Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

One.

Alright. We'll call to order this regular meeting of the Planning Commission for the City of Antica, 02/19/2026, and the time is 6PM. Roll call, please.

Commissioners Mendoza? Here. Paslak?

Here.

Fiore? Here. Vice Chair Jimenez? Here. And Chair Coleman?

Here. All right, that takes us to flag salute. Vice Chair Jimenez, would you lead us tonight? Ready, All right. Thank you. All right. That takes us to agenda review and supplemental reports. Madam Clerk, are there any changes to the agenda or supplemental reports tonight?

Chair Coleman, there are no changes to the agenda and there was one supplemental report received for item D2. Supplemental items were provided to the Planning Commission prior to the start of the meeting. Copies are on the table located to the rear of the council chambers and available to the public.

Thank you. Okay. That moves us on to public comment. This portion of the agenda is reserved for persons desiring to address the commission on any matter not listed on the agenda tonight within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Speakers are limited to three minutes, consistent with the city policy regarding public comment in Brown Act meetings. Prior to public comment, the commission, by motion and vote, may extend or shorten the length of public comment, also consistent with city policy regarding public comment in Brown Act meetings. The law does not permit commission action or extended discussion on any item not listed on the agenda. If commission action is requested, the matter can be placed on a subsequent agenda subject to commission consensus.

We received one early submission for public comment included as item a one of the agenda packet.

Okay, thank you.

Chair, at this time you may call for public comment via Zoom webinar or in person for items not on the agenda. Public comments can be made on Zoom webinar by using the raise your hand feature or by pressing star nine on the line.

Alright. Madam Clerk, do we have any comment cards from the audience tonight?

Chair, there are no hands raised on Zoom, and I have received no comment cards.

Okay. Anybody in the audience wish to address the Commission tonight on any item not listed on the agenda may do so now? All right. Seeing none, we'll close public comment. That takes us to disclosure of ex parte communications.

At this time, we ask the members of the Planning Commission to disclose any communications they have had with project applicants or members of the public regarding items on this evening's agenda.

All right. Does do any commissioners have anything to disclose tonight with ex parte communications? Commissioner Mendoza?

None.

Commissioner Fiori? None. Commissioner Paslak? None. Vice Chair Jimenez?

None.

I have one item here. I did speak with a member of the Manteca Fire Department as it relates to item d two on the agenda tonight. Okay. That wraps up ex parte communications. That takes us to consent items. Matters listed under consent are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion and one vote. There will be no separate discussion of these matters. If discussion is desired, a member of the audience or a commission member may request that an item be removed from consent and it'll be considered separately. Madam Clerk, are there any requests from

the public to pull the consent item tonight?

There No are requests? Okay. Anybody on the Commission like to pull the consent item tonight? No. The consent item is item c one, Planning Commission meeting minutes of 01/15/2026. We'll call for a vote. Is there a motion and a second to approve all items on the consent item tonight?

Motion to approve.

A motion and a second, please.

Yeah. We have a motion from Commissioner Fiori. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second from Commissioner Paslak. All those who vote in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Five zero.

All

right. That takes us to item or excuse me, that takes us to the public hearings. Madam Clerk, item D1.

Item D1 20 six-thirty seven, conduct a public hearing to consider a Planning Commission resolution approving a one year extension for site plan and design review PADash23Dash079 for the waterfall apartment located at 380 North Airport Way, APN 200 Dash 130 Dash 06. Deputy Director Jesus Orozco will be presenting this item.

Good evening, chair, commissioners, members of, members of the public. Before you is an extension request for a previously approved project. Project manager David Ruby, is out today, and I will be presenting to on his behalf. The project was previously, approved back in 2024, January 2024, allowing for a 24 unit three story apartment complex. The site is generally about an acre in size, and the project is located at the Southeast intersection of North Airport and the water and Waterfall Way, which is the one of the ingress or entrances to the subdivision to the north.

As you can see on the vicinity image before you, the project is on the East side of Villa Tachino West subdivision. It is on the South side of the Yosemite Green subdivision, and there is a 160 unit medium density residential subdivision to the south. So development would be in compatible with surrounding existing land uses. The site has a medium density land use designation, and it has a its corresponding r two, which is limited multifamily zoning designation. Again, they're both consistent with each other and provide compatibility with existing surround uses.

Before you is the site. As I mentioned, there's there's one one one building, and then there's ancillary clubhouse associated landscaping, parking, and all and all necessary amenities to serve the site. This would be an exhibit of the landscaping proposed for the project. These would be the elevations for the project. There's some color variation, some hip gabled roofing, and some variation, some some vertical variation throughout the the building.

There are no changes to the project scope itself. Staff has provided some additional conditions that were previously left out by the fire marshal. But beyond that, there are no changes to the project. Staff is recommending that you conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution approving a one year extension for the site plan for site plan and design review entitlement for the waterfall apartments, S P A 23 Dash 07 9, located at 380 North Airport Way, APN 200 Dash 1 30 DashO6. That completes my presentation.

A representative on behalf of the project is present to also answer questions. And that'll be all for me.

Thank you, Deputy Director. All right. At this time, do any Commissioners have any clarifying questions on this item for staff?

Michael Warren for the staff. Just for the record, can you tell us, after the one year extension, are they allowed any other extensions beyond that?

Per our municipal code, not at this time. However, staff is diligently looking at, statutory exemptions that are are allowed or permissible through through through state housing law.

Alright. Any other questions from the commission at this time? No? Okay. And is the project applicant in attendance and prepared to make a presentation tonight?

If you could just please state your name and title for the record.

