project with five special events per calendar year for activities associated with the winery.

In 2021, the planning commission approved a conditional use of permit amendment to that previous conditional use permit to allow on-site wine tasting as well as expanding the number of special events associated with the facility from 5 to 24 per calendar year.

Related to the outdoor event center use, that use is currently not permitted in the agricultural residential zoning districts, and that was amended as part of a 2019 municipal code amendment based on previous council direction.

Here is the existing site details.

As mentioned, there are two single unit residential structures.

Um the outdoor seating area is paved and it's shown in the middle of the site.

There is the existing 3200 square foot warehouse building.

As you can see, there are the existing single unit residential development to the west and south of the project site.

The existing general plan land use designation of the site is a state residential and the current zoning district is AR1.

The project includes an amendment to an existing winery use, which is surrounded by other commercial sites, and the on-site wine tasting and special events will be associated with the existing winery, which is an agricultural use that will continue to add to the diverse local economy in the community.

The applicant is requesting approval of a tax amendment to allow outdoor event center use in the agricultural residential zoning districts as an ancillary use with certain parameters.

Outdoor event center means outdoor facilities for public assembly and group entertainment other than sporting events, including facilities for wedding, live theater and concerts, and similar entertainment.

The proposed text amendment would permit an ancillary outdoor event center use in the AR 10, AR5, AR2, and AR1 districts with approval of a conditional use permit subject to the following parameters.

The parcel would be required to be a minimum of 10 gross acres in size, have direct primary public access from one or more major arterials as defined in the general plan, and the use must be ancillary to an approved winery or agricultural tourism use on the site.

The proposed parameters above, as well as the conditional use permit process would provide for a process for the review of site features and operating characteristics on a case-by-case basis to determine compatibility with surrounding area and uses.

The conditional use permit is a discretionary entitlement that allows for conditions of approval to be placed on projects as well as required findings to ensure that a use would not be detrimental to surrounding properties.

The project includes an amendment to the previously approved conditional use permit as well as a new conditional use permit.

Here are the three discussion items they'll be discussing over the next couple slides.

For the existing wine tasting, the planning commission previously permitted wine tasting operations on the project site, both indoors and outdoors, and the hours of operation of the existing wine tasting are currently Monday through Thursday, 3 to 6 p.m., as well as Friday, Saturday, and Sunday from noon to 8 p.m.

The applicant requests the hours of operation for wine tasting be expanded from 11 a.m.

to 8 p.m.

seven days a week.

For the typical winery events, which were previously referred to as special events, these are events for marketing and fundraising for the winery, such as wine tours, winemaking dinners, blending seminars, etc.

And the project proposes to expand the number of events, the days, the hours, no change, as well as the number of people.

So they would be going from the existing 24 events per calendar year, and they are requesting 48 events per calendar year.

They're currently limited to Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays, as well as holidays on Mondays, and they are proposing to expand that to Monday through Sunday, seven days a week.

No change to the hours of operation, the maximum people allowed permit existing under the current conditional use permit through the conditions of approval is 50, and they're looking to expand that to 125 people, and the conditions of approval also currently limit any music to acoustic only, and they are asking for amplified music and sound to be permitted as part of this typical winery event.

For outdoor event center, pursuant as I mentioned, pursuant to outdoor, the municipal code outdoor event center is defined as follows, and they are requesting 18 events per calendar year on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays from 11 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

with 125 people maximum, and they are also requesting that amplified music be permitted as part of the outdoor event center use.

As part of the project, a noise study was prepared by Bollard Acoustical Consultants for the project to analyze the proposed amplified music to verify compliance with the general plan noise standards and policies, as well as the Elkard Municipal Chapter 6.32 noise control.

The noise consultant conducted noise level measurements during an amplified music event simulation on April 9th, as well as during an amplified music event in May of 2025.

Here's an exhibit that shows the noise survey locations.

So the stage location and the speaker direction are shown in the red square with the speaker pointed to and the stage pointed to the northeast.

So here are the municipal code standards for exterior noise level.

These are the daytime standards, which are 7 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

And for music, the standard is 50 decibels.

It does allow for an increase of five decibels when the ambient is less than 60 but greater than 50.

So in this case, you can see the summary of average noise levels shown in the table.

The ambient is the first column, and this is showing the various sites, site one, two, three, and four, as well as the four simulated measurements from those four simulated events.

And all of these show that the noise levels would be in compliance with the city's noise standard of 50 for sites two, three, and four, and then with the allowed increase of five for site one.

The noise study results show that the noise levels do vary for the type of event.

The outdoor event center with the amplified music, such as a wedding, would be louder than the typical winery events.

However, the noise levels for all the events are predicted to be within the compliance of the city's standards.

And there are noise study recommendations that are incorporated into the conditions of approval.

And I will go through them here.

According to the noise study recommendations that have been corporated into the conditions, amplified music events should cease by the hours proposed, either 9 p.m.

for the typical winery events and 10 p.m.

for the outdoor event center use.

The sound system should be located at the proposed position shown on the noise study with the speakers oriented towards the northeast.

The sound system would be required to be limited to 85 decibels at the position 50 feet in front of the speakers.

That's the reference point shown in the exhibit.

Additionally, a winery representative would need to remain on the premises for the entire duration of the events and measure the sound levels with a sound meter during the during the event.

And additionally, they would need to provide contact information for a winery representative in the event that complaints are received.

Public correspondence was received by the city and forward to the planning commission for their consideration.

We did receive 18 public comment letters in opposition to the project.

They identified concerns about the number of allowed events, the amplified music, potential noise issues, traffic, as well as safety concerns.

We did also receive a letter from the Sheldon Community Association, and in that comment, they requested that the rural community plan area would be carved out exempted from the requested code amendment.

So in response to that, just wanted to provide some information about the parcels that could potentially if approved comply with these parameters.

So as you can see, the parcels in the city that have AR1, AR2, AR5, and AR10 zoning districts that are greater than or equal to 10 acres along major arterials as shown.

There are a few parcels within the rural area.

None of them have an existing winery or agricultural tourism use necessarily on them.

Some of them are developed with other uses.

And there are three parcels outside of the rural area as well, and that includes the project site.

No further environmental review is required pursuant to state CEQA guidelines 15, 162, and 15183.

The project is consistent with the general plan environmental impact report.

Staff recommends that the planning commission recommend city council find that no further environmental reviews required.

Adopt the Elk Grove Municipal Code Text Amendment, and approve the conditional use permit and conditional use permit amendment.

This concludes my presentation.

I'm available to answer any questions.

The applicant team is also available as long as as well as the noise consultant.

You have any specific questions about the noise study.

Thank you.

Thank you for the report.

Commissioner Singham, any questions?

Comments for staff?

Oh no, none for this none for staff at this point.

I guess I have for the uh sound for the acoustical consultants later.

Okay, we'll come to that at the public comment opportunity.

Mr.

Chair?

No, uh, I got all my answers on the staff meeting, and I've been calling also and giving the more information, the one I needed.

Very good.

Commissioner Poole.

Yeah, um, can you go back to the slide where you were giving us the background on 2019 and the 2021 decisions, previous decisions?

Okay.

So the outdoor event center use and the 2019 municipal court amendment based on previous council direction.

Can you expand on that a little bit about what that direction was by the council?

There had been um the review of two projects in the city that had led to some code complaints and concern from the rural community area about noise associated with outdoor event centers.

Um the direction had been to at that time um remove that as an allowed use in the excuse the as a conditionally allowed use in the agricultural residential zoning districts.

So at the time there weren't any parameters, it was just a conditionally permitted use.

Okay, so um, and then moving forward to the recommendation for the the amendment to the text, then this would in effect then include the rural areas.

In the current there the way that it is currently drafted, it does not exclude the rural community plan area.

It has parameters that include the size of the parcel, the location of the parcel along a major arterial, as well as it being an ancillary use to an existing existing winery or agricultural tourism use.

So no one could come in and apply for a standalone outdoor event center.

It would need to be ancillary to an already approved or proposed winery or agricultural tourism use.

So I guess I'm trying to in my mind reconcile the inclusion of the rule in this amendment, or what would be the advantage of doing that or the purpose of doing that at this time?

So because of the parameters as well as the size of the parcel.

Um there is there could be sufficient buffer to provide for um on a case by case basis some properties or parcels where it may be appropriate to have an outdoor event center, such as tied to an a large parcel along a major arterial.

So it would be a conditionally permitted use, and the planning commission would have the conditional use process to review it on a case-by-case basis.

Okay, I'll say the rest of my questions for later.

Mr.

Chair, if I may.

I do have a follow-up question.

Could you go to your slide on the rural area, please, where you showed the certain parcels of land?

So if I'm hearing you rightly, this change uh based on this project will be a policy change, which is going to apply to the rural area.

And any of these parcels, even though we are focusing on a winery or vineyards right now, would be for any agricultural operation.

And any, if there were one of these uh 10 acre possible to design it to put in uh just hypothetically, let's take an annual crop or vegetable crop, a field of vegetable crops.

They could qualify under the 10-acre ruling if they wanted to put in an ancillary outdoor event facility.

No, because the use is not tied to croplands.

So it wouldn't be allowed as part of crop production.

Define agricultural tourism for me, please.

Agricultural tourism means establishments that cater to tourist and provide agricultural products grown on the site or within the community with limited on-site processing.

Such uses include but are not limited to permanent roadside crop stands or fruit stands and winery tasting rooms where crushing fermentation and bottling occur off-site.

