Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, I'll call to order this regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Manteca for March 5th, 2026. Roll call, Madam Clerk.

Commissioners Mendoza?

Here.

Paslack?

Here.

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

Here. All right, that takes us to flag salute. Commissioner Fiore, would you lead us tonight, please?

Thank you.

That takes us to agenda review and supplemental reports. Madam Clerk, are there any changes to the agenda tonight or any supplemental reports?

Chair Coleman, there are no changes to the agenda, and there was a total of six supplemental reports provided by staff for items C2 and C3 on tonight's agenda. Supplemental reports 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. All right, that will take us to public comment. This portion of the agenda is reserved for persons desiring to address the Commission on any matter not listed on tonight's agenda, but within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Speakers are limited to three minutes, consistent with city policy regarding public comment and Brown Act meetings. Prior to public comment, the Commission, by motion and vote, may extend or shorten the length of public comment consistent with city policy regarding public comment and Brown Act meetings. The law does not permit Commission action or extended discussion on any item not listed on the agenda tonight. If Commission action is requested, the matter may be placed on a subsequent agenda subject to Commission consensus. Madam Clerk.

We did not receive any early submissions for public comment. 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.

Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have any hands raised on Zoom or any comment cards tonight?

No, Commissioner. We have no hands raised on Zoom and no comment cards.

Okay. Anybody in the audience wish to address the commission on any items not listed on the agenda tonight may do so now. Okay, seeing none, we'll go ahead and close public comment and move on to item B, disclosure of ex parte communications. Madam Clerk.

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.

Thank you. Do any commissioners have any ex parte communications they would like to disclose tonight? We'll start with Commissioner Mendoza.

None.

Commissioner Fiore?

None.

Commissioner Paslack?

None.

Vice Chair Jimenez?

None.

And I have none as well. Thank you. That will move on to the public hearings. Madam Clerk, item C1.

Item C1, 26-111, Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and consider the following. One, adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council find the 4-C Ranch Annexation Project exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section 15183 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Approve annexation 21-25 authorizing staff to initiate annexation proceedings for APN 208-080-10 and by ordinance approve pre-zone. 21-26, assigning APN 208-080-10 with an R1, one family dwelling pre-zone designation by amending the zone map set forth in section 17.20.040 of chapter 17.20 of title 17 of the Manteca municipal code. And two, adopt a resolution recommending that the city council approve tentative subdivision map TSM 21-24, for 68 single-family residential lots, including associated open space and public improvements for the 4-C Ranch Annexation Project located at 9683 East Louise Avenue, APN 208-080-10. Associate Planner Tobin Barnum will be presenting this item.

Well, good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the Commission. I'm Associate Planner Tobin Barnum. Thank you for your attention this evening. The request for you is to review and recommend approval to the City Council of a proposed annexation, pre-zoning, and tentative subdivision map. The project components are threefold. First, an annexation of 19.68 acres of land in the northeast corner of the city, or I should say adjacent to the northeast corner of the city. Second, the pre-zoning of the entirety of that 19.68 acres to R1 zoning in consistency with the general plan land use designation, which is LDR. And third, a subdivision of that 19.68 acres to accommodate a 68 single family homes and a 2.09 acre basin park. The site in question is a single 19.68 acre parcel adjacent to the northwest corner, at the northwest corner of the intersection of East Louise Avenue and the northern terminus of Vasconcelos Avenue, just outside the northeast corner of the city limits of Manteca. So as property is currently in the county, the existing zoning is a county zoning, which is agricultural urban reserve, 20 acre minimum, or AU20 for short, which is by definition intended to retain in agriculture those areas planned for future urban development in order to facilitate compact, orderly growth, and to assure the proper timing and economical provision of services and utilities. The proposed city zoning is one family dwelling, R1. The property is generally used for agricultural uses at this time. It's mostly vacant, with the exception of a single family home and some outbuildings, which are intended to be demolished for the new development. The site is bordered on the west and the south by existing single family homes in subdivisions, which are within the city limits. North and east of the property are open land, which are agricultural uses at this time. This is the tentative subdivision map as proposed. As you can see, 19.68 acres. We had to rotate the map to fit it onto the slide here and allow you to see the detail. So left is north. 68 proposed units, 3.35 dwelling units per acre. And you can see kind of on the north, on the top center of the map there is where the basin park will be. That will be on the east side of the extension of Vasconcelos. The basin park itself is 2.09 acres total. 1.03 of that will be upland, and 1.06 of that will be the basin. This is the park that's proposed. As you can see, a number of play areas, a multi-use sport court, a shade shelter, and you can see the two different areas, the upland lawn area and the basin area as well. Nice park. And again, this will be on the eastern side of Vasconcelos, opposite most of the homes. So some key conditions for this subdivision. Frontage improvements will include a completion of the Louise and Vasconcelos intersection. Currently Vasconcelos terminates at Louise Avenue, so the subdivision would then bring Vasconcelos north through the subdivision and Vasconcelos would then terminate at the northern portion, the northern boundary of the subdivision itself. And the subdivision intersection then would have crosswalks in the north and the western sides of the intersection. There'd be a CMU wall along the subdivision frontages on both Vasconcelos and Louise. And eight foot sidewalks with six foot wide landscaping buffers on Louise Avenue to separate the residential use from the street.

as well as a class two bicycle lane on Louise Avenue in consistency with the transportation plan, active transportation plan.

And then it will annex into the city community facility district as well as part of the conditions of approval. The environmental clearance for this project, there was a CEQA consistency checklist drafted by private party consultants. The project is exempt from further CEQA analysis per CEQA section 15183, projects consistent with a community plan, general plan, or zoning. The development as proposed is a direct implementation of the general plan. As the general plan indicates, this land is LDR designation, and this build-out would be LDR uses. Potential impacts for this subdivision are accounted for in the EIR for the Manteca 2043 general plan update, and they are also accounted for in the sixth cycle housing element. The project was publicly noticed as required and the notice was sent out to all residents within 500 feet of the boundaries of the subject site and you can see the Manteca Bulletin notice here. This was sent out on February 12th and as of February 26th we had received no written comments from any residents or any recipients of those letters. So staff is recommending planning commission conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution recommending that the city council find the 4C Ranch annexation project exempt from further environmental review pursuant to section 15183 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. We recommend that you approve annexation annex 21-25 authorizing staff to initiate annexation proceedings for APN 20808010 and by ordinance approve pre-zone PRZ 21-26. assigning apn 208010 with an r1 one family dwelling pre-zone designation by amending the zoning map is set forth in section 17.20.040 of chapter 17.20 of the title 17 of manteca municipal code and Second, we recommend that you adopt a resolution recommending City Council approve the tentative subdivision map TSM 21-24. Didn't wear my glasses tonight. For 68 single family residential lots, including associated open space, public improvements for the 4C Ranch Annexation Project, which is located at 9683 East Louise Avenue, APN 20808010. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Barnum. At this time, do any commissioners have any clarifying questions for staff on this item? Commissioner Mendoza. All right.

Yes, that's correct.

South all the way up to the north boundary. So what part of Vasconcellos are you going to put a CMU wall?

So do I understand there's a wall required from engineering on Vasconcellos? That's my understanding anyway. Was there going to be one or no? Am I mistaken on that?

Chito Sessom's engineering, no, there's no CMU wall on Vasconcelos.

Thank you. I apologize, that's my mistake.

Thank you. Any other commissioners have any clarifying questions at this time?

I have a few.

Commissioner Fiore.

In the staff report under project review, you mentioned you reached out to San Joaquin Bike Coalition. Did they have any comments?

No, we sent the project out to them as part of the standard distribution, and there were no comments received from them. But as I stated, we do review this project for consistency, or all of our projects for consistency with our active transportation plan. And that plan was implemented and constructed in conjunction with by coalition, but we did not receive any comments from them, though, as a part of this project.

Thank you. I'll reserve my questions later after public comment.

Thank you. Mr. Barnum, there's a current dwelling on the annexation site. Do we know if that's currently occupied by a resident?

Yeah, I'm not aware of that, but I did forget to mention the project applicant is here and the applicant's engineer is here, so they may be able to answer that question. I'm not aware if it is occupied at this time, but maybe they could answer that question for you.

Thank you, sir. The project applicant is here in attendance tonight. Would you like to come up, please, and provide your presentation to us? Get your five-minute clock ready. If you could please state your name and title for the record as well. Sure.