Sean San Diego, MCR Engineering. Good evening. Not prepared to make a presentation so much. Just an update what's happened over the past two years is financing has gotten difficult with this type of development. Scale to economy with one building for apartments like this is difficult to make feasible. The property owners are well engaged. They're looking at investor opportunities currently. And so that's the reason we're here for the extension primarily is they do see it being built. They hope it gets built, especially with the activity to the south with the duplex community going in and, you know, the desire to live in Manteca. So that's about it. But I can answer any questions if you have

more than that. Thank you. One question just to clarify. Are you in agreement with the conditions of approval as presented on this item tonight?

Yes. Yes. The Art Salas, I think the fire inspector, he reached out to me directly and we talked about access and and primarily making a fire lane across the frontage of the apartment. So I'm totally in favor of that. Thought it was

a great idea, and we're on board. Okay. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. At this time, I'm gonna go ahead and open the public hearing on this item at 06:11 p. M. Madam Clerk, are there any comment cards, live comments, any Zoom webinar comments tonight?

Chair, there are no hands raised on Zoom, and I have received no comment cards.

Perfect. Anybody in the audience wish to speak on this item may do so now. All right. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing at 06:12 p. M. And we'll bring it back to the commission for discussion and deliberation. Any questions from the commission?

Yeah. Have one. I have after looking at the project, I I see that from the layout, the the garbage enclosure is pretty much right behind one of the residential units that's existing. And I was kinda suggesting maybe we could if we could flip flop the the handicapped seating, parking with the garbage enclosure. Now the only problem I saw after I first thought of this is I'm not sure if there's a door on that side of the building to get in. I just know that garbage enclosures make a lot of noise and there's a resident several residences right behind it. I just kinda suggest if we could be swap.

Thank you. Any other commissioners? All right. If there's no further discussion or deliberation, we call for a vote. Looking for a motion.

Make a motion to approve the item to extend the time frame for a year.

We have a second.

I second.

We have a motion from Commissioner Mendoza and a second from Vice Chair Jimenez to adopt a resolution approving a one year extension for site plan and design review, SPA twenty three thousand and seventy nine. For the waterfall apartment located at 380 North Airport Way, APN 20013006 as presented. All those who vote in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Five zero. Thank you very much. Madam Clerk, item d two please.

Item d two twenty six Dash0 nine four. Conduct a public hearing to consider a planning commission resolution finding the Gateway Solar RV and Boat Storage Project exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section fifteen thousand one eighty three of the CEQA guidelines and approving site plan and design review, SPR 20 five-fifteen, and conditional use permit, CUP 20 five-fifteen, allowing for the development and operation of a personal storage facility for RV and boat storage with an ancillary administrative office building and a caretaker's housing unit for the project located at 2371 Bronson Road, APN 241 Dash 410 Dash 31. Assistant planner, Zuzi Mahunga, will be presenting this item.

Good evening commissioners and chair. So today we're going to be reviewing the proposed Gateway Solar RV and Boat Storage project. The project entails a major site plan and a conditional use permit for a personal storage facility with an accessory administrative office building and a caretaker's housing use. The applicant proposed that there will be 12 solar canopies with approximately 500 stalls within them on the site. The property is situated on the northern side of Bronson Road at the western city limit adjacent to a residential development located within San Joaquin County's jurisdiction.

Adjacent uses to the north is Highway 120, the east has residential homes on the adjacent general commercial and low density residential zone parcels and both the south and west feature single family residential subdivisions. The project has a commercial general plan land use designation and it's also located in a general commercial CG zoning district, So both uses both destinations are compatible to the use. And here is a visual of the site plan. Here we can see the 12 canopies, the six stall parking lot, and the accessory office building. The building will be implemented in all perimeters of the site.

The north, east, and south will have trees and shrubs, while the west property line will have vines along the fence. Here is a rendering of the accessory buildings front and rear elevations. The proposed building will have a waiting room, a reception, restrooms, kitchenettes and conference rooms. The proposed personal storage facility is for recreational and large vehicles appropriate for the use. A freight yard and truck terminal use that would allow for oversized commercial vehicles like semi truck was not proposed or reviewed as part of this project.

The current proposed hours of operation by the applicant are 10AM to 4PM and planning has conditioned of if the applicant would like to extend those hours, we've conditioned up to 7AM to 9PM if they choose. The applicant expects up to two employees per shift and possibly four per day. The use is anticipated to pull in 35 patrons per week with peak days being Monday and Saturday from 12PM to 2PM. This project was duly noticed on 01/31/2026, and staff has not received any written comments before this meeting. For CEQUA, the project request was determined to be exempt pursuant to section fifteen thousand one eighty three, an environmental checklist with findings for general plan consistency.

Staff recommends the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution finding the Gateway Solar RV and Boat Storage Project exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section fifteen thousand one eighty three of the CEQA guidelines and approving site plan and design review SPR 2,515 and conditional use permit CUP 2,515 allowing for the development and operation of a personal storage facility for RV and boat storage with an ancillary administrative office building and a caretakers housing unit for the project located at 2371 Broadsden Road, APN 240 One-four Ten-thirty 1. Thank you for your consideration, Commissioners, and this concludes the presentation. I'm happy to help answer any questions, and the applicant and their team are also present to answer any additional questions you may have.

All right, thank you very much. All right, at this time, do any commissioners have any clarifying questions on this item for staff? Seeing none, is the project applicant prepared to make a presentation tonight? Thank you. Please state your name and title for the record.

Randy Binaria, manager. Good evening. The presentation here is really just to answer any further questions the committee may have or commission may have. Good.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Just one question before we open the public hearing. Are you in agreement with the conditions of approval as presented on this

item? Yes.

Very good. Thank you.

All right.

At this time, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing on this item at 06:20 p. M. Madam Clerk, are there any comment cards, Zoom webinar comments, or live comments tonight?