Okay.

Uh go back, you said fruit or vegetable stands or some such thing.

I'm just curious now.

Now you got me going off in my I'm putting on my horticultural scap at this point.

Correct.

Permanent roadside crop stands or fruit stands.

So if you say permanent roadside crop stand, so if I'm growing vegetable crops, that would qualify for agricultural tourism, and I'm selling it in my little stand.

You would have to have the stand to go with it, yes.

Oh, yeah.

So it stand doesn't take a heck of a lot, a couple of two by fours.

Sorry, but that's the reality.

Okay.

So it I could, if I bought a parcel of land in the rural area, could get into ag tourism.

Because ag tourism is not that difficult to become.

I mean, you are it's not restricted to uh wineries or vineyards.

I mean they're the primary area, but it's not all to Apple Hill or something like that.

We generally think what we think of tourism in terms of uh verennial crops, but annual crops would qualify just as well.

And to clarify, you it still would need to be 10 acres or more, and it's 10 acres.

With review by the plan review and approval by the appropriate.

I'm just trying to clarify, uh, because the point you made, I think sort of in tangentially was none of these has applied for anything on one of these parcels.

But what I'm pointing out is you could easily use an annual crop and meet the ag tourism requirements.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay, I have a couple of questions.

Um, is the 125 people inclusive of staff?

I do not believe so, no.

Okay.

So it would be uh attendees participants of the event.

Yes.

Um so the number might be a little bit higher than 125 total.

Thank you.

Um I think this actually is a question for Carrie.

I think she brought the lighting standards to us.

Um, are there any changes to the definitions of the lighting standards that would accompany the outdoor event center?

Um, they would still be bound by um full, I can't remember the term, full cone lighting.

Um they wouldn't have any additional lighting that accompanies the outdoor event center, is that correct?

Or they would be prohibited from placing light standards higher than I think it was 12 feet.

Is that correct?

At that point you're moving beyond the residential occupancy and into the commercial.

There's a fine-line difference there, of course, in some cases.

Um the code does require four commercial multifamily um that shielding is required where light source uh light where the light source from an outdoor light fixture is visible beyond the property line, shielding shall be required to reduce glare, so the light source is not visible from within any residential dwelling.

Um there are standards around the level of illumination that are much more specific than we did with the residential stuff.

So, for example, we have standards around parking lots, driveways, trash enclosures, public phones, group mailboxes, maintaining a minimum one-foot candle with an average not to exceed four foot candles.

There's pedestrian walkway standards, um there's requirements, particularly out of the building code with regard to at exiting to structures where certain lighting must be provided at those doorways, height standards, maximum height of freestanding outdoor light fixtures for development of budding residential, ag residential and agricultural property shall be 20 feet.

Additionally, exterior lighting with a multi, however, the designated bringing authority may grant exceptions to the height restriction in conjunction with design review.

It's proposed light plan has negligible light glare and spill impacts on adjoining residential properties, otherwise, a maximum of 30 feet can be provided for.

I think those are the key pieces.

I think the last sentence was was the critical one.

So if they had lighting for an event, it would cease at 10 p.m.

with the event.

Correct.

Yeah, unless the allowed hours of operation of the establishment of the business are allowed beyond 10 p.m.

It would have to be off of 10 p.m.

But then we would only allow them for the duration the establishment was open, plus some minimal grace period following for closeout.

Yeah, staff cleanup, etc.

Right.

Okay.

Because noise pollution and light pollution are equally equivalent in my mind.

Okay.

One final question.

Along the west and south perimeter, um, is there any um masonry wall or um is it just a basic wooden fence to the residential properties that abut the west and southern boundary?

There is a masonry wall.

It is a masonry wall, okay.

So there's some relief from from sound, uh, presumably from that.

Do you happen to know the height?

Six feet.

Is that I believe it's a minimum six feet.

Okay, per standard.

Okay.

All right.

Um, I think those are all of my questions for staff.

Um thank you.

Reserve the right to call you back.

Okay.

Um with no additional questions for staff.

I will now declare the public hearing opportunity or the hearing open.

Excuse me, and I will invite the applicant to speak or the applicant's representative.

Good evening, Mr.

Wilson.

Good evening.

Chair Fernandez and members of the commission.

It's good to be back.

Um, I am Darren Wilson.

I'm the uh CEO president of Wilson Land Development Solutions.

I here represent the client on this uh amendment.

Uh I wanted to thank Sarah and her colleagues for help us through the process and thinking outside the box to make this work.

Uh um we a couple clarifications.

I believe the rural events, uh, when I was here, there were two at least two illegal operations going on at the point that uh council wanted to put it on under paper uh and make you know under the code to um you know squash those operations.

I could be wrong.

Maybe one of staffs can uh recollect you know those events as well.

Um as far as the Sheldon community proposal, we're indifferent, it doesn't affect us.

Uh we feel it's more of a city policy than uh affects our application.

And then just to answer your the lighting at this time, they don't plan on putting up any lighting.

Um they use utilize the string lighting, then a lighting on the existing structures.

Uh, other than that, staff agrees to all the uh conditions of approval that have been published, and uh as Sarah said, we have our full team here to answer any questions.

So I'm here to entertain any questions.

Thank you.

It's good to see you, Darren.

Any questions for Mr.

Wilson?

Um I have a I have a simple question.

I I guess uh I'm not a sound engine.

Excuse me.

A sound engineer.

So would uh uh Mr.

Ballard or somebody explain to me how the amplified simulation of April 17th was conducted.

Hi, good evening for the record.

My name is Paul Bollard with Ballard Acoustical Consultants in our offices in Auburn, California.

And uh I apologize, I didn't hear the question.

Oh, my question, would you please explain how the amplified event simulation of April 9th?

My date is wrong, April 9th was conducted.

Yes.

Which is on page 45 of the staff report page nine of your report.

So there were uh several components to the analysis that we prepared for this project, one of which was an amplified music event simulation.

Um we think that it's important to actually set up speakers, play music at levels that uh that may represent an extreme high end so that we can have levels that we can measure along the property line of the residences.

So that's what we did.

We set up our our uh concert speakers, or we're we're talking about the simulation here, not the actual event where there was a band.

Um so we set up speakers.

Um we have concert speakers.

Uh we used an MP3 player to play music similar to what you might expect at a at a wedding reception, for example, and we played those at very high levels.

We played them at a reference level of approximately 90 decibels, 50 feet back, and in the photograph you saw earlier, one of our sound level meters was at 50 feet.

At the same time, we had the four other locations there were sound level meters running, collecting data second by second in a sort of EKG, if you will, of uh of the sound levels.

So we they were all time synchronized, so we could note when the music came on.

How did that affect the levels that we measured at the residential property lines?

Then we factored in the sound attenuation provided by the barrier, and it is it's eight feet tall relative to the property, the project site size.

And so, from that information, we concluded that the project would comply with the city's noise standards, even at a level of 90, but nonetheless, we recommended a factor of safety uh for the 85 decibel threshold uh in our in our analysis, and so that was essentially it.

We played loud music, we played the same song loud several times through, and we walked and we listened along the property line, we took notes and we logged data continuously.

Those same four meters stayed in the field for a period, I believe, of seven days, and we got background ambient data, how loud it is along the property line when there's nothing going on, both daytime and nighttime evening hours as well.

So we collected extensive ambient data as well as conducting the simulation, and then of course we did similar monitoring during the actual event where there was a six-piece band that played during one of the the wine events later.

So when you had the actual band, or let's go back to simulation.

When you had this, you said you used an MP3 player.

Yes.

Which was going at probably a constant uh volume for the lack of better word, it wasn't oscillating up and down the sound, or was it?

Actually, it did oscillate because the the song that we were playing, the sound levels increased in intensity and decreased as is typical of most music.

Um, so we we used the reference noise meter to say what's the the loudest we're getting during the playing of this song, and that was the 90 decibels, but it wasn't at 90 decibels continuously.

It ebbed and flowed as the music in the song went up and down.

So this was not done with an audience, or there's no people involved.

Correct.

During the simulation, we just wanted complete control of the sound levels that were coming out and uh our measurement equipment without uh without an audience present.

So did you do a simulation with people?

So we we did return, and it wasn't a simulation in this case, it was an actual amplified music event, where there was a band that set up, they set up in the same location with their speakers pointed in the same direction as our simulation.

Uh their levels, they had uh drums, horns, guitars, a keyboard, um, and I think a saxophone, and and their levels were considerably lower than what levels we generated during our simulation.

And that was one of the I forget the nomenclature that we're using, but it was like the typical winery event instead of the special event.

And so uh those levels were within the range of expected for that type of event.

And so we've really got two kind of sets of sound levels, one for the typical winery event, and then one for the special event, where it might be, for example, a wedding reception, which from our experience those tend to be a bit louder.

As you said on page eight, you're talking about certain of these.

So, how many people did you have in the audience during this uh special wedding-like event, not the winery, because as I read your report, you're talking about the regular winery events, background music, whatever is no higher than where which would disallow a conversation with your table mates or whatever.

Uh, but during the wedding event, how many people did you have in the audience?

So we didn't actually measure a wedding event, okay.

Um we simulated a wedding event, but there was nobody in the audience at that.

There were people in the audience at the typical wine.

Right.

Let's stick with if you would uh sort of uh bear with me for a moment.

Assuming the outdoor event center event, the sort of simulation you did with the wedding event, uh, you had no people.

Right.

You did a simulation.