My name is Ryan Girding, and I'm the president of Ramos Homes. Thank you. Good evening, Chair Coleman, Vice Chair, Commissioners. Again, my name is Ryan Girding. I'm with Ramos Homes, and I'd like to thank the Commission for the opportunity to be before you this evening to present 4C Ranch and to respectfully ask for your favorable recommendation to City Council for this project. I'd like to take a moment to thank city staff for their cooperation and constructive review of their project. In particular, Tobin, been great, along with everybody else, so thank you. Their feedback has materially improved the project's design, and we appreciate the time that they've devoted to this project. Quick note, real quick, on the 4C. So 4C was actually the family brand for the Consoli family, who previously owned this property. So naming this neighborhood 4C Ranch pays tribute to that family and a long ties to this land, recognizing its history as we transition into a new neighborhood here in Manteca. So 4C Ranch is thoughtfully planned 19.7 acre single family neighborhood proposed for 68 for sale homes and a 2.09 acre neighborhood park. The site is situated adjacent to the existing Diamond Oaks neighborhoods to the west, and this plan connects to the existing streets so that the new homes will just feel like a natural extension of the community. In addition, it's immediately adjacent to the city limit line as it exists. So what makes this project special? First, it delivers high quality, for sale housing that aligns with the demand for larger, less dense lots, as is more prevalent in recently constructed residential developments. This provides for the opportunity for home sites, which provide for larger yards, providing space for growing families. Second, it provides meaningful community benefits. An on-site park designated for both active and passive uses, widening of louise avenue, including pedestrian bicycle improvements landscaping along the project frontage and internal sidewalks that are intended to promote safe walkable streets. louise avenue widening will be completed up front prior to any homes being occupied no that's a really important thing for the city and we agree, and we will ensure that that's complete. Third, the project is required to pay its fair share for infrastructure and ongoing services and will be annexed to the citywide community facility service district to ensure long-term maintenance and public safety funding. The project's fiscal analysis clearly demonstrates that upon build-out, the city will see a net positive fiscal benefit once this project's completed. Paper stuck together there you go. So from a design perspective we took great care to create a plan that emphasized connectivity neighborhood quality. Streets tie into existing stubs roadways around the park were designed with some curvature and will also include traffic calming and this will control speed and then also provide some visual appeal to the main entrance to the neighborhood. Project provides over 1,200 square feet of park area per home to serve the families and neighbors and includes elements such as multiple play areas, shaded seating for gatherings, and multipurpose courts. We chose basketball and pickleball. But the 1,200 square feet per unit is significant because it far exceeds any ratios that we've seen in any recent subdivisions. Very important to us. So in closing, we believe 4C Ranch delivers a very well-planned neighborhood that will bring quality homes, usable open space, transportation improvements, and a positive contribution to Manteca. For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the annexation, pre-zoning to R1, and tentative subdivision map. We agree with the conditions of approval presented, with the exception of an engineering condition number 22, which relates to the need for a traffic signal at the project entrance. However, more of a clarification, and we're confident that we're continuing to work with staff, we are right now, that we'll have the language dialed in by the time we get to city council, as we've worked with staff for the past 80 years in Manteca. So with that, I want to thank you, Chair Coleman, and the commissioners, and I'm happy to answer any questions. And we do have Sean with MCR Engineering available if you have any more technical questions as well. So with that, thank you.

Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Okay. At this time, I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing on this item at 6.20 p.m. Anyone wishing to speak on this matter is not required to provide their name, but may do so for the record. Madam Clerk, are there any hands raised on Zoom or any comment cards on this item?

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

Okay, thank you. Any members of the audience wishing to address the commission on this item may do so now. Okay. Seeing none, Before we close the public hearing, I would like to ask if any commissioners have any questions for the applicant. Commissioner Mendoza.

Looking at the figure seven on the staff report, I noticed that the intersection, it appears that it doesn't line up with the section of Vasconcelos to the south. There's an offset. Is there a reason? Maybe I'm visually looking at it from a standpoint that it's too small.

You're talking about the north-south road as it crosses Louise? I don't believe there, it should line up 100%, so it might just be.

Can you pull it up? Yeah. So I can see it.

It's kind of hard to see the, there's nothing on the wrong side.

I'm just looking at this staff report and I see this. that the center of the road to the south lines up with the west edge of the sidewalk to the north?

Well, my engineer is probably going to kill me for saying this, but I think the intent will be that the center line of the roads line up. There may be some differences in width, but they should be the same, and that's the intent. And we can make sure that we massage that. Am I getting a nod? There you go. Good engineer.

OK, thank you, sir. Any other questions from the Commission for the applicant at this time? Commissioner Paslack? Commissioner Jimenez?

I have a question about the traffic study. My understanding, there was one recently done.

There was a traffic study done, yes. It's part of the environmental.

OK. That pretty much is one of the reasons why you're not doing one, why you're not agreeing to that one condition of approval.

I'm sorry, what was the question?

You agreed to all the conditions of approval except for the one about the traffic?

Yeah, we just need to clarify the language because it kind of relates to future and how it gets implemented in the future and additional traffic studies. But again, it's just more clarification at this point.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. Vice Chair Jimenez, any questions for the applicant? Commissioner Fiore?

Not for the applicant.

Thank you very much. This time we'll go ahead and close the public hearing on this item at 6.23 p.m. We'll bring it back to the Commission for deliberation and any follow-up questions to staff. Commissioner Fiore, please.

I was waiting for Commissioner Mendoza.

Where do I start?

In the staff report, on page 14 of the 16, we talk about reaching decision of a tentative subdivision map. City Council shall consider the design of subdivision as it provides for future passive and natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision. We talked about natural breezes, I believe. Was there ever any discussion about solar panels? On the residence, on the housing?

No discussion. However, the homes are all required to meet or exceed Title 24 energy efficiency. I believe California building code requires all homes to be wired for solar and if they cannot meet Title 24, they have to provide solar. I believe that's what the code requires. There's no actual conversation about solar on the homes. It's just they're expected to meet or exceed Title 24. If they can't meet 24, they have to provide solar for the homes.

If I may, Commissioner. Brad Willink, Director of Development Services. These homes will, as part of the energy calculations for the home, as Tobin mentioned, as part of Title 24, require solar. The more restrictive that the energy code becomes, that option really isn't there anymore. So you'll see more things like solar. You'll see electric heat pumps. There's a lot of different energy-efficient appliances that will be required as part of it.

Right, okay.

I guess to answer more clearly, thank you, Director, one luck. There really wasn't a discussion because it's almost a, it's a foregone conclusion for pretty much every home developer now.

I just wanted to make sure, I didn't see it and I've seen it in other ones, and it's come out before, so thank you for that. Under the Climate Action Plan conformance, I appreciated the action number one where you're talking about Eight-foot sidewalks. Two people can actually walk side by side. How lovely. And a five-foot wide class two bike path along the roadway parallel to the vertical curb. Thank you for that. I really appreciate that. Then we go on on page 15 to 16. We're talking about areas designated as safe routes to school to show pedestrian bike improvements. And so I thought, oh, planning hat went on there. I took a look at the map. And when they called out the New Haven Elementary School over to the east and then the East Union High School that's on the other side of the 99. So I did a little mapping on that and I noticed that the elementary school is almost two miles away and the high school is about three miles away. And we're out in the county. So I guess I'm asking where are the possible safe routes to school paths going to be And what facilities are we going to, I would assume that would be on the city. What would we be considering facilities to make it a safe route to school? Especially going over the 99 or around it, however. So I was concerned about that.

Yeah, those are difficult questions, and thank you for bringing that up. I actually did contact the school district to kind of ask those same questions. The closest elementary school, they didn't assign this project to that school or vice versa. Because of impact on the existing schools, they sent them to New Haven. I guess there's less impact on that school for any elementary students from this neighborhood, East Union being the closest high school then. And yeah, you have to cross over the freeway. And so I asked them and they really, unfortunately there's not a whole lot of infrastructure on this side of town. The addition of the bike paths is a part of that. The addition of the sidewalk is a part of that. However, a complete safe path to the school, I just wasn't able to see it myself. So I did speak about the fact that the school district assessed the plan themselves. They assigned the schools themselves and they agreed to the soundness of the plan of the subdivision, its location. So we entrust that to them and we just detail the information that we can provide. But as far as is there a clear, safe pathway from this subdivision to New Haven or to East Union, yeah, I had a hard time finding that myself, honestly.

Thank you, I appreciate it. It's a bit of a stretch and I guess I just caution to be putting that in the staff report. It just doesn't, there's no connexus for me at all on that at all. And one last thing before I give up my spot here on the TS. We're talking about moderate and above moderate income homes. And I know in our RHNA numbers we have pretty high goals for that above moderates about 40% and moderates about 16, 17%. How close are we to meeting those goals with these 68 homes? Do we know? You may not have that on the top of your head.

I do not know. Maybe deputy director or director may have some idea on those numbers, but I myself am not familiar with that.

don't have that information at this time that certainly will be provided to the Commission prior to or in close timing with our annual progress report to the state okay great because I know we're we seem to be doing quite a lot of that and I understand the balance the city has to do moderate above moderate brings in revenue very low and low doesn't

knock the ball out of the park but we also need to address that too so thank you end of my comments thank you commissioner fiore mr mendoza i have a few you know there's 68 homes in this development i think i remember 68 but you know i'm assuming manteca is going to keep on expanding east That overcross, you know, 99's been there since probably 1940. What's the plan for that as we get bigger? Can somebody just sort of, I know it's sort of not really connected to this, but to me it is, because people want to get to the shopping centers of Manteca. You know, you have the access to get onto 120, come in that way, or go over 99. So what, any future plans?