Chair, there are no hands raised on Zoom, and I have received one comment card. Pedro Gonzales. All right.

Come on up.

Hello. My name is Pedro Gonzales. I live at 244 Bronson Road. I'll be in direct impact to this coming in. Has anybody taken any consideration into what the impact on that road is? As that road stands right now, it's approximately 25 feet wide. You can pass barely two cars down it as we speak to this day. Is there gonna be more impact on our property or on my neighbor's property? Because his concern is is that his septic system actually resides in the zone that's going be built currently now. When he bought the property, the septic system was already there.

Same thing with me. What's going be the water impact on us since I'm on a well? What's going to be the impact property around that area? I understand it has been rezoned commercial property, but my plan was to retire here in the city of Manteca. So I'm wondering, is there gonna be any further expansion on that road to allow heavier traffic in and out?

Can you

conclude your comments? Sorry.

Yes. Okay. For now.

Thank you. Are there any other members of the audience wish to address the commission on this item tonight? Come on up.

Good evening. My name is Andrew Paul, and you made a comment earlier regarding a one stall for ADA. Is that one stall enough even though there is a caretaker that will be living on the property that may need that? I would think maybe more than one would be efficient.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. Anybody else wish to address the commission on this item? Okay. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and For applicant rebuttal, deputy city attorney, we need to keep the public hearing open. Is that correct? Okay. Very good. Would the applicant care to rebut any of those comments or questions from the audience tonight? Feel free.

Good evening. I'm not the applicant. I'm the civil engineer on the project. Glad to meet all One of one concern was the a d ADU unit. We only have one a d ADU unit, and that is for the office. And perhaps a clarification on the office. It's not a caretaker's unit. It's a office only. So there is not full time residents there. So that's important.

And we do meet the requirement. We have six parking stalls in front of the office. And one of them one of them is an ADU, and we comply with that. As far as the road width, we are building a full where our property exists, we are building a full width street there. It's a requirement. I really can't respond about the widening of Bronson Road to the east of our project because that's beyond our project. Traffic is very minimal. It's a RV facility. People come in and out with their own access gate code. Very little traffic per day.

I mean, it this is not a shopping center or commercial facility. I would be guessing at the number of cars per day, it's it's under 50 easily. You know, even even less during the week and maybe on the weekends, it might increase traffic a little bit with people coming in, getting their vehicle, and leaving. But it is all keypad activated. Maybe mister Selim here might wanna respond a little bit about the road. I I cannot have I I have no other comment to talk anything more to offer about the roadways.

Thank you. Alright. Thank you very much. Okay. Let me close the public hearing.

Deputy city attorney, we've already had a comment from this gentleman.

Much do you remember how much time was left? Probably roughly two minutes.

Okay. Yeah. He can have two minutes if you want if you guys would like to hear him or up to you.

Just with the current property that's been built there, not including this right now, we probably have 150 to 200 cars that travel that roadway continuously every day down Bronson just because of the new area that's been built there. So everybody takes that area as a shortcut as it is now. So again we're going to add even more traffic to that by allowing this place to be built there. That's my only comment.

Thank you. Thank you sir. Alright. This time we'll go ahead and close the public hearing on this item at 06:25PM. We're gonna bring it back to commission for deliberation and discussion. Questions from the commission at this time? Commissioner Mendoza.

Jesus may want to jump in here but the applicant did not propose a caretakers housing unit and they wanted to just have it as an office space. Based on the fact that most storage facilities do have caretakers housing unit and we have a zoning update that's changing the allowed use of it. We decided to include it into this this project and we go into more detail in the staff report about the director's interpretation.

Another couple of questions. The wall that's going to be at the far north end that's gonna back up to the right away. It's gonna be a metal fence with a stucco exterior. Is that correct?

Dan Cullen again. With all with all respect that wall stipulation was wrong. It is not metal. It will be CMU, concrete masonry unit. Concrete block.

And that'll be facing the Caltrans?

Yes.

And then along the western property line between the Oakwood Shores, that will also be CMU block? Yes. CMU. I

think the height is eight feet.

No. I think

it's 10.

10? 10?

We're matching the facility we built over on. We're gonna use the same cut so you can actually go drive by and see what it looks like.

Now the the maintenance of that on the Caltrans side, who takes the graffiti off of it? The applicant? Maintenance?

I would

somebody paints graffiti on the on the wall. Who maintains it? Well,

we wouldn't know it was it was there. To be honest with you, we we wouldn't know it. I don't have an answer for that on addressing

Who's the wall? Who's the wall? Another question. Who's the wall belong to?

Well, the wall will be right on property line. So, yes, it'll be at the north side of the wall, which we can't see. I potentially could get graffiti. We can make it.

But the fact that you can't see it doesn't eliminate the fact that the graffiti needs to come off. Yeah.

We would take care of it.

Okay. Let's see. The full cul de sacs and rebuilt built at the at the end of the road. Is that that correct? Full cul de sac. Sidewalks, curb curb and gutter?

Yes.

And there's a storm drain system there at this time that you're gonna connect into?

Yes. Okay.

And you know, I think we had talked about that with staff. The way the project description identifies, it's going to be for personal storage of large trucks. And then, you know, my opinion of a large truck could differ from yours. So what, you know, what is a large truck?

It's it's for RV and boat storage, recreational vehicle and boat storage.

It would be like a Class A Coachman bus.

Okay. Thank you. That's it.

Commissioner Fiori. Thank you, Commissioner. Anybody? I

have a question on Bronson. You're saying there's a 150 cars a day going through the neighborhood. Isn't that a cul de sac right now? Does it does it enter into the neighborhood? That's not what I'm seeing on this report. It looks like it's a cul de sac.