And you yourself on your report on page eight say, in your firm's opinion or experience, these types of events generate higher levels of amplified music, sound level, particularly periods when people are dancing or you know, attendees are dancing.

So you really your simulation is nice, but it doesn't, in my opinion, reflect what would happen if you had 125 people at that wedding event who were all dancing.

Now, I have another question for you, which bounces off this.

So you did not have 125 people, you didn't simulate to 125 people.

That's correct.

Uh you did not have these people dancing.

That's correct.

And if I may throw in another one, no alcohol was served during the simulation because you had no people.

That's correct.

Now you and I both know that alcohol makes people loud and boisterous in the days I used to drink.

I distinctly remember what used to happen.

The doctor who in my life, but we won't discuss that.

So what would the noise level go up by if you had people who are dancing?

Would it be five percent, 10%?

So it's not so much the dancing as the the voices of people who are enjoying the reception.

So they're singing off-tune.

Right.

We wouldn't we would not expect those voices to be louder than the music.

The amplified music would definitely be considered from our experience and measuring at other wedding functions over the years.

Our experience is that the music is the dominant source, and while others uh who are in attendance, the crowd, for example, and maybe they're singing along, and what have you, um in our experience, it doesn't dramatically affect the levels that would be received at the property line uh because the music is the dominant source, and the rest would fall beneath that level.

Okay.

I mean, you you're the sound engineer, so uh I cannot challenge your uh opinion or your belief, uh, but my thought would be in any gathering if you put 125 people in any enclosed area.

There's a fair amount of sound which will be additive to the sound being produced by the instruments, and also, I mean, by some of us in my younger days, having spent enough time in bars, having figured out the noise level in the bar, both by music and people, it can be quite den.

I mean, I'll just throwing that out.

So your your simulation really did not have people in the or did what you're doing.

And you're absolutely right.

It was really focused on the uh the amplified music.

So no, that was I think one of my issues when I was reading your report.

Thank you for that.

I'll stay nearby in case there are additional noise related questions, and perhaps some will come up after public testimony.

I'm happy to respond.

I think Vice Chair O'Connor has a question for you.

Oh, sorry.

When you did the time, what time did you do this simulation test?

Was it in the morning and the afternoon and the evening?

I would have to check the report.

The um the wine function where they had the band was in the afternoon.

It was on a Sunday afternoon.

And our simulation, I believe, was um Darren, you were there.

I think it was two.

It was two o'clock in the afternoon, somewhere around that point.

On a weekday.

Yes.

The reason I asked is because in the letters most of most of the neighbors are complaining about being home, and that's why I'm asking the time is to see if they were home or not.

Oh, weren't home during the simulation.

Okay.

Right.

That's when the simulation was conducted.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think that'll answer the question.

And this is maybe more for Darren, and and we'll probably talk about this a little bit more regarding complaints.

Um, so if there were no people there and it was mainly during the daytime, did you get any complaints when there was live um music?

We we didn't get any complaints on those.

Okay, uh either of those, which would make sense if it was when folks are probably at work.

Yeah.

Okay.

So I want to make sure I understand your comment.

Uh is you're thinking that the 125 people is additive to the to the uh noise levels at 90 where it's 90 decibels from 50 feet from the stage, or actually, when you read the report, uh this is uh the report by Mr.

Bald on page 80.

It clearly states these types of events generate higher levels of amplified music sound, particularly during periods when patrons are dancing.

That's from his report, not my belief.

And if I may, I just want to be clear.

That's when the music is usually played at its highest level is when people are dancing.

If it's background music during dinner, typically it's considerably lower.

Right.

So that was the rationale for that.

No, no, I understand, sir.

And but my whole premise is the issue of the high noise point and not what's happening during dinner or what's happening at a winery event where the noise levels are going to be much lower.

But the noise level which could potentially bother the neighbors is going to occur at the high volume mark or the high water mark of uh the event.

So uh that's why I raised this, and I'm just citing what he's got here.

And and that high level is 90 decibels, 50 feet from the speakers.

Right.

Okay, and the recommendation is that this sound output should be limited to 85.

That's as a factor of safety.

That was a recommendation from Paul.

Just to ensure that the levels come in below the city's noise standards.

That's page 10.

The recommendation is for 85 maximum.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Okay.

Stand nearby, and Mr.

Wilson, it was Wisteria Gardens, and the issue was parking on Bradshaw.

Yes, thank you.

I even remember the lady's name, I won't mention it though.

All right.

Continuing on with the public comment opportunity.

I will ask Sandy if there's anyone signed up to speak.

Yes, you have Chandler.

Chandler Bender, is that right?

Chandler Bender.

Please approach.

Hi, uh, thank you, members of the planning committee uh for letting me speak today.

My name is Chandler Bender, as uh Sandy mentioned.

I'm a 24-year resident of Elk Grove.

As you can tell, it's almost the majority of my life.

I have three children, two are with me today.

My wife and my youngest aren't here is uh one-year-old, three-year-old, and a five-year-old.

Um, I have a uh I have a piece of paper here with you know, whatever you want to call it, you know, a petition with 44 of my neighbors' signatures that are basically asking the planning the gist of this is we're asking the planning committee today to decline the request for the amendment that's being proposed for the Bartholomew Vineyard in general.

That's our that's our direct ask.

There's many reasons why we ask you to decline that today.

Um 44 of my neighbors signing this paper will give you a little bit of you know insight as to what we kind of deal with on a daily basis.

There's probably 20 to 30 additional neighbors that you know we haven't been able to get signatures from due to work and you know traveling.

This was just a couple days of work from us kind of trying to go house to house.

And I know you've received letters in addition to that.

Um, you know, it's hard for me to listen to a lot of the stuff that's been talked about today because so much of it just doesn't, you know, relate to our reality, you know, as neighbors of this property.

But I will say one thing, you know, and I will speak for many of my neighbors that are here in attendance today and others that weren't able to attend.

Um, you know, I enjoy being neighbors with Christopher Sellers.

I mean, these are literally my neighbors, right?

We share a fence with them.

I'm members of the wine club.

Many of my neighbors are members of the Christopher Sellers Wine Club.

We attend and we, you know, patron the food trucks and you know, take family and friends there to enjoy wine.

And I'm proud to say that, you know, when people ask where I live, that I'm a neighbor to Christopher Sellers, you know, a local business.

So I really want to start out with that.

You know, some people don't quite agree with that statement, but the vast majority of my neighbors agree with that.

Um, but there comes a level where it, you know, you're moving away from a vineyard and a wine tasting and you're moving into an event center.

You know, and when you know we talk about the wall and this sound study, it frustrates me a little bit on the sound study because just walking over to our neighborhood and speaking to us, we could have really communicated well how the sound affects where we live.

You know, all this money on a sound study, um, it I just I don't believe it represents, you know, the facts of the case, and you're just speaking here.

I'm at 60 65 decibels of sound, right?

So to say that at 58 decibels in my yard, it's just it's just not accurate.

I would like to share a quick video with you here.

Um, from just the other night.

Um, let's see, I just want to play this really quick.

Just to give you an idea.

Uh, doesn't seem to be.

Why is not?

Uh, while it's loading, you know, I I just uh a couple of things.

I don't believe there's precedent in the city of El Grove where an event like this or an event center like this is a stone's throw away from homes.

You look at Adkins Vineyard, you look at Bart, you look at um McConnell Vineyard, you look at, you know, the event center that was on Elkgrove Boulevard, that's now a sushi restaurant, right?

There by Costco, none of them are direct neighbors with residential homes, right?

And you know, imagine you living next door to your neighbor and they're asking to host 66 events a year in their backyard with amplified music till 10 p.m.

I believe you would not you know enjoy that.

I would love to share this sound with you if you allow me to from my backyard of what just from last Thursday.

Um hearing them talking about you know not having amplified music, it's just not true.

They're already using amplified music.

It is disturbing many of our neighbors.

As early as last Thursday till 9 p.m.

There's amplified music in my yard.

I would like to share the video if you would allow me.

Which why don't why don't you get it to load and perhaps you can come back?

It's right here.

Thank you, Mr.

Bitt.

It's it's right here if you're okay with me.

All right.

Or I can step away and make sure I can get the volume correct, and I can step back, okay.

I just want to there are any I would like to say, but I can come back and is there anyone else?

There were no other speakers.

Do you mind?

Okay.

I'll give you.

Oh, okay.

I was gonna say a couple of my neighbors were gonna defer just additional time to me as they were hoping I can do that.

Did you sign?

Did you fill out a blue card?

I did.

I asked the clerk beforehand, she said they weren't allowed to defer their time to me, so we weren't sure to go through that route or not.

I asked if they could defer time.

I'll give you another minute.

Okay.

It does look like she has a blue spot.

Yeah, but she didn't turn it in.

So we can let her speak.

Yep, okay.

And Chair Fernandez, um, we do have a policy where we have not typically deferred time to speakers, and we've upheld that history of doing that.

Um, and then if you wanted to allow the video to play, um, are you willing to waive the city's um audiovisual policy that requires the middle 24 hours in advance of video?

Uh thank you for making me aware of that.

Um, sorry, you needed to submit the video in advance.

I'm not aware of it.

How am I supposed to be aware of it?

This is my first time, and so I'm okay with that.

I'm not gonna force feed it, but you know, this is my first planning committee meeting as a resident here.

I did not read all of the bylaws.

I apologize.

I would love to share with you guys.