Yeah, Commissioner, good question. I am not familiar that we have any plans for that overcrossing at this time in our long-range planning, but it's something that we'll definitely have to keep in mind as the east side continues to develop. The level of service, if you will, as far as the traffic volumes that we see on there now, Other than some short-duration peaks, we are not seeing any significant congestion, if you will, or low level of service, as we refer to it. But I think it's a point well taken. It's something to keep in mind. Okay.

Thank you, Mike. So that intersection with Vasconcelos, So the area of benefit is for a future signal at that point when it's warranted based on volume and is that what's probably gonna happen here?

Yes, Commissioner Mendoza. The question regarding the signal at Vasconcelos? Yes. So what our condition basically requires is the applicant to do a cumulative traffic analysis at the intersection. There are several other residential developments that we're aware of, and as you can see on their site plan or map, that there are streets stubbed both to the east and north, so there's additional development planned there. There's also a couple of other developments to the south that are planned, and so we want them to take a look at that intersection, and if it's not warranted, that's fine, but there would be an area of benefit, and this project and those others would be conditioned to participate in that area of benefit.

though it'll probably open up with stop controls on Vasconcellos and no control on Luis.

Yeah, I don't want to speculate just yet. I mean, timing, you never know on these things, and if the others come in all at once or something like that, likely the case, I would say, likely two-way stop control on Vasconcellos, correct.

Okay, thank you.

That's all I have. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Pasluck, any questions for staff? Vice Chair Jimenez, any questions for staff?

No, no.

I just have a couple. Mr. Barnum, in the staff report, it references loss of farmland to statewide significance as it relates to this annexation. Can you confirm for the record, has LAFCO or any county agencies expressed any concern about this in this area for this project?

Chair Coleman, no they have not. They were a part of the distribution and project routing for this. We had some email and phone conversations with them. There were no concerns at all. This project has been in the queue for about four, almost five years by this point. So there's been a lot of thought, a lot of review, a lot of consideration on this project. Two different LAFCO directors have looked at it. But they have expressed no concern for the loss of statewide significant farmland.

Very good. And this might be for Mr. Selling. The applicant referenced the traffic signal condition as something he believes that can be worked out with the engineering department. Can you just state for the record your perspective on that? And do you feel like this can be worked out prior to city council hearing this item?

Yes, Chair, I would say the Engineering Department, our perspective is that this could be worked out as well.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Those are all my questions. Any other comments from the Commission? Yes, sir.

Just one.

Commissioner Fiore first.

Go ahead.

Blindside. Do we know about when after these four years and whenever that the project will actually break ground? not complete because that's dependent on a lot of factors, but.

Sure, yeah, I don't know that there's any way to know that. We still have to go, should the commission decide to recommend approval, would have to go to the city council. There'd have to be a second council hearing and then a LAFCO hearing. before there could be any consideration for moving then on to improvement plan review. So it's gonna be a while yet. We're fairly early in the process, but I am sure after all this time, the folks at Ramus are itching to put the shovels in the ground over there. I'm sure as soon as they're able to, they will.

Thank you, and appreciate their patience and yours. That's all.

Commissioner Mendez. This is just a question for, I guess, my education. This is zoned ag right now in the county. Correct?

Yes, that's correct.

So when you take it out of ag use, is there a COG fee that is paid by the developer to take that and put it into residential?

There are ag mitigation fees, I believe, that are in place. Director Wong-Luck, would you like to speak to that?

There's two fees that the applicant would need to pay in regards to this. First of all, there's a habitat fee that goes directly to SJCOG. And then the second fee is the agricultural mitigation fee, which helps offset the loss of that farmland as well. So there's two fees, both kind of similar in nature. One goes to the county and then one to the city, and it's a pass-through to a trust. Okay, thank you.

Any other comments before we go ahead?

I have one. Yes. Or a question, I guess. So it looks like the land that's being proposed to be swapped over, it looks like it's currently not farmed. Is that correct? There's no crop or anything growing there now. So now we're going to have a development, right, up against, you know, trees and farming. So is there any consideration to the effects of the farming now being close to, the homes and is that surveyed at all or looked at?

So that's not uncommon here in Manteca, obviously. All of the homes have the disclosure when they purchase the homes that they are adjacent to the agricultural uses. With that being said, myself living in somewhat close proximity to agriculture uses, the good part about this subdivision is providing winds are going to be heading east. So they shouldn't see as much impact as some of our other developments in town. I don't know if that answers your question, but.

Commissioner, if I just may add, condition number 25 under planning conditions does require the developer to prepare and file a right to farm covenant on the property, which would advise the property owners that they are within surrounding farmland as well.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, I'd just make the comment that, you know, this coming into an LDR low density residential housing with relatively large lot sizes versus a high density situation is probably received very welcomely by a lot of the community. Also, I think the applicant made reference to the benefits from the CFDs and the community facilities district fees and the 60-40 property tax split. There's a lot of financial benefits for the community with this project and this development to help kind of pay the way for the growth that we're going to see here. So I think with our jurisdiction to recommend this to city council, I think it's time to call for a vote. Do we have a motion?

I move to approve.

We have a second.

You already second?

We have a motion from Vice Chair Jimenez and a second from Commissioner Fiore, to adopt a resolution recommending that City Council find the 4C Rance Annexation Project exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section 15183 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, approve annexation ANX21-25, authorizing staff to initiate annexation proceedings for APN208080-10, and by ordinance approved pre-zone, PRZ 21-26 assigning APN 208-080-10 with an R1 one family dwelling pre-zone designation by amending the zoning map set forth in Section 17.20-040 of Chapter 17.20 of Title 17 of the Manteca Municipal Code and adopt the resolution recommending that the City Council approve a tentative parcel map, TSM 21-24, for 68 single-family residential lots, including associated open space and public improvements, for the 4C Ranch Annexation Project, located at 9683 East Louise Avenue, APN 208-080-10. All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Thank you very much. All right, Madam Clerk, that will take us to Item C-2.

