Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, we'll call to order this regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Manteca for 04/02/2026. Roll call, Madam Clerk.

Commissioners Mendoza? Here. Paslack?

Here.

Vice Chair Jimenez? Here. Chair Coleman?

Here.

And Commissioner Sock? Commissioner Fiore is not in attendance this evening.

All right, thank you. And I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome Commissioner Sock to the dais for first meeting and joining us today. Thank you very much for being here. We'll do flag salute. I'll lead today.

Ready to begin. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Alright. That takes us to agenda review and supplemental reports. Madam Clerk are there any changes to the agenda tonight or supplemental reports?

Chair Coleman there are no changes to the agenda and there was a total of one supplemental report provided by the Manteca Unified School District for item C2 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.

Very good, thank you very much. All right. That takes us to item A, public comment. This portion of the agenda is reserved for persons desiring to address the commission on any matter not listed on the agenda tonight but within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Speakers are limited to three minutes, consistent with City policy regarding public comment in Brown Act meetings.

Prior to public comment, the Commission, by motion and vote, may extend or shorten the length of public comment consistent with City policy regarding public comment in Brown Act meetings. The law does not permit commission action or extended discussion on any item not listed on the agenda. If commission action is requested, the matter may be placed on a subsequent agenda subject to commission consensus. Madam Clerk.

We did not receive 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 comment can be made on Zoom webinar by using the raise your hand feature or by pressing 9 on the line.

You. Madam Clerk, are there any hands raised on Zoom or do we have any comment cards for tonight?

No comment cards and no hands raised in Zoom.

Okay. Anybody in the audience wish to address the commission on any item not listed on tonight's agenda may do so now? All right, seeing none, we'll go ahead and close public comment. All right, that takes us 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 communication they have had with project applicants or members of the public regarding items on this evening's agenda.

Alright. At this time, we'll ask the commissioners if they have any ex parte communications they'd like to disclose. And we'll start with Commissioner Mendoza. None. Commissioner Salk. None. Commissioner Paslak. None. And Vice Chair Jimenez.

None.

And I have none as well. Thank you. Alright. That moves us right along to the public hearings. Madam Clerk, item c one.

Item c one twenty six dash one six six. Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and find the project exempt from further environmental review pursuant to section 15,301 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines and adopt a resolution approving conditional use permit CUP 20 six-twenty nine amending conditional use permit UPJ 20 two-forty 3 to allow for the expansion of an existing indoor amusement entertainment facility used to an adjoining tenant suite and existing enclosed outdoor seating area for the Deaf Puppy Comedy Club located at 127 North Main Street, Manteca, APN 217 Dash 210 Dash 52. Associate Planner Saul Jobrack will be presenting this item.

Wait for this to show up on here. There we go. Good evening, chair and commissioner. Saul Jobrack, associate planner with Development Services. This evening, I'll be presenting the Deaf Puppy Comedy Club conditional use permit modification project located at 125 And 127 North Main Street.

This project is a conditional use permit modification to expand an existing comedy club. The site is approximately 0.19 acres and currently includes a 3,920 square foot of approved indoor space. The proposal also includes the use of a 3,250 square foot enclosed outdoor seating area as well as an additional ten eighty square foot adjoining tenant suite. The project is located on the West Side of North Main Street, approximately 150 feet north of Yosemite Avenue. The surrounding area is fully developed with commercial uses to the north, south, east and west consistent with the downtown setting.

The site designated downtown under the general plan and is zoned downtown mixed use. These designations are intended to support a mix of commercial entertainment, residential, and service uses that enhance the pedestrian oriented character of the downtown. The proposed expansion of an entertainment venue is consistent with both the general plan and zoning ordinance as these uses contribute to a vibrant and active downtown These images show the existing front elevation of the building and the rear enclosed patio area. No major structural changes are proposed as part of this request, and the project is primarily involving the use of existing spaces. The Planning Commission originally approved this project in July 2022 under conditional use permit UPJ203.

The approved facility included a showroom, lounge, kitchen, and supporting spaces totaling approximately 3,920 square feet. The business operates under an ABC type 47 license, which allows on-site alcohol service in conjunction with food service. An outdoor patio was later constructed through a building permit. However, alcohol service is currently restricted to indoor areas. The applicant is requesting to expand his operations into an adjoining ten eighty square foot interior suite and to utilize the existing 3,250 square foot enclosed patio area.