Um I would also invite you over to have a glass of wine in my backyard to listen to it, you know.

Um we may take you up on that.

Okay.

Um, so there was another blue card submitted.

Um do you wish to speak?

Yes.

Okay, please approach.

Thank you.

My name is Pam Donnelly.

Um, my family has been homeowners directly behind the location of the winery since 2003.

We're three generations here.

Initially, this was a very nice, quiet, peaceful neighborhood with the winery now.

The winery is fine, but the music is so loud that all of us have to literally close our doors, even in the summer, to keep the noise out.

We cannot, we hear the music distinctly inside the house.

I even hear people's voices inside.

I went around the neighborhood and surveyed all the neighbors, like several blocks around, asking them, are you disturbed by the music?

Are you having problems?

They said yes.

They said it's so loud we close the doors and we still hear it in the house.

And this goes on till eight or nine o'clock at night.

We as neighbors are going to be subject to this music all day and all evening for the entire amount of hours of the event.

Guests at the rest at the winery have the opportunity.

You can come, you can listen to the music for two or three hours, enjoy some wine, go home to the peace and quiet.

We do not have that opportunity.

We can't even enjoy our backyards.

We can't barbecue, we can't enjoy time with our families.

We can't even just enjoy quiet ambiance.

It's a constant barricade or barrage of music.

And all these neighbors who you see have signed, all feel very strongly they would like to be here, but they've all said they oppose the loud music.

Not the winery, not the wine tasting, but the music.

And I disagree with the decibels.

I just sitting here, I was doing the decibel meter on my phone, and your speech is 60 to 67 just here in ambient.

Imagine sitting in my house with my doors closed and still hearing the music.

I disagree.

I think that the decibels that they're putting out are significantly louder.

The music echoes off the walls in the back, it echoes off the houses, and when the bass is playing, it literally rumbles.

You constantly hear this boom boom boom boom, and it never goes away.

And for us to be subjected to the number of days and the number of hours that they're proposing, is I think disrespectful.

It's total disregard of all of us residents who came here to Elk Grove and enjoying the backyards, enjoying the winery, enjoying the vineyard, but not an event center.

Our peace has been destroyed and will be.

And that's all I have to say.

And if you want to read my the list of all the people, there's many, many, many residents, and there's many more that have not signed.

And I would like a continuation of this for better for further discussion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that submitted a blue card?

All right.

No.

Sorry.

Okay.

Okay.

Um the applicant is invited to respond to public comment.

Good evening again.

So I think we're a little taken back by you know the comments we've received and just the volume of the comments we received just based on the fact that uh and well one complaint documented complaint in 2023 has all been written up on this business.

I would think with 18 comment letters and you know, various 44 petitions.

If if noise is the issue, we we would have had a code enforcement case opened up on this.

So I want to focus on the fact that the standards for this application, we've already gone through them, are measured and predicted to be at 50 decibel levels at their backyard, and that goes with the conditions of the buffer of 85 decibel the five decibel reduction.

Uh the applicant needs to be present on at all events and have a representative that runs the meter, they're gonna establish a protocol.

They can speak on that a little more on sound checks, what have you to measure that 85 decibels?

And then also there's gonna be a contact information not only for the city, but the applicant has agreed to give that to any of the neighbors in case they need to contact them.

I will say tolerances to noise or sounds are very subjective.

Um what may be a nuisance to some may not be a nuisance to others.

Um this is why the city has these objective standards and the 50 decibels up to 10 p.m.

Uh, you know, it's predicted to meet this with the stage that's critical where those speakers are pointed at as well, and they're pointed to the northeast.

If you look on that, and it's blocked by several of the existing buildings on out there, so um, I'd be happy to take any other questions or comments.

Okay, um, Darren, I I do have one question, um, because we heard a couple of times about the the noise level and that amplified music is being played now.

Um the existing CUP, it's all acoustic music, no amplifier.

That is correct.

Can you clarify if in fact there is amplifying?

I have never been to an event, so I can't speak of that.

I may have the winemaker get up and explain that.

Thank you.

Good evening, Christopher.

Hey everyone.

Um, Christopher Moro, Christopher Sellers.

Um, to answer the question directly, yes, there has been amplified music.

Um, I do want to give some backstory, some context to that.

Um we started this winery in 2019.

Um my wife uh was a general manager of a restaurant here in Elk Grove.

We were living here in Elk Grove, and I was a consulting winemaker in Lodi.

We met the Bartholomews, Hal Bartholomew has this property, and we did a joint venture to start the winery.

And so he was in charge of getting the building and doing the permits, and I was in charge of running the business.

And so in 2019, he got us passed right before harvest.

We made our first batch of wine, and we were allowed to do five events and make wine.

Um we had our first event March 7th of 2020.

Um you guys can keep with the time frame that was a week before the pandemic hit.

So we had our first event, it was very successful.

The pandemic hit and the world went to, you know, terrible for us.

Uh, my wife got laid off from a restaurant job.

And so we had to pivot pretty quickly.

We started doing online wine tasting to go because of the permit we had, we were subject to like the MBA stadiums because we were an event center.

So if you guys remember back in the pandemic, there were different levels of if you could open or not.

So right away I went to Hal and I said, look, we gotta go to the city and get an amendment so we can be a tasting room.

Um, because at this time we're probably gonna go out of business with our sales plummeting because wine tasting to go is not enough, and we can't do events.

Um, so then he goes back to the city, we reapply, we got it approved.

Keep in mind, um, I have a family, three kids, under a lot of stress with the sense of we gotta sell wine.

So when Hal gave me the green light, hey, we got approved.

I was not involved in that process at all.

We got approved, and he said we could do music.

It was my failure.

I did not ask him what what the rules were.

We didn't talk about decibels.

We just started selling wine during that process.

Um, look, we've we've won best winery of the year several years in a row.

Wine enthusiasts put us down as the one of the top wineries in the Lodi Appalachian.

And um when we started this process to expand and we did the sound study, was when it was noted to me that what we have been doing, the amplified at some of these little events we've done here and there was against what we've done.

So this new policy, we already have a meter.

We are already talking about training the staff.

We're putting in a total protocol.

Um we have letters going to any musicians we bring out to clarify with them that we're gonna sound check during the event prior to the event.

They set up a half hour before an event um so that we can make sure that we are compliant because we want happy neighbors.

I mean, we want to be an asset to the city, so but to answer the question, yes.

Thank you for being frank.

Yeah, that's it.

Any other questions of the applicant?

I have a comment to Mr.

Wilson.

Uh I had the same thing because I asked how many uh letters we had, or how many events or incidents they had with the police.

And uh it looks like we only had two of them.

So I talked to a lot of the residents there, and I asked them that question is how come you didn't call the police.

Most of them said we just wanted to be good neighbors, and we called the winery, and they still kept on doing it.

So maybe that's why we didn't get the reports from the police.

So just a comment.

Okay, I appreciate that.

I I think over time, in my experience, people that deal bang their head against the wall was you know, nuisances.

They eventually call the uh the city for code enforcement or or PD.

And in this case, we've we had the one document of PD and now um the one he mentioned.

So I would I will say this is this um business is related to their demand or this application is related to their demand, and I did sit down with him before we even applied and I said listen, give me what you want, and but you have to be reasonable.

You have to you can't reach for the sky on this.

You have to be reasonable, and this is also for future growth as well, because these CUPs cost tens of thousands of dollars to do, and they take about a year to get approved.

So to piecemeal that is puts more financial burden on the applicant as well.

So, you did uh state that you wanted them to be reasonable and not reach for the sky, but you're going from 24 events a year to 66, right?

That is correct.

Which that was based on their projections for now and in the future.

But I'd look at it from now.

I mean, as of tomorrow, if this were approved off the next day, they can do 66 events at any given time.

Yeah, 48 plus eight.

That's a very significant increase over 24.

In fact, I believe it's 175% increase.

So, you it is going fairly high.

So, okay, thank you.

And I heard two different numbers, but there was you mentioned one noise complaint to code enforcement, but it sounds like there were two since 2020.

Well, I for 2023 there was the PD complaint that was rectified right away, and what was the other one?

I'm not aware of any code enforcement complaint over here.

Yeah, there's no code enforcement action.

Okay, so there was a sound noise violation or noise complaint called into PD, and what was the determination of that complaint?

Um, I don't have a determination, but I believe the sound was rectified.

Okay, yeah.

We don't even know if that event was amplified or not.

Because there's the when PD didn't give us that information.

Yeah, when they when they came out, um the event just happened to be ending anyways.

So it was a mute point when they showed up.

Do you remember?

Do you recall what time that was?

It was uh 2 30 on a Saturday.

2 30 p.m.

Correct.

Middle of the day.

Middle of the day, correct.

Okay.

The gentleman that called, he was he didn't like the type of music.

Hmm.

That complained over the phone.

So did they call the winery first?

Yes.

It was uh the it was a private event, and uh it was they were playing Indian music.

It wasn't speaking, and they they said they didn't like the sound.

And I said, Well, this is it's a that actually pretty racist in my opinion.

So I mean it was a mute point.

So they didn't like the type of music.

They said we like your country music that you've played in the past or the rock.

We're we don't want to listen to this, and so it was more of rejection to the type of music than that.

Correct, not the volume of the volume.

So the winery number goes to my phone, and I answer majority of calls, especially during open hours.

Um we've only received three phone calls all day with the most recent this Thursday.

We did receive a phone call, and we did answer it.

Um, and the music did end at 8 30.

And was that call from Mr.