Me, through the chair. Commissioner, I would estimate that some of those vehicles entering from McKinley are going into the Oakwood Trails subdivision. So there's access off of Bronson into that subdivision. So that would be likely the traffic that the gentleman is referring to.

Thank you. Commissioner Metz, go ahead.

I guess a question for the city. Is there any plans for that road, Bronson?

Yes. Commissioner, the city basically has identified Bronson as a 60 foot right of way, and the applicant was conditioned for their 30 foot half of that right of way along their frontage. If you and I pulled up the zoning to look at it, and probably, oh, those first half dozen or so parcels from the West end on the North Side are zoned commercial and beyond that, as you go further east to McKinley, they are still residential. So there's also some commercial at that southwest quadrant of Bronson and McKinley, so there's commercial there as well. So there will be some commercial anticipated in the future, yes.

Thank

you. Let me start with this. Obviously, I personally visited the site. I've personally driven down Bronson. I've personally seen what's there today. Bronson is an extremely narrow road today. Can you speak kind of in plain terms what the kind of widening approach is going to be to that road to service EVA effectively?

Yes, Chair. So right now, today, I believe there's about 25 feet of actual pavement out there, so it is narrow for a two lane roadway. As visited the site and for anybody that hasn't, it's an old county roadway that essentially had a dead end, if you will, when the Oakwood Lakes development occurred many years ago. So the city has conditioned the developer to provide their 30 foot half width to the north. We have verified there actually is right of way already per deed for that 60 foot width, and so as development occurs, the city will condition development to provide that additional widening for the full street width, including the curb gutter sidewalk as well.

Okay.

And I drove my four door sedan down that road, and I had a hard time turning around in a basic car. So I know a Manteca Fire Department engine could not do that today, obviously. And I would like to kinda ask for the record. Has the Manteca Fire Department vetted this project, and are they satisfied with the plans to expand?

The Manteca Fire Department has reviewed the project and gave conditions.

Okay. Thank you.

Going

back to the caretaker designation for a second, just to confirm for the record and follow-up to Commissioner Mendoza's question about living in residence versus non live in residence, to confirm, there is no plan to have a permanent resident on this property. Is that correct?

Yes, Chair. Currently, is no plans for a caretaker housing unit.

Will there be a plan in the future for a permanent resident at this property?

That will be up to the applicant site. And we have conditioned up to 1,000 square feet of the space to be used for a caretaker's housing unit, so they couldn't just convert the entire thing.

Okay. I think it's important to note that currently, this project lies within Fire District two, which is a fair distance from this site. Obviously and we're talking about Fire Station six later tonight on the agenda. Should there be a public safety need at this facility, there could be a delayed response time based on where this is located today. So my question is, what is the timeline for development if this is approved today so that we can understand kind of the expectation of when this facility will be operational.

Do we know that information today?

Can I

answer that? My name is Mark Dorado. I'm one of the owner reps and work for Baja Construction. We're one of the year. Question. And

get

a the to of next hydrants around. There's fire extinguishers. And the office is totally fire sprinkled. And it's all monitored. Okay.

And then in conjunction with the improvements to Bronson, will that be made parallel to the development, in advance of the development? What's the timeline for that? Do we know?

On-site, off-site concrete would all happen at the same time.

Okay. And I'm thinking in terms from a public safety perspective, not so much an actual significant fire protection mechanisms being built. It's more of our fire department also serves as an EMS capacity. And if there is a caretaker facility and there's a resident there and they have an emergency, it's a distance from Fire Station 2 today. So I just want to make sure that that's noted for the record. There is

no caretaker. We Okay. Mhmm. Fifteen years ago, we started with a caretaker unit. And it just didn't work out. So the upstairs is just an office in a conference room. The downstairs is office space for people to come in and rent. There will not be a caretaker nor will there ever be a caretaker working there. And there can a condition of approval if you would like.

Okay. Given the traffic flow, is there an expectation of cars backing up onto Bronson to get into the entry gate?

So we real time data on a facility. Let's use the one in Oakley we built. So it's less than a mile from the Sacramento River with a boat dock. We have real time information of people keying in and keying out. And basically, when you drive on to it, you key in the gates going to automatically open and then you drive over to where your stall is. You rarely

we'll

then,

time.

C motor home, they're gonna pull the motor home out and park the car in the parking stall and drive away. So when they come back, they have their car. The parking is never full in front of the offices.

The operating hours list ten to four, I believe. Is that correct? Is there any expectation of early morning or after hours usage?

So I think the ten to four is the office hours. I believe the hours that the gate is going to be operational is from seven to eight or seven to nine. But I mean we can give you real time information. People there's never more than one person rolling in or rolling out. And during the day, there's nobody in there. Sometimes on weekends you might get three or four people coming in or going out. It's not what you expect.

There's mention of an industrial sweeper, I believe. Is that correct?

It's just a little it's about as wide as this podium to clean the dust up to keep the place clean.

That A street sweeper. Is that significant does that cause a significant amount of noise? No. No? Okay. And then the operation of that machine would be during operating hours?

They usually run them on the weekend. On the weekend? Okay. The maintenance guy come in and make sure it's clean and trim the bushes. You'll be surprised how groomed this place will end up being. Okay.

On the is there any expectation of pedestrian access? Or is it all vehicular do we expect?

All vehicle. Okay. And then the gate is keyed to get in, and it's keyed to get out. So there's no auto out. So we're in control of how long somebody is on the property and we keep track of it. And there's no maintenance, there's no partying, there's no working on your rig. There's you go in, you park it, you leave. If you're in there more than ten minutes, we're going to ask you why you're still in there.