Item C-2, 26-110, Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and consider the following. One, adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council find the URN Tractor Supply and Dutch Bros Project exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section 15061B3, and 15332 of the CEQA guidelines and approve a specific plan amendment, SPP 25-18, application to adopt an ordinance amending section C4, permitted uses and development standards, and C41, permitted land use summary resources table of the Union Ranch specific plan of subsection C1, of section 17.28.020 relating to specific plan SP zoning district of title 17 of the Manteca Municipal Code And two, adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve a lot line adjustment, LLA 25-18, a minor use permit, MUP 25-18-1, for a drive-in and drive-through, minor use permit, MUP 25-18-2, for a gardening and landscape supply retail store, and a site plan and design review, SPR 25-18, for the development of an approximately 4.43 acre site located at 2160 2170, and 2180 North Union Road, APN 197-240-04, 197-240-05, 197-240-06 for the URN Tractor Supply and Dutch Bros Project. Associate Planner Saul Jobrak will be presenting this item.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. Saul Jobrak, Associate Planner with Development Services. This evening, I will be presenting the Union Ranch North Tracker Supply and Dutch Bros Project located at 2160, 2170, and 2180 North Union Road. The proposed project includes a specific plan amendment, a lot line adjustment, a site plan and design review, and two minor use permits for the development of approximately 4.43 acres within the Union Ranch specific plan area. The site is located on the west side of North Union Road, approximately 200 feet north of West Lathrop Road. The proposed development includes a 21,702-square-foot tractor supply retail store with approximately 18,570 square feet of enclosed outdoor display area and a 950-square-foot Dutch Bros quick-serve restaurant with a drive-thru. The surrounding land uses include low-density single-family residential to the north, the tidewater landing apartments, SSJID pump station and storage tanks to the east, the existing Woodbridge Center east shopping center to the south, and vacant commercial mixed-use land to the west. The site represents the final undeveloped commercial pads directly north of the existing shopping center. The site has a commercial mixed use general plan designation. This designation typically allows for retail, commercial, employment centers, offices, and high density residential. Regarding zoning, the project site is located within the Union Ranch specific plan and has a commercial mixed use designation. The Union Ramp specific plan states that the intent of this designation is to serve as the centralized commercial hub of the plan area, primarily serving nearby residents. Staff finds that the proposed gardening and landscape supply retail store and quick service restaurant with a drive-through use is consistent with the general plan goals including land goal use LU-3 and policy LU-P-49 which supports infill development. The Union Ranch specific plan currently requires a conditional use permit for gardening and landscape supply and does not allow drive-in or drive-through uses as a primary use. The specific plan amendment proposes to establish a minor use permit as a permitted entitlement type. Additionally, the amendment includes allowing drive-in and drive-through uses subject to a minor use permit and changing the gardening and landscape supply retail use from a conditional use permit to a minor use permit. This modification provides a regulatory oversight while streamlining the process and maintaining consistency with comparable zoning districts in the city. Currently, the project site consists of three parcels. The proposed lot line adjustment will reconfigure the properties into two parcels. Parcel one, approximately one acre for the proposed Dutch Bros and parcel two, approximately 3.4 acres for the proposed tracker supply. This adjustment does not increase density or development potential and maintains compliance with the specific plan and Subdivision Map Act. Shared access and cross access agreements with the existing shopping center to the south will ensure cohesive circulation with Lathrop Road, North Union Road, and within the shopping center. For the site plan and design review, parcel one will contain the 950 square foot Dutch Bros building. Parcel two will contain a 21,702 square foot retail store with approximately 18,500 square feet of fenced and enclosed outdoor display area. Additionally, sidewalk trailer and equipment display areas are also proposed. The site includes a total of 96 parking spaces, Access to both sites is available from two entrance points on North Union Road along with two existing access points on East Lathrop Road through the existing shopping center. The drive-through stacking lane is designed to accommodate up to 32 vehicles without impacting internal circulation. Additionally, the site promotes pedestrian pathways throughout the project and to the existing shopping center to the south. The project landscaping includes trees along the north and south property lines, full landscaping along the eastern property line and shade trees within the parking areas. The site also includes enhanced landscaping along the north union road frontage. These improvements enhance the streetscape and support community development policy CD8 related to visual quality along arterial roadways. The architecture is consistent with the existing Woodbridge shopping center to the south. Materials include cement plaster, exterior walls, Eldorado stone accents, and decorative metal wall panels. The design includes articulated facades and varied roof forms to provide visual interest and compatibility with the surrounding development. Staff finds that the architecture establishes a cohesive and compatible design concept. Two minor use permits are requested. Minor use permits allow the city to ensure compatibility and address operational concerns while recognizing these uses are expected to have minimal impacts. Minor use permit one requests a Dutch Brothers drive-through QSR. The permit will also include a 32 vehicle stacking capacity in the drive-through. staff-managed ordering queues, and a small outdoor seating area for customers who are walking within the shopping center. Minor use permit two is for the tractor supply retail store, which includes outdoor display areas integrated into the site design, and two accessory structures including a forage shed and a live goods center, which is also located within the enclosed area. The proposed hours of operation for the entire site are 5 a.m. to 11 p.m. These hours are typically associated with the Dutch Bros use, while tractor supply is typically more aligned with an 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. schedule. Both tenants anticipate a total of approximately 15 to 30 employees per shift, and the project includes shared access and reciprocal parking agreements with the existing shopping center to the south. Additionally, the project site will utilize existing municipal infrastructure and utilities. A total of 162 conditions of approval are included. Key conditions include limiting Dutch Brothers operating hours from 5 a.m. to 11 p.m., prohibiting stacking into the city right-of-way, requiring secure outdoor display storage, limiting tractor supplies noise levels to city standards of 55 at property lines outside of operating hours. These conditions ensure that compatibility with the surrounding residential uses. The project was noticed to property owners within 500 feet and published in the Manteca Bulletin. Staff has, when this was presented to you all, staff had received one comment related to the Dutchboro's elevation page. That was one of the supplementals tonight with the stone that was changed on the front of it. Additionally, staff received an email late this afternoon related to traffic southbound on South Union Road. Mr. Selling is available to answer any questions if you have anything specific related to that. no other comments were received related to the project. The project qualifies for CEQA exemptions under section 15061B3, the common sense exemption, section 15332, the infill development exemption, and section 15303C, small structures related to the Dutch Bros. The environmental memorandum dated November 6th, 2025, and included in your packet as a attachment, confirms that the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Based on the finding in the staff report, staff recommends that the planning commission recommend that the city council find the project exempt from CEQA and approve the specific plan amendment and recommend approval of the lot line adjustment, site plan and design review and both minor use permits. Staff finds that the project is consistent with the general plan, the Union Ranch specific plan and the Manteca municipal code. That concludes staff's presentation. Staff is available for questions. Additionally, the applicant is present and would like to make a few comments and could answer questions as well, should the commission have any questions for them. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Jobeck. At this time, do any commissioners have any clarifying questions for staff on this item?

Commissioner yeah, I have a question about the change in use permits from conditional to minor What are the ramifications of changing that and why does it need to be changed?

So the reason for that is the use, when we described it, the landscaping and supply was from the old ordinance. That had a different definition, a more impactful definition. It had more outdoor use related to it, the landscape and gardening. So when we looked at this one, having to use old use type definitions, there wasn't really one for a big box retail like this. So this one most aligned to it, and we recognized that the impacts would not be as great as the other one. So while we had the document open, the specific plan to open for making the addition of the drive-through, we felt that this was more appropriate with the use.

The Union Ranch specific plan, what does that encompass right now? Is it this commercial area and the housing track behind it?

Everything to the north, some portion on the other side of Union. It's an area boundary that's north. And that document is available on our website and can be provided to you as well.

Thank you. Commissioner Fiore.

Staff, Saul, when you were showing your presentation, there was a map there that showed the walking paths. Could you bring that up? They were outlined in yellow.

Thank you, Commissioner. Yes, this was an ad that I wanted to be able to recognize that there were paths within that showed access to the existing shopping center of the South, and then that allowed you to recognize complete paths around all the uses in the event of public market access.

The one that catches my eye is the one that's going right through the car queues.

Yes, if I removed that, that is meant for the sidewalk to the north of it. Typically, these type of drive-through uses will have a break in the drive-through use for people to walk through.

The cars aren't moving that fast, I'm sure.

They are not, and hopefully the people out there taking their orders are putting their hands up and getting in the way.

I've seen them at the other location. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other clarifying questions at this time?

One more. Yes. The wall between the residence to the north and this project, is there already a CMU there?

There is an existing wall there. Additionally, the applicant will be putting in landscaping there. Our ordinance requires a landscaping strip and adjacent to residential uses, and they will have to meet landscaping requirements. Additionally, trees will go there and provide additional.

So the current wall is going to stay the way it is then?

Yes.

And I had one follow-up question. One of the conditions is that there's a traffic light put in there. So is it going to go from, I guess, the drive-in area to the development that's now going to be across the street to the west?

I'm going to allow Deputy Director Selling to answer the lights question.

Commissioner, yes, the traffic signal will go in on that north driveway at Union where you can see the access would be to the commercial development proposed, or pending maybe is a better word, on the west side there. Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Mendoza.

You know, to the north of this, there's two parcels. and it looks like there's a couple of single family residents on it. What is that zone in the future?

My understanding, I believe that is CMU. I think there are two lots to the immediate north the specific plan identifies as CMU.

Okay, so then this development doesn't have to put a black wall between the existing two homes and the northern boundary of this project?

Our ordinance does not require CMU walls.

But there is two homes there.

There are two. No, no, even with residential. I think our ordinance only requires a CMU wall related to it in residential and adjacent to industrial uses, not commercial. Deputy Director Orozco can correct me if I'm wrong.

Commissioners, I'm looking at currently at a street view, and it looks like there is a fence wall at this time, or a fence, a wooden fence. Completely up to your discretion, I would recommend the commission consider a recommendation to include a CMU wall. subject to applicant in attendance.

Mayor, if I may, the two parcels north that you were referring to are within the CMU zoning, so that might be the reason that there's also not the wall at that location. There would be a potential wall between the residential and CMU at the future, though. So that's the other thing to consider, I think.

The question wasn't meant that I felt they should put one in. I just wanted to clarify that That boundary to the north of this project is abutting two homes that's zoned for future commercial. Correct. So that wall, maybe it'd be there for six months and then they're going to tear it out.

Yes, yes, Commissioner.

I wouldn't recommend it, but that's...

Commissioner Mendoza, if I may ask, we were having a sidebar conversation just confirming that there is the current wood fence at that location. However, because the CMU is consistent between the two parcels, the wall wouldn't be required at that location.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Any other questions at this time before we hear from the applicant? The applicant here tonight will get your five-minute clock ready. If you could please state your name and title for the record, too.

Of course. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Scott Patterson, California Gold Development. It's good to be with you tonight. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, thank you for your consideration of our tractor supply and Dutch Bros project at Woodbridge East Shopping Center. And so I just want to make a couple comments. You've heard a lot about the project already, and I'll keep my comments short. But we've been a preferred developer for tractor supply for about 20 years. We've built and developed approximately 30. Our lease is signed with tractor supply, so you can have a high degree of confidence this will get built. The same with Dutch Bros. We've developed many Dutch Bros. Our leases are signed. And so we're ready to go. We're also the general contractor on the job, so you can have a high degree of confidence that we'll complete the job in a really nice fashion. Our company's been in business for over 45 years. So Tractor Supply is a Fortune 500 company, very strong. This year, they're going to reach a big milestone, 2,500 stores nationwide, which is great. They're the premier farm and ranch retailer in the United States. They sell everything from pet food to fence posts to utility trailers, ATVs, you name it. Anything to do with your home, they pretty much sell it. Very successful company. They also employ between 15 and 25 employees, and so that's a good thing. With regard to Dutch Pros, they have about 1,100 stores nationwide now, and we've worked diligently with staff to get the stacking right in the drive-thru. We started with about 20 to 22 stacks, and we thought that was okay, but the city staff wanted more, and we shifted tractor supply to the east. We actually lost one buildable pad on the far east of the project to accommodate making the Dutch Bros parcel larger so we can accommodate the 32 cars stacked in the drive-through. So that's a good design. It's going to work well. And Dutch Bros has a good plan in place and operations plan to handle any overflow as well. And that's in the conditions. As well as with regard to traffic, the new stoplight at North Union and the northern encroachment will be installed in conjunction with while we're building this project and get it opened up. We're already in design on that stoplight and working with city engineering to make sure that all gets right, timed right and everything. So that's a full access stoplight and it will, I think your comment was access into Woodbridge West. And so that stoplight will make that work well over there as well. So with that, I certainly ask for your support tonight. The specific plan amendment, the minor use permit, along with the lot line adjustment, design review, and also approval of our site plan. And so I'm here to answer any questions. I'm happy to do so. Thank you for your support.