Bender?

I did not get their number, uh, I mean their name, but there was a call.

Um, Megan, one of our staff members answered it at that time.

I was taking I was talking to a customer.

Okay, my recollection was he was trying to show a video of a Thursday event very recently.

Um, okay, and Thursday is not currently permitted under your current use permit.

Correct.

Okay.

Notwithstanding what's been formally reported to the police or code reports.

How often are you getting um complaints directly from neighbors?

Like I said, three since 2020.

Oh, so in since 2020, you've only had three?

Three, yes, three calls to them, one of which was escalated to the police, if I understand correctly.

Correct.

Because of the type of the music, because of the type of music.

Not necessarily because of the volume.

Okay.

Just one quick follow-up question.

Did you talk to your neighbors?

You said you want to be a good neighbor before this.

Have you had conversations with your neighbors?

So since the poster went up, um, we've gotten actually a big positive uh response.

So when the letters came in, I was quite shocked, um, especially when I looked it up and I saw that some of them were wine club members and they have been in many times, um, and they have been in some of these events.

Um, and so yeah, I did.

I to be honest, I did not reach out directly after seeing the letter, not knowing am I gonna spark more fuel to the fire or not?

Um, our intention with all of this is um, as Darren explained earlier, this is a very expensive product process in general, being the third time that we're doing this.

Um, we kind of don't want to have to do it again.

Um, it's my wife and I, and we have four part-time employees, no five, five part-time employees.

We are making wine, um, like we just finished harvest during the week.

Um, we just want the ability.

If somebody books on a Thursday, we can do that versus say, well, no, it's only Friday, Saturday, Sunday.

So the idea of this is it gives us the flexibility, but are we gonna be doing these big events Monday through Sunday?

The answer is no, we're we're the winery's not built as that because we're a production facility first.

We have to be making wine.

We can't be open seven days a week to the public, but it's the flexibility of hours to be able to do that, and we don't want to limit ourselves and say no.

If a hospital wants to do a private party for their employees, we can't do it on a Monday because maybe that's when they want to throw their party.

So that this opens us up to be able to have that flexibility.

Yeah, that point is not lost on me.

Just because you're permitted to 66 total events doesn't mean that you're gonna have 66 total events.

Yeah, it would be impossible for us to book that anytime soon.

Just to, I mean, it would be great.

I mean, from a financial standpoint, it's just not realistic.

We, with how we're set up operationally, we don't have the employees for it.

Yeah, so I think it's a missed opportunity though to have reached out to the community before 40 signatures were given in opposition.

You started to say something.

Yeah, it kind of throws me off because you said that a lot of people are for it, but we got 18 letters against and not one saying that they would like to have that uh correction.

I think there was one.

I didn't get it.

I have 18 negative.

Any other questions of the applicant?

Thank you.

Um and Carrie, uh, sorry, forgive me.

Um, if you could maybe research what that uh noise complaint was, if there was any volume measured uh on that Saturday event for the the one police um call-out, that might be helpful information.

Okay, um any other blue cards submitted, Sandy?

No, none.

I didn't submit it.

Oh, okay.

Thank you, Miss Donnelly.

Okay, I will declare the public comment.

We have one more speaker.

She would like to speak.

Oh, it's a I'm sorry.

It's earlier at the time.

I wasn't planning on speaking, but I you know, listen to everything.

I I've lived in the neighborhood for 23 years as well.

And um I don't live on the other side of the wall.

I live across the street from there.

Uh, but you know, I I think what caught us all off guard was just the number of events, the number of people.

Like you said, 125 people, it's a little frightening when it could went from 50 to 125.

And I think that's what we're alarmed about.

It's like, and I appreciate hearing that.

Well, we're not going to definitely have 66 events.

Where because that's like uh more than one a week.

Um, so I I really have a lot of sympathy for my neighbors, and I think the noise study didn't quite look right to me, but you know, I'd love to have been there to see the numbers myself.

But um, but I appreciate the fact that in the conditional use permit that they are they are recommending that there is going to be monitoring and that the there will be the opportunity to lodge complaints, and I think that my neighbors will do a good job of documenting if they do have noise that goes past a certain time or a certain volume, certain decibel.

So I just wanted to say appreciate having the opportunity to hear this, and um, glad that you're listening.

Thanks.

Oh, um, she didn't turn in her card, so I don't know.

Okay.

Any other speakers?

All right, I will.

Oh.

Do I?

Chelsea, I need to allow the applicant to respond if they so choose.

Yes, yes, Christopher Darren or Bartholomew family.

Okay, all right.

I will now declare the public comment opportunity closed, and we'll move to deliberation.

And I will start with Commissioner Singer.

Uh I'm sort of in my mind mulling through.

Because when we say this is an ancillary activity, is the applicant uh absolutely certain that they want to do uh 48 events uh of the wine the one uh winery events and eighteen outdoor events.

Well, or can those initially be small in number to see how well or how effective this uh uh activity is in terms of ultra how well it goes with the neighbors B.

B I do have a challenge with a project dictating a global policy or enacting a global policy.

Personally, I would like to see the rural rural area carved out.

To me, the rural area and old town, uh, from when I've come to Elk Grove, have a special place and are historical in the city, and I think should be treated as such, and therefore I would like to carve out on any motion that is made.

Uh, a that the rural area is taken out.

B, uh I would like for the applicant, which while they're sitting there, to consider if uh really they want to talk about 66 events.

While I understand that may be something which would ultimately happen assuming the winery gets bigger, because at some point you have to decide what is ancillary to the main uh uh goal of the uh enterprise.

Thank you.

So let's address the rural area right now because I think there is quorum that um it should be excluded.

So we don't need to go over it each of us one by one.

So I support that the rural area would be not included in whatever is decided with this particular application.

Okay, not having gotten any conversations with you all.

Um so I'm not I'm not sure where the other commissioners stand and how this needs to be modified or conveyed to staff.

I I I would support carving out the rural area, and I think what's troubling for me is that it seemed that the council gave pretty specific direction in the past to not have outdoor events in the rural area, and I haven't heard anything compelling that would um justify now including this through this text amendment.

So I would be in support of carving the rural area out.

Same here, me as well.

Okay, so there's quorum to carve out the rural area from this application.

We will treat this property specific in this application.

Um, is there anything I need to clarify on that position?

I think when you're ready to take action on the project overall, we can just make sure that carving out the rural area is included in the motion that's carried forward.

Thank you, Chelsea.

But just for clarification, I believe all other AR1 to 10 uh areas which are greater than 10 acres would yet fall under the motion.

The only thing we're carving out potentially is the rural area.

We're not making the policy for just this one uh entity or one project, right?

But presumably there's no other 10-acre parcels for the map that Sarah.

Can you put the map back up, please?

There were two, I think on Waterman near Sheldon.

Yeah, or north of Bond.

Those are the only other two properties that would potentially fall into.

In the rural area.

No, those are not in the rural area.

Sorry, okay.

Yes, okay.

Uh but it would also potentially go into uh uh any future uh land that the city may acquire or annex.

I mean, any policy should be global.

So what I'm saying is we carve out the rural area, but anybody else falls under, because you can't have a uh a policy which is restricted to, so maybe it's maybe I'm making it too complicated.

I retract my statement.

I get where you were going with it.

If there were to be an expansion of the city limits, and there were 10 acre parcels, those could apply for an agricultural tourism and an event center application similar to this property, right?

But the rural areas designated by the the kind of amber area would be exempted from from this application.

If I can just clarify, so my understanding is when we say carve out the rural area, we mean that outdoor event center would not be a conditionally permitted use in the rural area, correct?

Okay.

Precisely, yeah.

Okay, all right, we made it through Commissioner Singer.

Thank you.

Any comments, Vice Chair?

Yes, I again I've I talked to a quite a few of the neighbors there, and they have reached out, and um, from going from 24 to 66, I mean, we have 52 weeks in the year, and 60 things it just seems like a lot to me.

Uh I have a proposal to or suggestion to make it uh 24 events, um Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Mondays, which is uh Mondays if it's a holiday uh from 11 to 9 for 100 people, and six outdoor events from one to nine on Friday, Saturdays, and Sundays with amplified music.

So that's what I would like to see and see if what the other commissioners think about.

So your opinion is no events Monday through Thursday, except if Monday is a holiday.

Exactly.

Any other comments or input?

No, that's uh pretty much uh just again 66, I think is is way about from 24 to 66.

Okay.

Commissioner Poole.

Yeah, I think on the face the number is is a lot, it's a pretty exponential um increase.

I'm not sure what the magic number is.

Um would be interested to know if, and I don't know that we couldn't open up public comment what the applicant would think about that, but um there were a couple of things that concern me.

Is one that we have a current CUP that admittedly is not being complied with um in terms of amplified music currently being played, and so I would lean toward something smaller, see how it works out, make sure we're getting good data in terms of any concerns or complaints.

Um I would encourage the public um that if there are concerns to call the non-emergency number so that we have a formal official complaint on record, um, but I I would support a smaller number if it would be possible.

Thank you, Commissioner Poole.

Commissioner C.

All right.

I've heard my colleagues' thoughts and the opinions of the public, and I think a happy medium is warranted.

Um if you're having a private event, corporate event, you can't exclude them to Friday, Saturday, or Sunday.

Um, they need the flexibility to be able to have an event during the week.

Um I'm not a fan of the 10 p.m.

Um cutoff during the week.

I think that should be earlier during the weekdays, especially for families and the residences immediately being right next door during the week.