The expansion is accessory to the existing use and does not introduce new land uses or extend operating hours. The project remains compatible with surrounding commercial uses, and the patio is enclosed and separated from the public right of way. The applicant is also proposing to obtain an ABC type 68 license through the state of California, which will allow them to serve up service alcohol within the patio area outside. Importantly, there is no increase in intensity of use. This image shows the enclosed outdoor seating area highlighted in yellow along with the adjoining suite that will be incorporated into the extended operations.

These areas will provide additional seating and improve circulation for patrons supporting the existing entertainment use. To ensure compatibility and proper operations, several modified conditions were included. Part of these included full meals must be available during alcohol service, staff supervision is required in the patio area when alcohol is being served, security cameras must be installed and maintained, and these conditions will help ensure the project operates safely and responsibly and are also consistent with ABC and what their conditions are typically involved with alcohol. The project was duly noticed to property owners within 500 feet and published in the Manteca Bulletin on 03/21/2025. As of today, staff has not received any public comments regarding this project.

The project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA guidelines section 15,301, which applies to existing facilities. Because this is a minor expansion within an existing building and a nonstructural existing patio area, no further environmental review is required. Based on the analysis in the staff report, the project is consistent with the general plan, zoning regulations, and municipal code. Staff has recommended that the Planning Commission find the project exempt from CEQA and approve conditional use permit twenty six dash twenty nine, allowing an expansion of the existing entertainment facility into the adjoining suite and outdoor patio area. That concludes staff's presentation.

Staff is available for questions, and the applicant is present should the commission have questions for them. Thank you for your consideration. Alright. Thank you,

mister Djobach. Very much appreciated. Any commissioners at this time have any clarifying questions for staff on this project may ask this point? No? Alright. I just have one clarifying question, Mr. Drobak. Could you just kind of define from a CEQA relying on section 15,301 as a negligible expansion, what that can you just translate that for us with that?

So what that looks at, and specifically the comment related to structural, as it looks like, oh, they're using 3,000 square feet, that is an area that was previously approved under building permit. So when CEQA were looking at a minimal expansion of the use, it's really looking at moving into the existing space, and and there's not much disturbance. Small small expansion of the use.

Alright. Thank you very much.

Absolutely.

Alright. The applicant is here tonight. Wish to make a presentation? May do so now. Come on up.

Good evening, everybody.

Please state your name in for the record.

My name is Chris Tushera. I am owner and manager of the Puppy Comedy Club. The reason we're wanting this expansion is we're two years in, and the sample size we've had, we've recognized full time comedy is not really what the town is wanting. Like, people's desires are wanting to come in and hang out, and the environment in the showroom is just very stale. So we're gonna add a golf simulator.

We've added games. And I think we've curated and cultivated a really nice space where kids can come in, families feel safe, and So we're just trying to expand on that. We have the patio. We wanna have music on Sundays, vendor bazaars of the future, those types of things, and we think that that'll just help to enhance the whole thing. That's the reason for it.

Alright. Thank you, sir. Welcome. This time we'll we'll ask if there's any commissioner questions for the applicant.

I had a question. So you mentioned vendors

Hang on up here for a little bit.

Would the vendors be within the the space?

Yeah. In the patio or actually in the showroom too. We have enough space in the showroom that we would have vendors inside.

Okay.

Okay. Yeah. Weather permitting, I mean, obviously, we could do wintertime vendor bazaars, stuff like that.

All the

Any other commissioners have questions? Mr. Mendoza.

My education I guess it indicates here any entertainment provided on the premises shall not be audible beyond the area under the control of the licensee as determined by the state department of ABC or the city's noise standards. All in in all circumstances, the more restrictive requirements shall apply. What what what does that mean?

So thank you, commissioner. So typically, with noise standards, they're they're often complaint driven. So if a business owner is required to maintain their noise on-site, but we're not going out and inspecting the noise every time they have an event. They are responsible. They have decibel readers. They have things like that. At the property lines, they have to maintain certain sound levels and be underneath those at the property lines. Like I said, typically they're complaint complaint driven. If staff starts receiving complaints, it's something we can look into and review, but I can leave that up to deputy to to clarify any further steps that staff may do.

Yeah. Was gonna add. Good evening. Commissioner Bradwell, director of development services. I did wanna add that as mentioned in the staff report, a building permit was issued for the expansion onto the patio in 2023. To your point, we've received no noise complaints since that time and they have been operating on the patio. We spoke with police, the police department yesterday and they confirmed they've received no complaints and they would also support the expansion of the use permit in accordance with the municipal code.

Okay. Good. Because I wasn't complaining about noise. If you're gonna have a vibrant downtown, you're gonna have some noise. So, you know, I just hope yeah. So I just wanted clarification on that. And then the other question I have, you have that new area that's don't know. I'm looking at the floor plan and it shows lounge and that number 201. That area is a new spot. Correct?