Thank you, sir. And just to confirm for the record, have you read the conditions of approval as presented in agreement with those conditions?

Yes, sir, and we are in agreement.

Perfect.

Thank you, sir. You bet.

All right. Very good, at this time we'll go ahead and open the public hearing on this item at 7 p.m. Anyone wishing to speak on this matter is not required to provide their name but may do so for the record. Madam Clerk, are there any hands raised on Zoom for this item or any comment cards?

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

Thank you very much. Anybody in the audience wish to address the commission on this item may do so now. Okay, seeing none. Commissioners, do you have any questions for the applicant before we close the public hearing? Commissioner? Oh, you're good. Okay. No questions for the applicant at this time?

No, I do have a comment for the applicant, though. I do appreciate you mentioning the employees that are going to be working there and the numbers. We've heard quite a few presentations, and I think that's one part that's missing, is to think about who can be employed in these businesses that we're at. So I appreciate you mentioning that. Thank you.

I just have one question for the applicant. Judging by the, well, first of all, let me commend you on the decision to sacrifice, let's say, a structure for the stacking. I think that's notable. I'm a resident of Southwest Manteca and drive by the Dutch Bros location daily on Airport in Atherton, and 30 cars is not uncommon at that site. people like their Dutch brothers. And I guess, should real world change and that stack become insufficient for some reason, is there a contingency plan or is there any idea what you can do to kind of mitigate some of those issues? Should they become a concern later down the road?

Yeah, thank you for the question. We did spend a lot of time thinking about that and talking with our tenant about it. They do have an operations plan, and I do believe it's in the document somewhere where if it were to spill out of the drive-through, that they would force it not to be spilling out onto Union, but within the center. And there is a plan for that. There's two directions to go. It is a double drive-through, and this is not a freeway location either, and so that is important to remember. They do get busy. We all know that. And so that's why we spent a lot of time. It actually took a fair amount of time and design to get 32 in that stack. Property wasn't quite working just right. That's why we expanded to the, or pushed tractor supply to the east, which gave us a lot more room. So they do have an operations plan. Their staff will be out in the drive-through and in the other areas to force the cars, pardon me, force the cars into the center. The stoplight will help as well on Union, full access. There's also four ways in and out of the center. You've got to remember this is an existing center that has access from Lathrop and obviously Union as well. So there's good cross-circulation. Very good. Thank you, sir. You bet.

Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant before we close the public hearing?

No?

Okay. We'll close the public hearing on this item at 7.03 p.m. Bring it back to Commission for deliberation and staff questions. Anybody have any questions for Staff Commissioner Mendoza? I have questions.

I think the picture you showed that had the paths, the accessible paths. They're gonna be ADA compliant to get in the entire area, correct? Thank you, Commissioner.

Yes, the all internal circulation will be required to meet California building code.

Okay. So I read the staff report and it mentions there's gonna be an agreement between the people within the center for access

Thank you, Commissioner. Yes, so actually there's an existing document that's already in place and was provided to staff that will meet the, they're being conditioned that will meet that condition that allows for shared parking. So if there's any need for Dutch Bros, they exceed their parking onto one of the adjacent sites. That agreement is in place and accounts for that. That document's already been recorded and in place.

Okay, because that property line falls like in one of the drive aisles. The eastbound is that parcel, the westbound is another parcel, so that clarifies that forever.

That document is a legal and binding document for all occupants of that shopping center to the new one and the existing one.

You know, this is just a, I'm not going to say it. I think your elevations are not right. The east-west on the Dutch Bros, I don't think they're correct. Maybe I don't know where north is. I don't know, but I think they're not right. So the access is off of Latrop Road. I know there's that one out of that center that comes out right there by the McDonald's drive-thru, and that's only right in, right out. And as you drive a little bit east, there's a sort of like some channelizers that are glued down that allow left in if you're traveling eastbound. The left movement out from there going eastbound. Well, east, you cannot make that left-hand turn. So is that going to stay like that? Because the area opposite this center is getting developed. I mean, I think we looked at it about a year ago in the planning commission related to a gas station and some restaurants or drive-thrus and stuff like that. So what's happening with that intersection?

Thank you, Commissioner. At this time, I'm going to defer to Deputy Director Sellings.

Commissioner, just so I understand the question, when you say the intersection, you're talking about the one with the channelizers, correct, that allows only left in and no left out? Correct. That is to remain. So that was additional measure that was put in probably within the last year or so to address an accident issue that we were having there. So we do not see that changing. Okay.

When the development occurs on the south side of Lathrop at that point, it'll basically stay the same, Mike?

We anticipate that, but we would, you know, defer to what we see from that, but I would expect that not to change, correct.

Okay, thanks.

Because it was really an egress accident issue from the car wash that caused it, so.

The... I think these are conditions of approval, and it says streets in the city shall reimburse developer for any cost in excess of $650,000 for the installation of the traffic signal. What's the engineer's estimate of that traffic signal? I think this is the new one to the north?

Correct. My understanding is the estimate is about $950,000, so we're looking at a difference of about $300,000.

And if it comes out that high, Mike, anything over 650, we're reimbursing the developer?

That's correct.

Why are we reimbursing the developer?

My understanding is that was an economic development decision, so I don't know anything more than that.

Okay. Okay. I remember that when I worked at the county and I'd go to these board meetings, there was always a board member that always asked the question, is this development gonna pay for itself? And it sounds like this one here is gonna get about 350,000 from somebody other than the developer. So it doesn't sound like it's paying for itself.

Commissioner, if I may, this signal also ties into the project of the West. So each of those projects will be paying their PFIP fees related to transportation. To your point, though, yes, there is a $300,000 difference with regards to PFIP reimbursements on this initial project. Okay.

Is, you know, I've gone to a number of these in the area here, and the one that's closest to us is the one in Ripon. Is that, this one here, Matty, gonna be about the same size?

The Ripon store is a very similar size. This one here is about 22,000. Ripon is somewhere probably around 19. I didn't build that one. But it's probably about 19,000 square feet in Ripon with about a 15,000 square foot outdoor display. That was the prototype back when they did that deal. This one's about 22,000 square foot store. in about, you know, just a little under 20,000 square feet of outdoor display. And do you mind if I address a couple things that you mentioned earlier? Sure. With regard to the fees, I just want to, you know, this is at least a $10 to $12 million project. Okay, we've got to build a building, all the streets and everything. We're going to pay over a million dollars in fees just to the city of Manteca. In addition, we're contributing the $650,000 to that stoplight, which Can't be just born on the back of just these two projects here. The whole shopping center is already done. You got Woodbridge West and so on and so forth. And so it's a significant amount of money to contribute to the project. In addition to that, this project's been sitting vacant for a very long time. And, you know, I think it's at least 15 years when the CVS was done, maybe longer. And so now we're bringing property tax, sales tax revenue, employees and so on and so forth. So it's my opinion that the economic impact is significant and that it will more than cover the $300,000 the city's investing in that stoplight. Plus I think it's safer for everybody too.

So that's my opinion.

I hope that answers the question.

Thank you for those answers. I know then I don't have to go to Stockton anymore to buy chicken feet and go right down the road.

Yeah, that's great. We hope you're a customer there. They're a great retailer. They really are. Thank you. Yeah, you bet.

Thank you, Commissioner. Any other questions for staff tonight? I have a couple things. It might be for Mr. Selling. With the traffic signal going in on the north end of this project, are there any concerns with the proximity to the traffic signal on Lathrop and Union? It seems to be relatively short distance.

Yes, Chair, that is a shorter distance than typical, so definitely agree with your observation there. And so the condition will require the applicant, their engineer, as was noted, is already under design, but it will need to be coordinated with the signal timing for a Lathrop signal as well to ensure that we have the safe flow of traffic through there, so inefficient.

And are there going to be, specific to this project, any enhancements for Union Road between Lathrop and that traffic signal, or immediately north of that traffic signal? Are there any lane widenings, lane adjustments, protected turns, anything related to that?

So the project itself, as far as the traffic signal configuration, based on the analysis that they do, it will have some potential impact as far as geometry on the turn lane. But as far as the footprint of the roadway, no, there's no widening or addition of lanes or anything.

Okay, because there's a shared turn lane, I believe, centering Union. Correct. North to south. And there was a concern expressed by a member of the public as it relates to this being in Manteca Fire District for a Manteca Fire District frequently using this road, Union Road, to service community members northwest of this project in multiple developments. Is there any concern with stacking of Union Road coming southbound from the north to make a left turn into this new development on Union Road heading east? In the sense that is there a protection in case that lane backs up from that light that would be installed?