Um so I would support a fewer number of total events in a calendar year, with some of the weekday events being limited to like 8 p.m.

Um, I think um the weekday events are limited to 9 p.m.

Sarah, is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay, yeah.

I mean, my kids go to bed at 8 30, so 9 p.m.

on a weekday would potentially be keeping them up a little bit late.

I would I would be more supportive of 8 p.m.

on weekdays.

And I'm ambivalent on your suggestion about a hundred maximum participants.

Um is there there's sound metering currently on site, is that correct?

They're currently restricted to acoustic music, and there is no requirement for sound monitoring.

The applicant has indicated that they purchased a sound monitor for future monitoring.

Okay, okay.

Um I like the um better data comment that Commissioner Poole made.

Um I think it's almost irrelevant to a measured sound during the middle of the day with a simulated event.

Um I think a actual recording of a of a wedding and and monitoring and um measurement would be much more appropriate.

Um, obviously in concert and communication with the the neighbors so that they you know know that the event is going to be happening and and you would limit it to the 85 decibels so that it would be a provisional element.

Um I think we need to make some recommendations for amendment to the proposal as is presented.

I heard no weekdays.

I'm not in favor of no weekday events.

I'm okay with limiting the number of weekday events and curtailing the time, the cutoff time during the weekdays.

Um, sorry, remind me 18 events are permitted Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday's a holiday.

I'm gonna pull up the table again, just want to note that there's three components.

There's wine tasting, and they're asking to expand the hours and days for that.

There is the typical winery events as well as the outdoor event center.

So it may be better to consider those three separately.

Yes, and I'll pull up the tables.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, I mean, Friday, Saturday.

They should they may have a wedding on uh Saturday and a winemaker dinner on a Friday, so those two events on a given weekend I think are compatible with the the use permit.

So the existing is Monday through Friday, three to six, and that is non-amplified acoustic music only.

Yes, for the wine tasting.

Okay, and then Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, acoustic music only, 12 to 8, and that's limited to 18 total events.

Sorry, this is for wine tasting.

Wine tasting is current is does not have a certain number of slides.

That is um so this they're proposing to allow it seven days a week.

It's currently only permitted um, it is permitted seven days a week, but different hours.

So it's currently allowed Monday through Thursday, three to six, and Friday, Saturdays, and Sunday, noon to eight, and they are asking for wine tasting Monday through Sunday, seven days a week, 11 to 8.

And there's no amplified music associated with the wine tasting event.

That's correct, it's not an event, it's just a wine tasting.

A wine tasting.

I'm okay with this, and then the event center.

So the typical winery events, these are the events for marketing and fundraising, wineries such as wine tours, winemaking dinners.

These the existing is 24 events, they're asking for 48.

They're currently allowed on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays as well as Mondays that are holidays.

Um they're asking for seven days a week.

They're currently no change to the hours, which are 11 to 9 p.m., going from 50 people to 125 people and amplified sound, and vice chair.

Your proposal was to limit this to 100 people, yes.

And it would have amplified music.

Seven days a week.

Yeah, not my proposal, my proposal was six events.

I was asking specifically about the number of people.

Yeah, so they're currently permitted 24 of these, though, and your proposal was to to cut it down to six, not amplified.

Ah, I okay, thank you for the clarification there.

Okay, that's less than one a week.

Okay, and then what is the the third category?

The third category is the new outdoor event center use that they are requesting as part of a new conditional use permit.

They are asking for 18 events per calendar year, Friday, Saturdays, and Sundays from 11 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

with 125 people with amplified sound.

And that's the one I'm proposing to six instead of 18.

Okay, so that would be six, and can you go back one?

And this would be 48 in a year.

So that would be 50 52, that's one a week.

Correct, but I had left it at 24.

Oh, but for the comments of the other commissioners.

Got it.

I don't think one night a week to have music audible in your backyard is um is onerous on the neighbors.

I would support 48.

Um, but with a cutoff time of 8 p.m.

The thing is is it doesn't specify that it's one a week.

So they have 48.

They can do Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday one week if they want.

Yes, just wanted to make a comment about the the number of events in calendar year, and it just lets you know I'm I'm good with the proposed uh certain you know cultures that you know they may have about four or five events at a winery in one week.

So I can tell you in my wedding I had six events in one week at one venue.

So um the 125 going down to 100.

I don't see enough change there to really do anything.

Um I think the 11 to 9 hours for this are fine, so I'm good to approve as is for the typical winery event, and then for the outdoor event center, I'm good with that as well, okay.

So we need to summarize.

I need to summarize what the changes would be.

Um, Chair Fernandez, can we go back to the um to the previous slide?

Um did was there a consensus on the type of music from acoustic to amplified?

We're looking at the proposed as amplified seven days a week.

Right.

And the concern was the number of events and the hours of the events.

So what was the I'm I'm sorry, I didn't get what the proposal was for that from the commission.

That's what I'm trying to summarize.

I think Vice Chair O'Connor suggested six.

And I suggested it would be cut off Monday through Friday, Monday through Thursday at 8 p.m.

if it has amplified music.

So that's amendment number one.

Chelsea, can you help me with these?

Yeah, um, maybe I think it would be helpful if we went um like you're you've been doing um by event type.

So for the typical winery event, um, what they have now is the 24 events that they proposed is 48.

And I heard a number of six.

Was that for this typical winery event, or was that for the outdoor event center use?

That six number, or is there another number that the commission prefers?

I had proposed twenty-four events for the regular events and the amplified music, it was six.

Okay, so for typical winery events.

I hear that Commissioner Ocon has proposed 24.

Um, is that a consensus item for the commission?

Um, is there more deliberation on that?

And that's 24 acoustic.

Yeah, I think maybe you could clear it.

So it's 24 acoustic plus six amplified.

Exactly.

Got it.

So a total of 30.

Yes.

Okay.

I would prefer that rather than all amplified at 48.

I'm sorry.

No, I basically agree.

Yeah, the the proposal would be 24 events and Monday through Friday um ceasing at 8 p.m.

I don't think 100 or a hundred and twenty-five matters.

We can leave a hundred and twenty-five, but that would be amplified music.

So 24 typical winery events.

And that does not include the event center nor the what was the first one?

Routine wine taste.

Routine wine tasting event, which does not include amplified music, it is acoustic music only.

To clarify, you said Monday through Friday, it's only permitted and you say I'm sorry, Monday through Thursday.

I'm thinking uh school nights is where my mind is.

Um so Monday through Thursday, it would cut off at 8 p.m.

And the your proposal was to keep 24 events, Commissioner Poole?

Yeah, I I agree with um Commissioner O'Carr at 24 plus the six at Amplify.

Okay, so do we have additional concurrence on 24 typical winery events in a calendar year with any events happening Monday through Thursday to cease the amplified music by 8 p.m.?

Do we have concurrence?

On that one, I I'm I'm fine with the nine o'clock.

I but you know, I'll go with the majority.

I'd stick with eight.

Eight Monday through Thursday, except if Monday is a holiday.

Okay.

So that's amendment number one for the typical winery event.

And Chair Fernandes, can I just make sure that I have it down correctly?

Um so for typical winery events, we would want to um the 10 D limit would be a hundred attendees.

No, we can leave it at 125.

I don't think there's concurrence on reducing the number.

Okay, so 125.

Thank you.

And then um 24 events that will be typical winery events, and six of those events could have amplified sound.

No, they could all have all 24 could have amplified music.

Okay, the outdoor event center or the outdoor event.

We're not onto that side yet.

Let's focus on the typical winery event first.

Okay, it was 24 just like it's existing, huh?

Right, except with the eight o'clock cutoff, and a hundred people.

We would be adding six amplified events.

So plus six, or total thirty, thirty, total thirty.

Yeah.

Okay, so the uh the twenty-four events, those are acoustical only?

Yes.

Yes.

I I would propose a higher number.

One one event per week, either a Friday or Saturday, I would propose a higher number than 24 total, plus six.

You got I'm okay with the 48 events, because they're not gonna have an event every single night.

And if they're cutting off Monday through Thursday at 8 p.m.

I would, but again, there's somebody could go four days in a row, like the other commission is it so you know being a neighbor, it will be kind of hard to see.

So I mean, can we condition the the applicant to notify or post their schedule um proactively if they're gonna have amplified music more than one or two days a week?

I'm sure it's probably posted already on their website um and their social media channels, so um I think the information is probably available to the residents if they wanted to look it up, but maybe you know, proactive effort by the applicant to notify them.

There's gonna be four events in a week, but that also reduces from the total number of events in a given year.

Correct, but uh I will prefer to stay with 24 and maybe look at it in a few years to see what kind of steward it had been because up to now they went from five to twenty-four, and they went to amplified music, they really didn't follow the rules.

So I would like to see twenty-four and see how it goes, and presumably that's another cost to them to apply for additional events.

And Christopher, is there any um restriction to them applying for a additional temporary use permit above and beyond the permitted events?

So say they use their six, um, could they submit a temporary use permit for a seventh technically?

Yes, although we would look at it in the confines of whatever prior history there was.

Um the other thing we would do um.

I mean, we'd certainly be sensitive to all that.

I think there's there's other aspects to it from probably the applicants' perspective around the processing of those.

Um staff that processes here tonight and can talk about sort of sometimes we get those as last minute requests or something like, oh, should I forgot to get it?

Um the other side of so there's a time piece to it, and then we have to it gets routed to fire in building and a whole lot of other divisions and departments and outside agencies for that coordination.