Yes. That was a we had a tenant that was there. They had a beauty salon. They they're subsequently gone, so we turned that into a small lounge.

So the door going out to main North Main Street, is that gonna be an exit only?

Yes.

I mean, that eliminates a bouncer. You don't need somebody that's standing at the door there.

Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, we're we're trying to create an environment where we don't even need a bouncer because we have kids there. Like, we're we've we've had a bouncer a few times. Almost, I feel like when you have a bouncer, it creates an environment where things start to happen. So

Well, that's good. I've never been in your club, but I'm hoping you're doing well.

We're doing okay, but I think that this pivot is gonna help out a lot.

Thank you. Thanks, David. Any other commissioners? So many questions for the applicant this time? I just have a couple, mister Tushera. First of all, have you read the conditions of approval for the project tonight? Are you in agreement with those conditions?

Yes, I am.

Perfect. I'm just curious to get your perspective on how you think this kind of expanded operation will contribute to the broader downtown kind of activation or hopes for that.

The patio is right there in the center of downtown, and what they're talking about, I'm not sure what's gonna happen at the corner there, but, I mean, we're eyes on the the middle of town. And so I think we're the kind of the heartbeat of the town. We're a big space. We're colorful, and, you know, we've had a lot of people come through. We've had adoption dog events through Mantic Animal Services. We've done veterans events. So that's where we're kind of open to just being a community gathering space, and that's what we're trying to do.

Very good. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Okay. At this time, we're going open a public hearing on this item at 06:16 p. M.

All

right. Anyone wishing to address the commission or speak on this matter is not required to provide their name but may do so on the record. Madam Clerk, are there any hands raised on Zoom or comment cards received on this item tonight?

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

Thank you very much. Anyone in the audience wish to address the commission on this item may do so now.

All

right, seeing none, Since there are no comments, there's no applicant rebuttal required. So we're going to go ahead and close the public hearing at 06:17PM. We'll bring this back to the Commission for discussion and any follow-up questions for staff at this time. Any commissioners have any questions for staff? No? I just have one or two, Mr. Drobak, if I could. What's kind of your interpretation of the assessment of the additional parking demand this expansion may implore on downtown?

Thank you, chair. I understand that question. However, our downtown our zoning ordinance, there's specific requirements around parking. We don't have any. So, unfortunately, we're not really to consider parking in the downtown as related to uses. And that I think was the intention of that zoning designation.

Okay. Thank you. And then I think Director Wilmuck already alluded to this, but I'm going to assume this has been vetted with both the police and the fire department and no concerns with the expansion. Is there any requirement for sprinklers for this project from the fire department?

There are that was a comment from the fire. It's really the building code requirements, and the applicant is aware of that and is working to procure sprinklers in the expanded areas and won't be given a certificate of occupancy, is my understanding, until those are procured.

Very good. And then last question. Since this is a conditional use permit where, you know, it's possible for revocation should certain thresholds be met, can you speak to what those thresholds might be should there be a revocation consideration?

In in all reality, it's the conditions of approval. He's he's bound to the conditions of approval. If if complaints come in or typically, you would see with alcohol related things, ABC is involved. Mhmm. So if ABC revocates their their license, that can come back to the city for us to review. Yep. That's often how these type of situations unfold and and how that path to revocation occurs through either complaints in investigation or a state led agency's involvement.

Very good. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. I'll ask one more. Any discussion from the commission on this?

Any other questions? Okay. All right. At this time we'll call for a vote. Is there a motion and a second to find the project exempt from further environmental review pursuant to section 15,301 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines and adopt a resolution approving conditional use permit CUP26-twenty nine amending conditional use permit UPJ22-forty3 to allow for the expansion of an existing indoor amusement entertainment facility use to an adjoining tenant suite and existing enclosed outdoor seating area for the Deaf Puppy Comedy Club located at 127 North Main Street, Manteca, APN 217 Dash 210 Dash 52.

Motion to approve. Do we have a second?

I second.

We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Paslak and a second by Vice Chair Jimenez. All those in favor will vote signify say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Motion passes five zero. Thank you very much. Alright. Moves us on to item c two madam clerk.