Okay. All right. Thank you. I think those are all my questions at this time. Any other commissioners have any comments, discussion? Please. I

think it's a good project for the area with all the boat traffic and recreational vehicles that are in the area. And the one thing about growth, it's not always gonna happen at the same time. That's why, you know, you have a cul de sac at the end and you got a 25 foot road leading up to it. And there's pretty little, you know, eventually, it's all gonna be built up, but that's gonna take time to have a whatever the actual configuration of the final roadway is gonna be. But it takes time, and, you know, that road might be there like that for another five years before you see it improve from McKinley all the way to the end.

But they'll somebody will be able to turn around if they're lost with that cul de sac there. Now they they don't have that ability. So I guess that's one positive thing to look at it from a roadway standpoint. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments?

I just wanted to clarify, there is going to be like a dump station and a propane filling

propane station there. Most of the new vehicles, the propane tanks in the vehicles don't come out. You have to fill them in So the it's way more convenient. And there will be a dump station. And rarely are they used. As an RV owner, you dump your black tank before you bring it in. So rarely are those dump stations used. They're more as a it's like an executive RV. It's a stigma of, oh my, we have a dump station. We have things amenities that people want.

Thank you. Yes. I think for my perspective, we're tasked with determining does this project fit within the general plan and does it satisfy the elements of Title 17 of the Manteca Municipal Code. There are concerns with the project, and it's concerns expressed by residents. It is owned correctly.

It is in compliance. But I do think it's very important that Bronson is properly widened and has satisfactory EVA access, which it sounds like it will as part of this project to satisfy the needs that will likely occur at some point in the future on this road. As it stands today, without that widening, there'd be a lot of concern with the project. So at this point, if there's no other comments, we can call for a vote.

Allows for the development and operation of a personal storage facility for RV and boat storage with an ancillary administrative office building and caretaker

It's your motion.

Commissioner Fiora, the it's entirely at the commission's discretion if they choose to either strike that that portion or strike the condition entirely?

Do we have consensus?

We strike that? Strike it.

Strike the caretaker unit language for no That's permanent

been a point of discussion. It's probably a good idea.

We'll need to make the motion as amended. Do you want to read it again or do want me to do it?

Commissioner Fioret, I just wanna clarify. You wanna strike that section of the approval as well as the condition or just I wanna clarify. We're gonna strike the entire caretaker component of the project?

I think we have consensus consensus on the conditions of approval.

Okay. So okay. Perfect.

Go ahead. So you can just read it now.

Sorry, folks. I move to adopt a resolution finding Gateway Solar RV and Boat Storage project exempt from further environmental review pursuant to section fifteen thousand one eighty three of the guidelines and approving site plan and

To confirm your motion motions as amended.

Do

we have a second?

Second it.

All those who vote in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Okay. Motion passes. Five zero. Thank you. All right. Madam Clerk, that takes us to item D3 tonight.

Item D3 26 dash zero nine six, conduct a public hearing to consider a planning commission resolution recommending city council find zoning text amendment 26 dash 13 exempt from further environmental review pursuant to section 15,060 one(three) common sense of the California Environmental Quality Act and adopt an ordinance for ZTA 20 six-thirteen to amend section 17.56.030, General Prohibition, and 17.56.040, signs allowed on city property, of Chapter 17.56 of Title 17 of the Manteca Municipal Code. Deputy Director Jesus Orozco will be presenting this item.

Thank you for that. Chair, commissioners, members of the public, before you this evening is a zoning text amendment, as it relates to signs on city property. The zoning text will is specific to section 17.56.03 for the general prohibitions and section five six zero forty, which is specific to signs allowed on city property. This does not include any particular approval of any sign or project. This is purely just a policy decision, which will allow the city to continue implementation of of various general plan goals and policies as well as city council priorities, as an as its effort to allow future signs on city property.

Presently, the code does not allow for any third party or private signs on city property. The code has been revised as shown on your screen through red lines. Specifically, the amendments would allow third party signs subject to a city agreement, permit, or license, and that agreement would be subject to city council review and approval. The other section, again, just makes that provision clear that, signs owned, which would which basically lists which signs are allowed on city property, including, city, governmental agencies, private party, and other nongovernmental, entity, signs. The current intent of the zoning code is really to prevent any any nuisance or, enclosure activities within city property, by preventing, third party or private, private property on on city city owned property.

It really is reserved for quasi federal, state, and county use and purposes and really enforces that it be limited to just those types of activities, which include legal notices, safety signs, directional signs, and things of that nature. With this amendment, this would allow the public to enter into private public private partnerships and contribute to more placemaking, increasing foot traffic to the city, and straighten the city's sense of of identity. And then, again, it would implement directly city council goals and priorities as the city looks to allow archways, murals, and things of that nature within the city. This project will be implementing specifically six different general plan policies as it relates to this project and future projects. The zoning text is internally consistent.

It does provide conformance with the general plan goals and policies. It provides for oversight through the agreement process in which future signs will be regulated through those agreements. And, ultimately, it will provide internal consistency with its intent of allowing signs on city property. And, again, I wanna mention that this ordinance would allow the city to implement a a council goal goal two economic development and vitality, which has two tasks associated, tasks three and four, which basically directs the city attorney's office in conjunction with development services staff to prepare, whether it be digital billboard policies and or ordinances as it relates to feature signs on city property. This project was duly noticed on the j on January 31, and we have not received any written comment regarding this project at this time.

This project has been deemed exempt from CEQA because the action is solely policy decision, no not involving direct physical change or disturbance to the environment. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. That being said, staff is recommending that the commission conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution recommending city council find zoning text amendment 26 dash 13 exempt from further environmental review pursuant to section one five zero six one b three common sense of the CEQA guidelines and adopt under ordinance for c t 26 dash 13 to amend section 70.5603, general prohibition, and section 17.5604 signs allowed on city property of chapter fifteen fifty six of title 17 of the Muntika Municipal Code. That completes my presentation. I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, deputy director. Any commissioners have any clarifying questions on this item at this time for staff? Please.