So there's a streamlining aspect of having it covered in the CUP.

Also, there's the cost aspect.

Um, if you are a certified nonprofit, meaning a 501c3, you qualify for a subsidy from the city automatically, and it's 50 for the permit as a regular for-profit establishment, which this would then be.

I think the fee Sandy is 1500.

1500.

So every time you go to do one of those now, you have that cost and the time involved, and so if they're working, I'm just thinking logistically about how that would happen.

If they had a corporate event or something that was trying to go beyond this, that's 1500 every time, and they've got to do the processing ahead of time, but it's just it's a logistical piece on both sides of the table about how we would do that and what those efficiencies look like.

Um we certainly have had businesses that have come in that have asked to do some things on a regular basis, and at a certain point, we're like, look, this is not in everyone's best interest.

I'd rather you apply for a use permit amendments and we go through that process.

Which is what they've done, which is what they've done here, and so um I think we'd want to be we just want to be cognizant of that.

And certainly I think I think if there was a desire where they were like, okay, you know, it sounds like the planning commission is looking for some concurrence between you all in terms of a recommendation at the council for this whole project about a lesser value, ultimately they will make a decision on what the final approval is if there is one, because it is a recommending action this evening.

Um, and there could be some pieces to that where if you know the applicants say, let's see how this goes and you can reapply for amendments later, we can use the information from how operations go.

There could even be a circumstance where, hey, if you need to do more than this, we want to test that.

Maybe we are interested.

We're open to doing some TUPs around that, but I would caution against that because from a public perception basis, what ultimately the council could approve or would approve if they do that's I think there's a community expectation around that.

Some light augmentation on occasion for a TUP, probably is something to work through, but on a regular basis, there'd be some concerns, I think.

Right.

Understood, um, and to add $1,500 to each event would make the venue cost prohibitive for many people.

Um, you know, it's an excellent parcel, beautiful property.

Um, having weddings there, you know, I might envision uh, you know, 10 12 weddings um in a given year plus winery events, so I was okay with the 48 events, 48 events, it's less than one a week, or it's yeah, it's it's one roughly one per week plus the six events, that's 52, right?

That's one a week.

Um and then the wine tasting is non-amplified music, so um, I don't I don't think we're looking to change that at all except for the hours of operation, so do we have concurrence on the total number of events per year?

I'm okay with 48.

Okay.

And you are saying then these 48, there is no amplified music.

Am I clear?

Am I hearing that?

I mean, this is what we have on the sl on the screen right now.

Right.

How about if we did no amplified music Monday through Thursday?

They were acoustic only, and forty-eight events per calendar year.

Acoustic or amplified music on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday if it's a holiday.

And how many events?

The six forty-eight, forty-eight and six.

That's what you're saying.

Yep.

And no amplified music Monday through Thursday.

Amplified events from that 48 event bucket.

Um could be amplified on Friday, Saturday, Sunday.

I would like to see the 24 and 6.

We're good with 48.

I hear 24.

24?

On the screen I'm seeing right now.

Non-amplified Monday through Thursday.

Can you add that?

Please.

On the number of events or the acoustics.

Be acoustic only.

And the hours would be limited to 8 p.m.

Monday through Thursday.

My gosh, I cannot spell today.

125 people.

And amplified music would be allowed Friday, Saturday, Sunday.

No change to the people.

No change to the people.

And then amplified music Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday if it's a holiday.

That's less than one event per week with amplified music and then the six additional for weddings and special outdoor events.

We're reducing the I don't think we have.

Okay.

All right.

When you're talking about outdoor events, that's a whole different thing.

It is.

It's a different bucket.

It's six, and we haven't gotten there yet.

Um before we leave the slide, I want to confirm because I'm only sensing a two and two.

I don't know that we've heard concurrence on the column as we haven't defined.

That's what we're trying to establish.

I just want to make a quick comment.

You know, I might worry about the number of events, um, and limiting that is.

I feel like we're limiting their ability to do business.

Amen.

We're already controlling their days, people are gonna have to have weddings on certain days.

I mean, it's already hard enough in this economy to run a business like this, and I feel like we're just limiting their ability to have a successful business.

So that's very much an issue with limiting their number of events.

Yeah, I'm okay with the 48 events, it's less than one week.

I would just balance that with the impact to the community.

Um that's why I was hoping we could come up with some kind of a compromise, see how that works out for a while to give us the data whether it would justify um increasing it at some other point in time.

But right now, I'm not comfortable with just doubling the events without any data, and based on hearing the impact that the community has had in terms of the noise so far.

Okay, then uh what I'd suggest is you go 24, move it up by 50 percent to 36 for the time being.

I mean, to see where the data comes in.

Let's get some hard data on this.

This is one of the issues I think I've been grappling with from when I first read the report.

It would be nice to have data, and nice to have community input to see where things go.

So stop it at 36 because the issue may have come to a head much earlier based on how well this plays out in the community and what the community community's reaction is, and how well the applicant holds to the sound levels that they are projecting.

So I would say take it at 36, you've got a fair compromise there and go from there.

Okay, King Solomon.

I I will concur.

So 36 events in a calendar year.

Same provisions on acoustic and the cutoff time Monday through Thursday.

I think can you support that, Commissioner Poole?

Yeah, so the amplified would just be on the weekends.

The amplified would just be on the weekends.

This would allow them to do business during the week.

It would be limited to acoustic music, a little earlier end time, but at least they can host events.

And they can have music inside the the winery building or the tasting room.

We're only talking about the outdoor portion.

Okay.

Do we need to, we don't need to like vote on each of these elements individually, or I mean, do we have consensus on this or this particular typical winery event?

I think that'd be helpful to staff.

Okay.

So you're talking about 36 plus the six of amplified.

We haven't gotten to the outdoor event center category yet.

Okay.

That's next.

Declare for Commissioner, did you want to limit the number of amplified music events as part of a typical winery event?

Or just as part of the outdoor event center?

Just the outdoor.

Because is the typical winery event outside also?

So Christopher Sellers, I believe.

Chair Fernandez, the like public comment opportunity has closed.

Um, but that it is a valid question.

Is the typical winery event outdoor?

Or indoor?

It can be both.

It can be both.

Yes.

Okay.

So it doesn't necessarily have to be outdoor amplified music.

It may be indoors.

And there would be no if the music if there was music, it would be amplified inside the tasting room.

If it's raining or inclement weather, it's cold.

So I think I think this is a a good compromise for the typical winery event.

Um I can support this.

Wine tasting, I think we're all agreed.

That's that's fine.

Can you go back to it real quick though?

Um Monday through Sunday, 8 p.m.

I think that's fine.

Okay.

So go back to the typical winery.

I support this.

I would like to see a higher number.

They're small business trying to get by and they're bringing revenue to the city.

Um I would support 48, but if we have to agree on a smaller number, 36 is acceptable.

Yes.

Commissioner Poole.

Um the number, yeah.

So did we fill in the days or do we decide on that?

Um, it's seven days a week.

Because the acoustic would only be Monday through Friday, and the amplified would be so it'd be seven days a week up to 36 events in a calendar year.

But it's not like they're going they're proposing to actually have events seven days a week.

I understand.

Yeah.

Okay.

Commissioner, you didn't mention school night.

I just want to mention Sunday as a school night technically.

I understood.

Understood.

Okay.

Um I hear three.

All right.

Outdoor events center.

Um, Commissioner O'Conn was proposing six.

Um eighteen in a calendar year, you know.

I think if we're we're reducing the number they could use from the typical winery event and the outdoor event center, one a month, I think is a reasonable number.

I would propose this to be 12 events, Commissioner Singer.

Yeah.

Let me think through this if you don't mind.

Okay.

Well, we have two, yes.

I think Commissioner O'Connor's already said six.

Commissioner Poole.

One a month.

Yeah, I I would like to see that less, honestly.

And then I would also like the cutoff earlier on Sunday.

Agreed.

Sunday cutoff 8 p.m.

12 events per year.

Can you support that, Commissioner Singh?

Yes.

Okay.

We have quorum.

All right.

We have Sarah a chance to type it up.

I'm pausing.

That's the same as about 125 people.

Yeah.

It's a big property.

125 people.

Doesn't matter.

And cutoff.

Okay, you got it.

Sunday cutoff at 8 p.m.

So to be clear, Friday and Saturday would be a 10 p.m.

cutoff, and Sunday would be an 8 p.m.

cutoff.

Right.

For the amplified music.

For the events.

Ah.

Okay.

I think the concern is the amplified music.

But fair enough.

There's no outdoor event.

So this is um this is new.

Okay.

Sunday, 8 p.m.

There was a wedding two weeks ago.

I hate to.

But they did host the working there two weeks ago.

On a Sunday?

On a Saturday night.

October 18.

So about 8 p.m.

There's a DJ.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Um number of people and amplified would remain.

Okay.

So no change to wine tasting.

Typical winery event we've covered.

Outdoor event center.

We're good.

Okay.

Any final comments?

Okay.

Chelsea, will you help me out?

Um motion that the planning commission adopt a resolution recommending that the city council find that no further environmental review is required under state SQL guidelines section 15183 and 15162.

Adopt the EGMC Title 23 text amendment and improve the conditional use permit and conditional use permit amendment for the Bartholomew Winery Amendment Project PLNG 24-056 based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval included in the draft resolution, including the exclusion of the Elk Grove rural area, and to include the modifications made to the number of events and the hours of operations supported for typical winery events as defined in front of us and outdoor event center as defined in front of us.