Item c two twenty six dash one six four planning commission conduct a public hearing for the Wawona Apartments project and by motion consider adoption of the following one, adopt a resolution recommending City Council make the necessary findings and adopt an initial study mitigated negative declaration SCH number 20251770, and the associated mitigation, monitoring, and reporting program prepared for the Wawona Apartments project consisting of a development application for a general plan amendment, GPA 20 four-seventy six, Rezone REZ 24 dash 77, Lot Line Adjustment LLA 24 dash 78, Site Plan and Design Review SPR 24 dash 79, and a Minor Zone Modification MZM 25 dash zero one and two, adopt a resolution recommending City Council approve a general plan amendment, GPA 24 dash 76, to amend the land use designation of approximately 1.67 acres from the very low density residential VLDR to the high density residential HDR land use designation for the Wawona Apartments Project APN February and -nine. Three, adopt a resolution recommending City Council adopt an ordinance to rezone REZ 24 Dash 77 approximately 1.67 acres from the residential estate R E to the multiple family dwelling R-three zone district and by resolution approved, lot line adjustment LLA 20 four-seventy eight merging the project parcels, site plan review SPR 20 four-seventy nine for the physical development of the 44 unit multifamily residential development and minor zone modification MZM 20 Five-one allowing a 10% reduction from the open space requirements for the Wawona Apartments project located at 20052019, And 2027 Wawona Street, APN 220 Two-one Hundred-fifteen, -fourteen, And -nine.

Associate planner Tobin Barnum will be presenting this item

good evening chair vice chair members of the commission I'm associate planner Tobin Barnum the request for the commission tonight is threefold for the project known as Wawana Apartments. First, adopt a resolution to adopt the initial study and mitigated negative declaration. Second, a resolution making the required findings and forwarding a recommendation to the city council to approve the proposed general plan amendment. And third, adopt a resolution, making the required findings and forwarding a recommendation to the city council to It's not on slideshow. I thought it was.

I apologize. Let's try this again. So the request is threefold. Adopt a resolution to adopt the initial study mitigated negative declaration. Adopt a resolution making the required findings and forwarding a recommendation to the city council to approve the proposed general plan amendment and three, adopt a resolution making the required findings and forwarding recommendation to city council to approve the proposed entitlements of rezone, lot line adjustment, site plan and design review, minor zone modification as condition for the Wawona Apartments.

The project site is located on the north side of Wawona Street four fifty feet east of South Airport Way north of the intersection with Depot Drive. And the site is comprised of three contiguous parcels totaling 1.67 acres or 72,745 square feet. The site is almost completely surrounded by residential uses. The only nonresidential use in the immediate vicinity is the new Rotten Robbie fueling station located to the Southwest at the intersection of South Airport Way and Waluona Drive Waluona Street, pardon me. Currently, the site has a general plan land use designation of very low density residential, or VLDR, and a zoning of residential estate, RE.

The intent of this designation and zoning is to facilitate estate sized residential parcels with larger setbacks and low unit densities. The developer requests to amend the general plan land use designation from VLDR to high density HDR and the zoning from residential estate RE to high density residential R3 to allow for the construction of the proposed project. There are four specific criteria within the general plan that must be met in order for proposed amendment to be approved. One is that the project has to be in the public interest. The project itself will provide a housing type currently not available within a quarter mile radius of the site.

The project implements goals and policies that align with high density uses and the housing element as detailed in the staff report general plan consistency section and in the entitlements resolution which is attachment seven to the staff report. Some examples of goals and policies that the project directly addresses for the area include maximizing underutilized areas and providing infrastructure to improve and expand connectivity along Wawona Street. Additionally, the project is within walking distance to current and future commercial goods and services, parks, schools, a hospital, and public transportation as well. The developer proposes to merge three contiguous parcels into one one point six seven acre site allowing for the construction of a four story 44 unit apartment building with associated parking, lighting, and landscaping open spaces. The project is also to include a small detached leasing office building which will be located closer to the right of way on Wawona Street.

A minor zone modification is also requested to allow for a 10% reduction in the required open space and landscaping buffer on the South Western perimeters. The project is proposed to be developed in one phase. The two proposed structures utilize similar architecture to create a solid sense of connectivity sitewide. The primary apartment structure creates a clean features a clean contemporary design with a mix of light colored cladding panels, warm wood like siding, and dark gray accents. And the facade is organized with a symmetrical grid of windows and private balconies, while vertical and horizontal elements break up the massing to create visual interest.

A rooftop terrace with glass railings adds a communal outdoor space, and the flat roof and overhangs emphasize the building's streamlined profile. Overall, the architecture blends functionality with a balanced modern aesthetic. And through intentional design, no two facades are identical, but all are firmly connected visually. Project was duly noticed on 03/12/2026 in the paper and the city website. Staff has received no written comments for the project as of today.