Does that work? There we go. Still isn't going to work. Will there be any city properties where these signs will not be allowed? Well, I mean, can someone come up and approach city and say, have this big event, and I wanna put it in front of city hall? I mean, is there some places obviously, maybe not near a fire station, but maybe they have a pancake something or rather going on. So do we have an an a kind of an idea where the parameters may be there will be some areas of prohibition?

Good question, commissioner. Not at this time. This there will be subsequent policies established. That's presently, that staff's understanding that there will be specific policies that guide everything from design, content, and very likely locations. So there this ordinance would only provide serve as a mechanism to allowing it, but not necessarily dictate any specific site or policies behind it. That would be at a later time.

Well, then let's say an applicant comes to staff and says, well, we we haven't we would have some signs we wanna put up. Who would determine that? Would that be city council or would be the planning division?

One more time, chair commissioner. Sorry.

Faded out. I get it. I do it too. Yeah. Who makes the determination where the signs would go or if they're going to be allowed? Would that be city council or planning division?

That would be city council. Yes. Because developments, private party, agreements are entered in with the city, and they have to be approved by the city council.

Okay. And then we talk about an economic development or foot traffic and types of those things. That could be a lot of different things. What the the opposite then. What what does staff envision as a type of sign that would be allowed?

So speaking specifically about the intent that this will allow is billboards as an example. The city is currently working with a third party vendor for billboards as part of previous negotiations. And the the city would envision that they have some form of, like, monumental entry feature types of signs. At this moment, I can I can say that there's, for the time being, billboards planned, which are currently under design review and things of that nature?

So the really, the nexus would be it would have to be of some positive benefit for the city?

Correct. There would have to be an economic incentive.

Okay. Thank you very much. That's all I have.

I have questions. You know, when I read this, in my mind it was billboard type signs, permanent signs with a foundation, not a sign on a barricade saying that I'm gonna have a garage sale. Something that the city would benefit financially by gaining some type of, you know, payment for the use of the area, renting the site. So that's what I envisioned. But then, like the commissioner mentioned, didn't think it'd be for a temporary type situation. Are you looking at temporary or is that still to be determined?

That certainly would not be the intent. Just to clarify, this would allow for permanent lease, sublease for the city that would provide some economic benefit, not necessarily in terms of return of rent, but economic driver for the city long term.

And, you know, it's in city property. So I'm assuming there's probably a map somebody has in this city that has all the, let's say, parcels that could be utilized. Let's say they're not part of the operating right away, but there's some little remnant of a let's say behind somebody's in a subdivision, and you can access it, but it's small. I'm assuming that could be a spot, but then it when all these details work out about where and how and you got to have room to maintain it, things like that, then those kind of smaller could be they could fall off. They couldn't be utilized for this program.

Correct, Commissioner. So again, everything would be considered on a case by case basis. I can't point you to any one particular scenario that comes to mind, but certainly through that review and consideration process, would look at things like maintenance requirements associated with that accessibility and also potential nuisance to surrounding residents.

You know, the archway concept is interesting because I know Lethrop, they have two archways in their, like, historical area now. And it spans the city street. And it's all in the city right away. I'm assuming it's owned by the city. But every now and then, you run into areas where, like, let me give you an example, Lincoln Center.

At one time, they wanted to put archers across Ben Ho that would be in the city right in this county right away, but owned by Lincoln Center. So that's something that this might allow to occur the way I read this. You know with all the other details that are going to go along once staff gets involved on how they're going to implement it?

Certainly, yes. I mean, there's an opportunity, but again, this is not necessarily stating that it will allow every sign on every city property. It is just a mechanism. Should the city decide that it wants to enter into an agreement with a private vendor.

Thank you.

You mentioned subsequent policies to come likely related to different areas. Is there an expectation of any objective design standards for this type of signage for the city?

That's a good question, Chair. At this time, I'm not privy to those plans. I do know that our economic development department is working on strategizing around this particular matter.

Thank you. Any other questions right now? No? All right. All right. We'll go ahead and open the public hearing on this item at 07:02 p. M. Madam Clerk, are there any live comments, comment cards, or Zoom webinar comments tonight?

Chair, there are no hands raised on Zoom, and I have received no comment cards.

Thank you. Any members of the audience wish to address the Commission on this item may do so now. All right. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing on this item, 07:02PM. We'll bring it back to the commission.

Any comments, questions, discussion?

Call

for a vote. This whole thing? I can read it to say motion.

Motion to approve.

Do we

have a second?

Fiori seconds.

Alright. We have a motion from commissioner Paslak and a second from commissioner Fiori to adopt a resolution recommending city council find zoning text amendment 26 dash 13 exempt from further environmental review pursuant to section one five zero six one b three, common sense of the California Environmental Quality Act, and adopt an ordinance for ZTA two six dash one three to amend section 17 dot five six dot zero three zero, general prohibition, and 17 dash fives 17 dot five six dot zero feet four zero, signs allowed on city property of chapter 17.56 of title 17 of the Manteca Municipal Municipal Code as presented. All of all those in favor will vote, say aye. Aye. Opposed?

Motion passes. Five zero. Thank you. And that will take us to discussion items. Item E1, Madam Clerk.