Yes, as part of, again, part of that analysis, that's what they'll look at as far as how much queuing space do we need for that left turn movement. Okay. And I think I'm familiar with the comment that you're referring to for particularly the fire access into the commons. Yes. Yes. And so that is something that we will definitely look at. It could warrant a keep clear zone. Yeah. To allow you know for ingress egress to the Commons without queues backing up and blocking that access So that was gonna be my next question is would there be a keep clear zone because I think that might be the solve That would help that yeah, I would say potentially yeah, we will definitely consider that yeah, and I might even recommend a city signage talking about the

fines associated with blocking an intersection to help even better enhance that visibility for the members, for the public driving southbound on that road. One question for Mr. Joburg. As it relates to this transition from conditional use to minor use, would this set a new precedent for projects in this area as it relates to the drive-in, drive-through in the specific plan in the Union Ranch area? Could it result in other businesses that are currently entitled and operating requesting revisions to a minor use permit?

Staff doesn't believe so. Most of the commercial pads are built out. There is a vacant pad across the street to the West, which had a project that expired. So in the event, I guess, a drive-through were to go in there, they'd be required to do a minor use permit. However, they would still be held to any impacts that that project may bring in. So we would review those at the time of application.

Thank you. And with the lot line adjustment, obviously, creating two parcels here, are both independently certified for fire coverage utilities, everything, so they're separate and independent lots, or do they require shared access for anything?

The project was referred to the fire department for comment. They conditioned that the project have reviewed it in its current configuration and didn't comment with any concerns with that. Very good. Thank you. Appreciate that.

Any other questions for staff? Yes, sir.

The signal that you're referring to on Union, is that going to be basically triggered from the side streets? Is it going to basically stay green until somebody triggers it from the entrances?

So typically on signals in an intersection similar or such as this, you would see what we call a one direction or I should say both directions of one street that would get the predominant green time, if you will, or what we call Yeah, rest time, so if there's no demand from the cross-street driveways to the shopping areas, or the mixed-use commercial areas, I should say, if there's no demand there, then it should be deferring, agreeing to the Union Road.

Thank you, Commissioner. Any other questions? All right. I think it's time to call for a vote on this item. Do we have a motion?

Fiori motions to approve.

Do we have a second?

Second.

All right, we have a motion from Commissioner Fiori and a second from Commissioner Mendoza to adopt a resolution that City Council find the URN Tractor Supply and Dutch Bros Project exempt from further environmental review pursuant to section 15061 and 15332 of the CEQA guidelines and approve a specific plan amendment, SPP25-18, application to adopt an ordinance amending section C4, permitted uses and development standards, and C4.1, permitted land use summary resources table of the Union Ranch specific plan of subsection C1 of section 17.28.020, relating to specific plan SP zoning district of Title 17 of the Manteca Municipal Code, and adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve a lot line adjustment, LLA 25-18, a minor use permit, MUP 25-18-1, for a drive-in and drive-through minor use permit, MUP 25-18-2, for a gardening and landscape supply retail store, and a site plan and design review, SPR 25-18, for the development of an approximately 4.43 acre site located at 2160, 2170, and 2180 North Union Road, APN 197-240-04, 197-240-05, and 197-240-06 for the URN Tractor Supply and Desk Pros project with the amended sheet A4 and A5 of attachment seven included in the supplemental report two for this item. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Thank you very much. All right, Madam Clerk, item C-3 please.

Item C326-112, planning commission conduct a public hearing and consider finding the village at Villa Ticino project exempt from further environmental review pursuant to section 15183 of the California Environmental Quality Act and adopt a resolution approving a tentative parcel map TPM 24-05 to subdivide the project properly. A conditional use permit CUP 25-04 to allow for a hotel use a minor permit MUP 24-06 to allow for a fueling station and a car wash facility use, and a site plan and design review SPR 24-04 allowing for the development of a commercial shopping center on a 19.17 plus acre site consisting of nine structures including a hotel, fueling station with a car wash facility, a grocery store, and three quick services facilities. restaurants with drive-thrus located at 995 North Airport Portway, APN 198-160-28. Associate Planner Tobin Barnum will be presenting this item.

Well, good evening again, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the Commission again, Associate Planner Tobin Barnum. The request before the Commission tonight is to approve a tentative parcel map, conditional use permit, minor use permit, and a site plan review to allow the construction of a commercial shopping center at 995 North Airport Way. The request is for approval of an application to construct a commercial shopping center with a 110-room hotel, 40,000-square-foot grocery store, multiple retail restaurant suites and quick-serve restaurants, and a fueling station with a convenience store and car wash. The site is 19.17 acres in size and is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of West Louise Avenue and North Airport Way. The applicant requests four entitlements this evening. First, a tentative parcel map to divide the 19.17 acres into 11 commercial parcels. Second, the conditional use permit to allow a 110 room hotel A third, a minor use permit to allow for the fueling station and car wash use. And fourth, a site plan and design review for the entire commercial shopping center, which consists of nine structures, including a hotel, fueling station, grocery anchor, store, and three drive-through food facilities. The site is abutted to the north by MUSD school offices and facilities, and to the east by vacant commercial land and existing single family residential, that would be on the other side of Airport Way. Immediately east of the, pardon me, I had that backwards, I apologize. Immediately east is a parcel of vacant commercial land, and to the south is the Villa Ticino West subdivision, which is currently under construction. The site has a general plan land use designation of commercial neighborhood or NC and a zoning of commercial neighborhood CN. The definitions for both the designation and the zoning speak to the intent as neighborhood serving retail uses and specifically calls out restaurants, grocery stores, and service stations, all of which are proposed in this application. Part of this entitlement request is as a tentative parcel map. The 19.17 acre commercial site is to be divided, as we mentioned, into 11 commercial parcels, ranging from 0.57 acres in size to 2.99 acres in size. And each parcel will contain a separate, most of those parcels anyway, will contain a separate structure, but parcels nine and 11 will contain multi-suite retail spaces. And phase one consists of parcels one and two, and parcels three through 11 will make up phase two of the development. Conditional use permit is required for hotel, motel use in the commercial neighborhood CN zoning district. And a minor use permit is required for fueling stations, drive-through uses, and car washes in the CN zoning district. The commercial site is proposed to be developed in two phases. Phase one will be located on the corner of West Louise and North Airport Way, will contain a 6,500 square foot convenience store and fueling station, 7,000 square foot fueling canopy, and a 3,600 square foot car wash facility. Phase two will consist of 57,512 square foot 110 room hotel, 40,000 square foot grocery store, 6,000 square foot general retail space, a 14,899 square foot multi-suite general commercial space, two 4,300 square foot quick serve restaurants with drive-throughs, and a 12,000 square foot multi-suite general retail space also with a drive-through component. Parking will be shared throughout the complex, which is all located centrally in the complex with the buildings around the perimeter of the site. Vehicular site access is via three driveways on West Louise Avenue and three on North Airport Way. Four of these, two on each, are limited access. The three of them are right in, right out. One is right in only. And there's only one full access drive on either frontage. Non-vehicular access to the site will be primarily via a dedicated pedestrian pathway and outdoor courtyard, which is located in the southwest corner of the project. This pathway is directly connected to the sidewalk on Moscato Drive, allowing for walkability from the adjacent Villachino West subdivision. The rest of the site can be reached from the courtyard via accessible pathways, connecting it to all proposed structures and the two street frontages as well. Now these are representations of typical elevations proposed for the project. The buildings provide a clean modern look with articulated roof lines and facades on all elevations. The developer proposes a palette of mild earth tones and materials including stucco, burnished slate, and wood and batten sightings. Entrances are accentuated with metallic awnings and sconce lighting fixtures to make visitor access as easy as possible. Hours of operation and staffing may vary based on the different uses. As we mentioned, most of the vacant retail spaces, we don't know who the vendors will be as of yet. The hotel convenience store will operate 24 hours a day as is industry standard for those uses. The hotel anticipates 20 to 25 employees, and the convenience store expects to employ approximately six to eight people. And all other uses will determine their hours of operation and staffing once they secure tenants for those spaces. All uses and operations are subject to Manteca Municipal Code performance standards and noise standards as well. Conditions of approval, some of note, there's some conditions of note, but the applicant team would like to state that and staff have worked closely together to reconcile all the concerns that have been related to the conditions of approval. And based on the scale and scope of the project, We have conditioned the project accordingly. Staff would like to note that the conditions as presented are not just important to the project's development, but they also help implement fundamental general plan goals and policies. A public hearing notice was sent out to the Manteca Bulletin and physical notices were sent to the 97 addresses within the 500 feet radius of this project site. And as of the writing of this report, staff has received no written comments for the project. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, an environmental impact report was certified in the 2004 Villa Ticino West subdivision, which is clearinghouse number 2002-072-115. An addendum was adopted in 2015, that clearinghouse number 2003-112-106. The project was reviewed for consistency with both the EIR and EIR addendum pursuant to the requirements outlined in CEQA guidelines section 15162 and 15164. And the conclusion of the assessment is that the proposed project is an implementation of the approved Villa Ticino West development and is an implementation also of the general plan. The previous environmental review adequately covers the current proposal for the development of the 19.17 acre neighborhood commercial site and no additional environmental review is necessary. As detailed in attachment number one, letter of substantial conformance, the project as proposed and conditioned is consistent with the approved, adopted, and certified EIR and addendum for the Villatino West subdivision pursuant to CEQA section 15183, projects consistent with a community plan or zoning. The staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and deliberate and by motion find the Villa Ticino West project, Village of Villa Ticino, pardon me, project exempt from further environmental review pursuant to section 15183 of the California Environmental Quality Act and adopt a resolution approving a tentative parcel map, TPN 24-05, to subdivide the property, a conditional use permit, CUP 25-04, to allow for a hotel use, minor use permit, MUP 24-06, to allow for a fueling station, car wash use, and a site plan and design review, SPR 24-04, allowing for the development of a commercial shopping center on a 19.17 acre site consisting of nine structures, including a hotel, fueling station, car wash, grocery store, three quick serve restaurants with drive-throughs located at 995 North Airport Way, APN 19816028 with the amended conditions of approval to attachment four included in the supplemental reports two and three for this item. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Barnum. Oh, and I apologize.