Did I get that right?

Moved.

Second.

Moved and second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

I oppose.

4-1 passes.

Okay.

Moving on to the general plan open space element and implementation work program amendments.

And I'm gonna ask for a two-minute recess.

Yeah.

And our text amendments, the open space element to ensure the city compliance with Senate Bill 1425.

The second is updates to the implementation work program document included in the general plan.

So the city's general plan was adopted in 2019.

Amendments are undertaken regularly, including to maintain activity, including for maintenance activities to ensure the document remains compliant with state law.

In 2022, the state adopted Senate Bill 1425, requiring local jurisdictions to review and update their open space element of the general plan by January 1st, 2026, related to three items.

One equitable access to open space for all residents, two, climate resilience and other co-benefits of open space, and three rewilding opportunities.

So within the city's general plan, the open space element is primarily addressed within chapter seven community and resource protection.

So staff reviewed.

I'm not even doing my slides.

Okay, there we go.

There we are.

Sorry.

Um staff review the general plan for existing policies and needed edits to meet the requirements identified in the legislation.

Already existing policies within the general plan are included in three chapters.

Community and resource protection services, health and safety, and urban and rural development.

There's over 20 existing policies where identified that support these three open space requirements.

In addition, there are a number of existing policies where identified text edits could provide clarified language to better fit within the scope of the statutory requirements.

So these changes, all the text changes are within the community and resources protection chapter and include edits to 11 different policies.

All of those are included in the attachments to the document.

The four here, these would augment the existing policies in the general plan.

And these policies, new policies are intended to ensure consistency across all of the statutory requirements and are all within the community and resources protection chapter.

Um some additional text is also being proposed to be added, and this is all within that same chapter.

First, additional language on rewilding opportunities with any future habitat conservation plans the city might consider, is being proposed to an already existing chapter or an already existing paragraph.

Second, additional an additional paragraph is being proposed to include in the greenhouse gas emissions section, and this would explain the concept of climate co-benefits and provide some examples of what that looks like.

So in addition to the open space amendments, the implementation work program is being updated.

The implementation work program includes is included as table 10.10-1 in the general plan.

It's the city's primary tool for ongoing organizing and tracking of implementation efforts.

The table includes a series of actions spanning major policy areas, and within each action, it includes information on the lead city department responsible for that, any supporting partners, the priority level, and estimated timing of when that's going to take place.

The implementation work program is a dynamic tool and it's expected to be updated periodically to ensure it remains current and responsive to the city's needs.

So the updates include removing completed actions, redefining some of the priorities and policy changes that have happened since the general plan was adopted in 2019, updates to language and progress on actions, and then clarifying responsibilities across city departments.

So with that, no further environmental review is required under state CEQA guidelines section 15061 and 15183.

The implementation work program was included with the general plan EIR, and the specific changes included with these amendments are clarifications, updates to language and removal of completed projects.

Neither the open space amendments nor the changes to the implementation work program in and of themselves result in the possibility of creating significant or cumulative effects on the environment.

So finally, staff recommends that the planning commission adopt the resolution, recommending to the city council finding no further environmental review is required and approving the amendments to the city's general plan open space element and general plan implementation work program.

So with that, I am available for any questions.

Thank you, Kirk.

Commissioner Signal?

I am looking at page six, and I wonder if Christopher Jordan put this in here for me.

Reduce unnecessary tree removals.

And under policy NR2-3, um, I think Commissioner Singer will agree with me, maintaining tree health and canopy coverage throughout by maintaining and caring for all trees on public lands.

This is a little bit of a source spot for me.

The um utilities go through and whack trees and leave them such that they're off balance and prone to fall over.

And I understand they are trying to maintain the utility corridor for power lines, but man, they do a hack job on so many trees.

Um to your point earlier, um, I don't believe I was the source of that for the I think it actually came from our operations and maintenance team uh out in public works who do share a lot of your same concerns with tree preservation.

Um the utility piece, yes, it is actually historically better than it was about 30 years ago.

SMUD does a much better job with their arborist teams around that.

I know it's not perfect, and it really comes down to having the right tree in the right location.

And so on corridors, say, like Bruceville, where we have the power lines interspersed with the older oak trees, we would not be allowed to plant oaks or many other plant species underneath those corridors if they were being done from the ground up.

Um, and so those are much more careful considerations.

We do have, say, in the rural area where you have the historic trees that run through the a lot of the tree canopy that runs through there, say over by say um oh, what am I thinking of?

You know, the Sheldon and those sort of the east end of that corridor in those areas.

Yes, they do need to come through and do those because removal of the trees is not something that's supported by the community.

Um, but they oftentimes will do that, or they have historically done that under the supervision of an ISA certified arborist and trying to be as delicate with those uh trimmings as they can, but it is an industrial operation at the end of the day, they're coming through and trying to do as efficiently as they can.

So, understood.

Um, as I drive to work every day out Grantline Road, I see one tree in particular that is like this, and I can tell that the branch that's hanging over the road is counterbalanced and is likely going to fall onto the road because of the way they've trimmed it.

Um, but it is what it is.

Okay, so uh there were no other questions.

Um, for Kerry.

Thank you for your report.

Um, and if there are no other comments, I will ask for um is this a public hearing?

Yes.

Um I will declare the public hearing open and ask if there's anyone signed up to speak.

Excuse me, I'm sorry, no speakers, no people, seeing none, hearing none.

I will close a public comment opportunity and I will ask for a motion on this item.

Chair Fernandez, I move that the planning commission adopt a resolution recommending that the city council find that no further environmental review is required pursuant to state sequel guidelines, section one five zero six one, b three and one five one eight three and approve the amendments to the city's general plan open space element and general plan implementation work program.

Second, I have a motion of a second, all in favor.

Any opposed?

Five-zero.

All right.

Mr.

Jordan, may we have your director's report, please?

You bet.

Um so I'll start at the top of the list.

Uh, the zoning administrator had a busy October hearing schedule with approval of the Elliott Springs Clubhouse, a map extension for Cleaver Way, as well as the Interlude Kitchen and Bar Repaint Project up here at the corner of Laguna and Laguna Springs, West Stockton.

Uh, future agenda matters that are coming up on the 20th, you have one item for the Sheldon Meadows Project, tentative subdivision map and rezone, and then we are tracking two items for December, uh, tentatively for December 4th, Wellington Crossing, which is actually a new tentative uh map for condo, not an amendment, and an amendment for the village uniform sign program for the shopping center.

Zoning administrator has one item uh in two weeks for the Hilton Garden Inn repaint, also up here at the corner.

And then council is confirmed for next week for the hearing the appeal on the Maverick project.

Um, and then obviously you have two items you heard tonight that we are tracking for then the December 10th council meeting.

Um, before I get off the uh list and just other items, I do want to take a moment to recognize we have a new person up here at the Dais with us this evening, and Helica.

Uh she is our newest member of the community development department.

She is an administrative assistant in the engineering division.

You met her boss Jennifer a number of meetings ago at the Maverick hearing.

Um, Anhelica's many roles that she'll be taking on is eventually the planning commission clerk role.

So you'll be seeing her going forward from now.

Sandy's gonna be moving back and doing a lot of other great and wonderful things for us elsewhere in the department.

So I want to thank Sandy for the many, many years of back and forth here at the planning commission.

We do really appreciate it.

Um, and so just wanted you to know the face as we move forward.

You'll still be hearing from Susan.

She'll still be doing the packet production and coordinating with you on the pickups for those.

She's also doing a lot of the other stuff behind the scenes as she has been doing, but just wanted you to know and helica before uh things fully transition.

And it will be a process.

She's this is her first night uh seeing what's going on, and we'll shove many more shadowing and coordination opportunities with Sandy before we're in her steady hands.

So thank you and Helga for joining us.

Um, also simply because she's here tonight.

I have to poke fun at her.

Carrie is her birthday this evening, so make sure you wish her happy birthday on your way out.

And with that concludes my director screen.

We'll spare you from singing happy birthday.

And uh thank you, Sandy, for all of your support and random questions and last-minute uh ads and whatnot.

Uh very much appreciate your service to the city.

Um, welcome in Helica.

And um, if there's no further comments, I will declare the meeting adjourned, 8 06 p.m.

Oh, before you adjourn, um, Mr.

Chair, I would like to thank Mr.

Jordan for the agenda packet for November 20th.

If you could get them in future like this, it will greatly reduce the BMTs for this city because they'd mean driving over to pick it up.

So I'm trying to get through these as fast as I can as they're getting put on my desk.

So, yes.

I know.

We're trying to get better.

Remember the VMT, it's critically important that we reduce it, and you can't be telling me to look at these things regarding BMT when I'm driving to pick up my package.

So I greatly appreciate you reducing.

Another great way to reduce your VMT is to simply receive it digitally.

And then we don't have to produce anything for you.

And it has other greenhouse gas impact uh benefits to it as well.

So I leave you with those other options as well.

Somebody who has stock and warehouse, I love to see trees made into palpissari.

So, and on that topic, you can use the double sided printing option for the agenda.

One step forward, one step back.

I want to thank you also because I saw that we got police in the meetings now.

So thank you very much.

Yeah, yeah, we're we're working on improving that for you.

Thank you.

Good to see them there.

All right.

Well, thank you for the uh additional commentary, Commissioner Singer.

And I will declare the meeting adjourned at 8 08, not 8 06.

Good night.