E1 25 dash five fifty one, consideration of a Planning Commission resolution finding and determining that a proposed land exchange consisting of the disposition of portions of city owned real property identified as APN two forty one-four ten-nineteen and APN two forty one-four ten-twenty in exchange for the acquisition of privately owned real property identified as APM two forty one-two sixty-thirty three and APN 240 one-two sixty-thirteen for the development of Fire Station 6 is in conformance with the City Of Manteca 2043 general plan as mandated by California Government Code Section 65402A and finding the project exempt from further environmental review pursuant one five zero six one b three of the CEQA guidelines. Deputy Director Jesus Orozco will be presenting this item.

Thank you, madam clerk. Chair, commissioners, members of the public, if you allow me one minute. Sorry about that. Running double duty here. Again, before you is a general plan conformity finding request for land for a land exchange of city owned real property for privately owned property.

Before you is a much anticipated project to happen, and this item will, again, be the mechanism to facilitate that that project. The city council has identified as one of its priority public safety, particularly around identifying locations and future development of a fire station, particularly in the south section of the city South Of 120. Hence why the city has been actively working to secure land to allow for this. Per government code, the commission needs to make a determination finding and report back to the city council. The the project really entails, some remnants of city owned land that have primarily been developed for the interchange off ramp for McKinley, and then portions of, Manteca Unified School District owned land and, land owned by, PD Dana LLC, which is a private owner under private ownership.

On your screen to the right, you see an area of on the northern portion of this exhibit that would be the city owned property. Remnants of that will be transferred or exchanged for the, private property, located on the south side on the larger parcels, which been have been outlined in red for you. The city is about to acquire about two acres of land, and it's going to be giving up about an acre of of currently owned land. As part of that transaction, there'll be a component of the Manteca of Manteca Unified School District that will be also transferred through a private party through the city. And if we want to focus on specifically the city owned parcels are to the left on your screen.

As you can tell, mostly it's been substantially developed for public right of way purposes, which Caltrans has control over that those segments. The exchange area is in blue. And, again, they they make about make up about an acre combined. And then on the right hand side, you have two privately owned adjacent parcels. On the furthest east side is the parcel owned by, Manteca Unified School District, and then, on the west, a privately owned piece of land.

There's more of a close-up for for for the commission. So if you can follow the long, very narrow piece of parcel, that portion will be given up to the city. The city will only keep about 0.18 acres of that, and the rest will be exchanged to the private owner on the West Side. The West Side will be getting over to the city about 1.82 acres of that land. So if we combine the city's existing own parcels plus the 0.82, the exchange will not translate exactly, but it'll be approximately two acres to 1.78 acres of transferred area.

The respective land use designations for both parcels that the city will be acquiring have a public quasi and a high density residential land use. That means that a fire station can be developed within these zones In a p q PQP land use designation and zoning, they're allowed by right. In a in a high density residential, they would be required to go through a conditional use permit process. The the area the city currently possesses that they will be disposing is currently zoned low density residential. There is no anticipated development at at this time.

Should the prospective owner decide to develop, they can certainly develop with r one zoning development, which will be single family. It's very likely that they they may move forward with potentially finding its best use by redesignating it for commercial purposes considering that it's in very close proximity to an off ramp. Cumulatively, the city's acquisition of land would be in conformance with the anticipated Fire Fire Station 6 that will be developed on on that area. The intended purpose of of this of this findings does does does meet the general plan goals and policies, particularly being able to provide high quality and responsive fire protection services in a much needed section of the city. It would allow it would allow the fire fire department to respond a lot faster to calls and provide better response times, ex serve existing and projector populations within that area as well, and also be able to cooperate with other jurisdiction our our other jurisdictions and agencies.

Keep it in mind, as we saw earlier, there's a gate a personal storage project in proximity as well as county residents who, to a great degree, rely on city section one five one zero six one b three, which is a common sense exemption, because we can see with certainty that there is no possibility that this activity in question may have any significant effect on the environment. Before I conclude, I would like to make the commission and members of the audience aware that the council and staff have been in in close negotiations with with all associated parties. I'm so sorry. I apologize. With all associated parties as part of this land exchange, the city has done its due diligence, gone through the appropriate appraisal process on an environmental phase, a review of all sites.

They've also secured letters of intent from these property owners and currently in the process of finalizing transfer of of land with the school district. All those things being said, staff is recommending that you consider a resolution finding and determining that the proposed land exchange consistent with disposition of portions of city owned real property identified as APN two forty one-four ten-nineteen and APN two 40 one -four ten-twenty in exchange for the acquisition of privately owned real property identified as APN two forty one-two sixty-thirty three and APN two forty one-two sixty dash thirteen for the development of Fire Station 6 is in conformance with the city of Manteca 2043 general plan as mandated by California, government code section sixty five forty two a and find the project exempt from further environmental review pursuant to section 15 o six one b three of of the sequel guidelines. That completes my presentation. I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Alright. Thank you, deputy director. Does commission have any clarifying questions at this time?

Do. I think I do.

Mister Fiori.

I just wanna bring it out that if, PD Dana LLC is not on board, can the fire station move forward in some other way?

Good question, commissioner. The city does have a letter of intent. So at this moment, I don't believe there's We're hoping. A desire to.

Okay. Thank you. No further questions.

Okay. Any other questions from any commissioners at this time?

Have a

question around land that's being treated, the city owned property currently. That road looks like it is on Bronson or part of that property is. So do we have any idea of what the intended

development there may be? Not at this time. I can say that there is a project within the vicinity under review, do

but there is nothing specifically for the city owned side of Bronson.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. At this time, we'll open public comment on this item. Madam Clerk, are there any hands raised on Zoom or any comment cards or live comments tonight?

Chair, there are no hands on Zoom, and I've received no comment cards.

Okay. Thank you. Any members of the audience wish to address the commission on this item? You can do so now. All right. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the commission. Just one follow-up question, deputy director. As part of this classification, it's it's you correct me if I'm wrong, but the a fire station's technically conditionally allowed, right, with respect to this parcel in the R 3 zone? Is there any will there ever be a time where a conditional use permit might be required for this before this commission?