I might add, and I forgot this on my last presentation, the applicant and property owner is here as well as the project engineer and developer team are here. Very good. Thank you, sir.

All right, at this time, do any commissioners have any clarifying questions for staff? Nope.

I just have a comment.

Mr. Fiore. Mm-hmm.

It's nice to see it finally come to us. I know we were supposed to see it in August of last year and then again in October of last year, so congratulations.

Thank you, Commissioner. All right, if there's no other questions at this time for staff, we'll have the project applicant come up with their presentation. Is your five-minute clock ready? Thank you. If you could state your name and title for the record as well. Thanks. Go ahead, you too. Okay.

My name is Amon Kenda. I'm the president of Interstate A Enterprises, and we are the developer for this project. So first off, I just want to say thank you to the commissioners and staff. It's been a pleasure working with everyone on this project. As you mentioned, it's been quite some time. We purchased this land about three years ago, so there's been a lot of work that has gone into the project. But I think everyone, including the surrounding community, will be you know, happy and excited what we're bringing. And with that, I do want to mention, you know, the growth opportunity that is going to come with this project, not only construction jobs, but also permanent jobs over the lifespan of the project. I know Mr. Patterson stole my line a little bit ago, but I do just want to point that out. Another big component of this project is all the offsite improvements that are being conditioned. So it's going to clear up a lot of the congestion on airport and Louise. I've driven through that road many times over the years and every year the traffic just gets worse. Right. So this project is going to definitely help clear that up. You know we've been working very closely with staff to address any concerns that they've had. So we're very excited and hope to have your support today. And I also do just want to mention we do, on the technical side, we have Marshall with MCR to answer any technical questions. And then also we have Nicole Key who is our broker agent to answer anything for marketing related.

Very good. Thank you, sir. And just to confirm for the record, the conditions of approval as presented in this item, are you in agreement with those conditions?

Yes. Very good.

Thank you. Okay, thank you, sir. At this time, we'll go and open the public hearing on this item at 7.33 p.m. Anyone wishing to speak in this matter is not required to provide their name, but may do so for the record. Madam Clerk, do we have any hands raised on Zoom or comment cards for this item?

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

Okay, thank you very much. Any members of the audience wish to address the commission on this item can do so now. All right, nobody? All right, seeing none, we'll bring it back to the commission for any questions for the applicant before we close the public hearing. Commissioner Mendoza?

I have a few. You know, I'm looking at page nine of the staff report, exhibit A. And it shows total required parking 512 spaces, total parking provided 813, surplus parking 301. Is that common on a shopping center? Because that's a lot of square footage. 301 spaces multiply, you know, there's a lot of space that you're taking up with parking. Is that why? All I need to know is why.

The applicant, if anyone would like to answer, you're welcome to come back up and answer that if you'd like.

Yes, thank you for that question. So one of the biggest pieces here is, you know, as we bring in prospective tenants, a lot of modifications are going to be done to the property, right? So having the surplus in parking does help us in terms of future modifications to the site plan because we don't have an exact idea of who is going to be coming in. We do have a lot of interests, and I'd welcome Nicole Key to come up there and speak on my behalf if you guys do want some background on that.

So it sounds like you're putting parking in, but it could become structures, businesses, and remove the parking? Is that...? What I'm hearing?

So there could be modifications to the existing buildings. For example, the grocer may have to get bigger depending on what type of grocer we bring in, right? So we don't really intend to add more buildings, but it's more so in case the square footage needs to be increased on the existing buildings. Okay, thank you. Yeah, no problem.

Maybe just a little clarification, maybe from staff on the controls of the intersections coming in and out of this center. The main, there's a main one on Airport Way. Is that intended to be signalized?

I'm going to ask Mr. Sessoms to come back. He's got all the details on this, so.

Yoshiro Sessoms, assistant engineer. The main on Airport Way south of Lewis, that will be signalized with the second phase once that gets built out. So yes. Anything on Louise being signalized? No. Louise, there is one right in and then left in as well off of Louise heading westbound. But the other two are right in, right out. Well, the adjacent one to the east is right in, right out, and then the third one is just right in.

So the conditions of approval require the developer to develop all the way to the, north curb of Luis?

Correct. For the signal at Luis and Airport?

No, I'm talking about the whole corridor.

The whole corridor of Luis north of The development. Correct. What are they required to do? Full width road improvements from airport to Villa Decino Drive to the west.

Right in front of the school district. Correct. You know, the school district is broke. All school districts are broke. They don't have any money. Yes. So they're going to pay for that. That's correct. Okay.

It's also PFIP funded.

Okay. There was another question, but I forgot it. Okay, I'll remember it. Thank you. I'll be right here.

You'll have time, so. Commissioner Fiore.

I do have a question for either one of the engineering staff. They talk about on West Louise Avenue allowing a left-in access from the West Louise Avenue median turnpocket. Are we talking about a two-way left-turn lane there? Something of that sort? I'm not sure if I saw that on a map or a plan.

No, this would be the middle access point, and that would be a left-in only. Okay, thank you.

To the commission as a whole, I would just, for reference, for your own clarity, the attachment number five to the staff report, no, pardon me, Yes, five, the plan set. The last few pages do have pretty extensive detail as to the right-of-way improvements. The turn pockets, the medians, the signal, they stand out quite a bit because they're actually in a neon green color. So if you did want to get some clarity, you could look at the plan set and you can see exactly what these turn pockets look like. My recollection is that there are three access points, Louise Avenue and three access points on Airport. And of those, two of the three on airport are right in, right out only. One is the full signalized intersection. And then on Louise, two are right in, right out, and one, pardon me, one is right in, right out, one is full access, and one is right in only. So there's pretty limited access to the site as far as, there's really only two spots where you can access the site in both directions. Commissioner Pasley.

Yeah, concerning these access points on Louise, I guess the western access is full access, correct? But there's no signal there. I'm kind of concerned with, because Louise has a lot of traffic, and I know it's going to be widened, but here you've got somebody trying to leave the facility, cutting across two lanes of traffic to make a left.

I'm gonna look at Mr. Sessoms to clarify that.

Thank you for the question. The access on the furthest west driveway on Louise is right in, right out from or into the shopping center and out of the shopping center, but it's only left in from Louise, heading westbound. There is no left out. Okay. There's a median there that would prevent that.

I couldn't see that on here, but okay. That makes sense because left out is the concern.

There is no left out.

So if somebody wanted to leave this facility and go up Louise, they'd have to go down to the light on the airport.

Correct.

Any reason why this egress didn't line up to the school districts, which is just a little farther west, and then have a light there?

Which interest is that?

The school district has an egress on their side just maybe 50 yards west of this egress. I didn't understand why they just didn't line up and said I have them being offset.

You have to have the engineer record to speak on that.

Good evening, thank you, Marshall with MCR Engineering. Civil engineer, not traffic engineer, but we had some pretty extensive discussions with city engineering, have a traffic study that's pretty entailed that goes through all these different access points. There's no left turn, there's no full access on Louise Avenue. the driveway on MESD that you're speaking of was looked at and discussed as far as the site plan goes and the need or the warrant for a traffic signal was not warranted there. There is full median on Louise Avenue, so there's no way for them to turn out left going eastbound on Louise as well. So the left turn only will be at that point coming into the site as if you're going westbound on Louise, right in, right out going eastbound on Louise.

So the school buses, this is part of the Manteca Unified, correct? Correct. The school buses do not use this driveway?

That's correct. In fact, I think the city's working diligently right now with Manteca Unified School District, and there's talks about a full access potentially coming on North Airport Way for the buses.