It is very likely. I can't speak to past practice at this time. Is moving forward with all regular standard entitlement requirements for all CAPP CAPP improvement projects.

Very good. Are there any other questions? Commissioner? Mr. Mendoza.

You know, when I first looked at this, I thought, well, why is there an exchange necessary? And then talking to staff, I found out that the fire department felt that one acre on Bronson was too small for the fire station. And then McKinley, which is the main road, like getting to wherever you need to get to in an emergency situation is only going to allow right out. You're not going be able to turn left and go towards the interchange. That's the way it striked at this time.

So that's why that wasn't a viable alternative. So this was probably the best next thing from what I understand. They were really looking for properties to do this because it was very important. So I think if they found one and there's participants to make the trade, I think that's a good thing. Now the area where the fire station is going to go, I'm assuming one area is going to be a school of some type, whether it be an elementary school and the other one, the other area owned by the private developer is going to be high density.

At one time, I remember looking at something there that was going to be a real high end condo that was proposed by, I think, panels. They're going be to able to wash their dogs inside and all kinds of fancy stuff. But I don't I've never seen that. I haven't seen it in about two years. I don't know if that's dead.

Good. Commissioner, you're right. The the R 3 parcel has been entitled with a high density project. Staff isn't aware of any intent to move forward at this time should that happen. But I believe because of this, things might have changed a little bit.

Okay. Thanks.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the commission? No? You're good. Let me add that this as I think the deputy director alluded to, this sets in motion something that has been a long time coming for Southwest Manteca.

And, you know, personally, and as a resident of Southwest Manteca, I'm extremely pleased to see the the city council and the city leadership working with private owners to effect change and make this happen. And there'll be much more down the road with this, I'm sure. But I'm very thankful to be sitting here today participating in this process to be able to to get this fire station going. So if there's no other comments, if my fellow commissioners don't mind, I'm gonna go ahead and make the motion to adopt a resolution finding and determining that a proposed land exchange consisting of the disposition of portions of city owned real property identified as APN 241 Dash 410 Dash 19 and APN 240 One-four Ten-twenty in exchange for the acquisition of privately owned real property identified as APN 240 One-two Sixty-thirty 3 and APN 241Dash260Dash13 for the development of Fire Station 6 is in conformance with the City Of Manteca 2043 general plan as mandated by California government code section 65,402 a and finding project exempt from further environmental review pursuant to section one five zero six one b three of the CEQA guidelines as presented. Do we have a second?

I second.

We have a motion from the chair and a second from vice chair Jimenez. Madam clerk, I'd like a roll call vote, please, for this one. I

will be stepping in for

Deputy roll call vote, please.

Commission commissioners Mendoza.

Approve.

Passlack? Approve. Fiore? Approve. Vice Chair Jimenez?

Approve.

Chair Coleman? Aye.

Motion passes five-zero. Thank you very much. All right. That takes us to staff comments.

Thank you, chair and commissioners and members of the audience for sticking around this long. It's a pleasant surprise to see residents participate in our public process. For staff comments, I just want to remind the commissioners, if you haven't done so already, your Form 700 should be coming in from the FPPC. I believe two, if not three of you, already completed that. Thank you.

And if you haven't, keep an eye out in your inboxes for that. Secondly, just a reminder, you should have received all necessary material for the commissioners academy that will be taking place in March, which takes me to the second thing that we will have a March 5 meeting. And the very we will need to cancel the second meeting in March due to the commissioner's academy and all the all the moving pieces associated with that would not allow staff to to, put together an agenda packet in time for the second meeting in March. And then lastly, I'd like to welcome our alternate planning commissioner, miss miss Pia Suk, who's in attendance. I believe most of you have introduced yourself, but I'd like to formally welcome her to the planning commission.

That completes staff comments unless anyone else has any other comments.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Alright. That brings us to commissioner comments. Mr. Mendoza, commissioner.

Thanks for, I guess, setting up that CEQA training. Think I responded by saying I would participate in that. It's like actually working again, going to a training. And congratulations. You wore three hats today. I'm impressed. Thank you.

You beat me to it.

Mr. Fiori.

The man of many hats. Thank you very much. And as always, I want to thank staff for being professional. Someday, maybe we'll get the mics working again. I know I can be probably heard in the back of the room. But just thank you. And I appreciate having a nice robust meeting and agenda items. So see the rest of you on May 5.

Commissioner Paslag.

Yeah. I just wanna thank the staff as well for all your help with getting through all these items. And I did have a clarifying. You did say that the March 5 is cancelled? It's not cancelled?

Yes. We'll meet March 5 and the second meeting will be cancelled. Second one's cancelled. Alright.

Thank you, sir. Vice Chair Jimenez.

I just wanted to welcome our new alternate, VIA. So we're really glad to have somebody around in case any of us are not here. And then just congratulations to Chair Coleman for running a great first meeting. And of course, to staff for answering all of our questions all the time.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. And yes, welcome, Piet. We're excited and happy you're here and glad to have you. I do I wanna echo the comments. Thank the staff. Thanks for the presentations tonight. Deputy director, I think his work's wet. How many hours today? We didn't even talk about it. Right?

Doing triple, quadruple duty. Thank you, sir. I want to thank the members of the public for coming today. It's always great to hear from our fellow citizens and participating in the process, just like Deputy Director Jesus Roscoe said. I really want to echo and commend the city again for the work, the hard work on Fire Station 6. I think it can't be overstated how important that is. And I want to thank the Department of Development Services for their role to play in that as well. It's a very big deal. So with that, we will adjourn this meeting at 07:27PM.