Vice Chairman, any questions? No. For the applicant, I... I want to take note of attachment four as an updated commission of approval as it relates to phase one of this project. In it, it lists phase one including at least one of the following items, the hotel space, the grocery store space, the multi-site general commercial building space, or the 9600 square foot retail building with a 2400 QSR and drive-through. I just want to confirm for the record Again, you stated you were under, within agreement of the conditions of approval. Understanding that phase one now includes those items as a condition of approval in addition to the gas station development. Are you just confirming for the record any concerns there on your end? Yeah, come on back up. Thanks, sorry. I should have just told you to stay up there.

Yes, no concerns, and we do agree with this attachment.

Okay, because I think, I appreciate the addition. I think there was some speculation about how long this corner could sit as a gas station-only corner or gas station car wash corner, and I think that condition obviously adds, accelerates the development of the entire project by adding that condition. Right. Mayor Mrakas, Any any additional items you want to speak on related to that specific condition, are you feeling confident that this will help improve the acceleration of the project yeah we do definitely.

Mayor Mrakas, You know, appreciate the city's concern with that I know with all the talk going around and everything with these multi suite tenants, the grocery store and the grocer you know we're working. very diligently to make sure we get someone in there ASAP, but of course it takes time. But we're very much looking forward to bringing this project to life, yeah.

And then with respect to where this 9,600 square foot, specifically where in the development is that building located? Do we know on the map? Is it on the airport way? It's on the airport side. It is, okay. Correct. That's what my understanding was, just wanted to confirm. Okay, thank you very much, yep. Any other applicant questions before we close the public hearing? Yes, sir.

Two more. On your site plan, sheet A1 produced by API, I see an existing seven inch CMU wall on the southern boundary of this development.

Correct.

On the west side, which I think on the west side of this development is residential.

HDR.

Okay. Is there gonna be a wall on there? Because your site plan doesn't show one.

Yes, I believe in the conditions there is mention that once either the hotel or grocer goes up, that the CMU wall will have to go up as well.

Okay, and then one last, just a comment. when your engineer starts looking at the circulation of getting the trucks in here to like, you know, every morning you go to a grocery store, there's six or seven trucks waiting to unload at the grocery store. So you're going to have that situation here, and you've got to develop a pattern for them to get to that dock that you have and then get out. Correct.

Yes, most definitely. I believe we have run truck turning templates.

Correct.

Yes, and circulation, so I believe that has all been addressed.

Cool.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other applicant questions? All right. This time we'll close the public hearing on this item at 7.46 p.m., and we'll bring it back to the Commission for any further staff questions or deliberation. Any other questions for staff?

I don't have a question for staff, but I do want to say that once this is built out, I can see there's a lot of synergy, possibility of it. And I'm extremely jealous that the Villa Chichino will have walking access to a grocery store. That's pretty impressive. But other than that, no, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Paslack?

Yeah, I just wanted to comment as well about the courtyard being accessed from the neighborhood. You don't see that anywhere else in town, so I liked it a lot.

Thanks. Vice Chair Jimenez, anything? No? Yeah, I would, I think just a couple things real quick. Mr. Barnum, MUSD obviously being adjacent to this property, any discussion with them on this, any feedback from them and any support that they've expressed, anything you can share from MUSD's perspective?

Chair Coleman, there really has not been a lot of conversation between staff and the school district other than they wanted to discuss rights of way with engineering and also with the architect, or pardon me, the engineer for the project. As Marshall Swift indicated just a little bit ago, there was a lot of conversation between the developer team, the engineer, project engineer, and the school district, but there was no concern expressed from the school district to us. They just said that they wanted to communicate one-on-one with the project proponents, and they did so, and all their concerns were addressed in plan revisions that were sent back to us as the project continued through its review process. So all in all, the school district's quite seems to be quite content with the project. I'm sure they're excited about the possibility of having a coffee shop across the street from them. My wife's a teacher, she loves her coffee, so I think they're gonna be happy about that.

Absolutely. My thoughts are really consistent with what's been expressed already related to the pedestrian access and then also bicycle access. I believe there's bicycle locking infrastructure in place for this project. I think that's a welcome addition. It looks like there's a lot of pedestrian crosswalks and safety mechanisms put in place, as I would expect pedestrian access to be a thing. For this large center, as Commissioner Mendoza pointed out, more than ample parking, and the widening of airport and the infrastructure support with Louise is a very welcome addition as well to help that free-flowing artery which will continue to grow in the years ahead. And then coupled with the divergent diming potential for airport and 120 bypass, that artery is gonna continue to be a very large thoroughfare for the city. And this project sets that up for success in the future for the traffic flow circulation. I don't have any other questions at this time or any other comments. Any other comments, questions? I think it's time to call for a vote. Do we have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Do we have a second?

Three seconds.

All right. Chair Coleman, if I may interject just briefly just to remind the Commission you'd be approving as amended, just as a reminder.

Thank you, sir, absolutely. All right, we have a motion on the table from Commissioner Pasluck and a second from Commissioner Fiore. All those in favor? Oh, let me read the motion first. The motion is to adopt a resolution finding the village at Villa Ticino project exempt from further environmental review pursuant to section 15183 of the California Environmental Quality Act and adopt a resolution approving a tentative parcel map TPM 24-05 to subdivide the property to subdivide the project property, excuse me, a conditional use permit CUP25-04 to allow for a hotel use, a minor use permit MUP24-06 to allow for a fueling station and a car wash facility use and a site plan and design review SPR24-04 allowing for the development of a commercial shopping center on 19.17 acre site, consisting of nine structures, including a hotel, fueling station with a car wash facility, a grocery store, and three quick service restaurants with drive-throughs located at 995 North Airport Way, APN 198-160-28, with the amended conditions of approval to attachment four, included in supplemental reports two and three for this item. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Thank you everybody. All right, that moves us on to staff comments.

Chair, commissioners, a lengthy meeting, but I think it was a very productive meeting, and we're all excited for the outcomes. Just a quick reminder, Applying Commissioners Academy is next week, March 18th through the 13th. I'm sorry, March 11th through the 13th. You should have everything all ready to go. March 19th, the March 19th meeting, Planning Commission meeting will be cancelled as a result of that. And staff has confirmed a CEQA training to take place April 1st at the Minnetonka Transit Centre. I will send out details depending on how many commissioners can attend. We will have to split you guys up to ensure that there isn't any Brown Act violation. I will coordinate with all of you leading up to that. I want to thank all of you for participating in the social media. It really adds to the city's transparency and encouraging community engagement. Mr. Jill Brack had to leave early, but I also did want to congratulate him on his first presentation here with the city of Manteca. He's done many others, just his first one with the city of Manteca. And that completes all for my stuff,

Yeah, good evening again. I just wanted to first say thank you to the Commission. Your deliberations and preparations for tonight's meeting was definitely apparent in the questions and some of the comments, so we appreciated your staff when you've done that much preparation and deliberated so well. I know the applicants aren't in the room, but there were a few of these projects that took extensive staff time to be able to bring them forward. However, we're proud of what we brought forward, so thank you to the collaboration with each of those applicant teams. And then next week is Planning Commissioners Academy. So we look forward to being able to spend time with some of you there and learn more about the world of Planning Commission. So thank you. That's it. Thank you very much.

All right. Commissioner's comments. Commissioner Mendoza, anything tonight?

I'm good.

All right. Thank you, sir. Commissioner Fiore.

Shock me. I'm tired. I appreciate the professionalism the staff always brings, and I know it's been just from the flurry of addendums and attachments and changes and can't get the agenda out. I can only assume the chaos that might have been going in the background because it happens to me a lot too. So I appreciate that, that we get the quality of work that we had in front of us tonight. So thank you very much, and I look forward to seeing many of you next week in Anaheim.

Thank you, Commissioner Fiore. Commissioner Paslack, anything?

I was just going to repeat what she said. Thanks to the staff for all the hard work getting that out. I know with the technical issues, it was not easy working late on weekends.

Thank you, sir. Vice Chair.

Yeah, I ditto your guys' comments. So you could tell it was a lot of work, and we appreciate that because it just – It makes us feel confident that everything's been looked at. When we ask questions, your quick response is very clear that this is very thought out. So thank you.

Thank you. I want to thank Mr. Barnum, who's not in the room anymore. There you are. Or he's gone. No. for two very good presentations tonight. Thank Mr. Drobac for a very good presentation tonight. I want to thank the IT team for getting the microphones working again. That's great, congratulations, thank you. And I want to thank the director and deputy director for all their partnership and all the hard work that went into this very productive meeting tonight. And I also want to thank for the opportunity for joining the Planning Commission Academy next week. Looking forward to that. Just on a personal note, March is Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month, and it's something that's affected my family, and it's something that we can never forget to put in the back burner, put in the rearview mirror. It's, I think, now the leading cause of cancer-related deaths for people under 50, unfortunately, or 45 now. Is that right?

We have to get tested at 45.

Well, I first got tested at 39, and I just got tested again last week, and I highly, highly encourage everyone to get screened. It saves lives. It's very preventable. And tomorrow is Dress in Blue Day. Show your support and awareness and visibility for colorectal cancer. With that, let's adjourn this meeting at 7.57 p.m. Thank you.