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQUA, an initial study and mitigated negative declaration, or ISMND, was prepared for the proposed project. And it was found that although the proposed project could have significant adverse effect on the environment, with the required mitigation measures spelled out in ISMND and the conditions implemented for the project impacts can be reduced to a significant less level. If any of those impacts were significant and unavoidable or any were not able to be mitigated, the environmental review threshold would be an environmental impact report, a much larger document rather than an initial study. The Planning Commission is the recommending body for this project and must make all required findings in order to recommend approval to the City Council. The findings are detailed in the staff report in which staff finds that the project meets the findings for each of the five requested entitlements.

Staff hereby recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions. First, adopt a resolution to adopt the initial study and mitigate a negative declaration. Second, adopt a resolution making the required findings and forwarding a recommendation to city council to approve the proposed general plan amendment. And third, adopt a resolution making the required findings, forwarding a recommendation to the city council to approve the proposed entitlements of rezone, lot line adjustment, site plan and design review, and minor zone modification as conditioned for Wawona Apartments. A quick note, there is a typographical error in the conditions of approval, specifically planning condition number 22, which reads East Woodward Avenue should have read Wawona Street.

So should the planning commission make a decision to recommend approval, the conditions would be revised moving forward to City Council. Staff is available for your questions and the property owner and applicant and the project engineer are in attendance as well this evening for your questions. Thank you very much for your consideration.

Thank you Mr. Barnum. Very much appreciated. At this time do any commissioners have any clarifying questions for staff on this item? Commissioner Paslak.

Condition of approval 32 was talking about improvements from the curb let me go to that from the curb from airport all the way to Fish Back. What does that mean? It didn't it kinda didn't really explain what it I guess can you clarify what it meant

yes commissioner through the chair Mike selling engineering department so the condition that the engineering identified was the need for that connectivity for pedestrians to get from airport over to Fishback and as you're probably aware at the Northeast Corner Of Fishback is Sierra High School so likely there will be some you know potential students from the project as well as the surrounding neighborhood that would utilize that that sidewalk so we conditioned the applicant to construct that frontage improvement from airport to Fish Back and the city will reimburse in

the form

of PFIP credits for the portion that's outside the project frontage.

That consists of curving curb

gutter and sidewalk yes, to clarify, yes.

I would also add, Commissioner Paslak, it includes also an eight foot wide class three bicycle path bicycle pathway. It's actually a shoulder eight foot wide shoulder on the roadway. So in addition to pedestrian traffic, there's bicycle access as well along that right of way. Also,

in the staff report, it talks about landscaping, vertical landscaping to avoid visual trespass to the neighbors. But I didn't see anything in the conditions of approval referencing that. It just talks about standard anti theft landscaping around the fence line. Is

So typically the conditions are not going to specify types of landscaping. The municipal code does speak to perimeter landscaping and landscaping buffers, and that's really what is required at that site. The municipal code speaks to any time that there's a connection between or you have a multifamily or commercial use, a budding single family uses, have to provide a 10 foot wide landscape buffer. And then that has to include a combination of deciduous and conifer type trees and some other landscaping. So that is the buffer that they're held to.

And the minor zone modification that is requested is actually a request to chop one foot out of that depth to allow for the required parking for the site. So the landscaping at the required per municipal code does include vertical trees. It requires evergreens and deciduous as well a combination thereof so it's actually in the municipal code.

That 10% reduction what section of the fence line is that gonna to be on?

It's the southwest corner. Lots kind of got an odd shape to it but it's the southwest corner so if you were to take the southwest corner of the building itself it's the southwest corner of that section of the site so the far Western property line and then the Southern property line that directly abuts that. There's a landscape buffer there because of the single family homes on the other side of the property line. That's a 10 foot wide buffer with the vertical trees. And that's where they would cut one foot out of the depth of that to allow, again, to accommodate for the required parking for the site.

Thank you, Commissioner. Any other Commissioners have any clarifying questions for staff? Commissioner Sock.

So was looking at the drawing, so I would love to have that rooftop deck. So I just wanted to clarify so as of today you said that we have not received any comments at all from neighbors the surrounding neighbors.

Thank you Commissioner Sock. No we have not received any written comments at all. We did receive one phone call from the adjoining property. They were asking some questions and wanted to know if they could access where they could access the plans and the agenda item and so on. I sent them via email a link to the agenda and the agenda packet and informed them of the public comment process. But that is the only comment we received. Nothing in writing at all. Just the one phone call from a neighbor. Thank

Thank you, Commissioner. Any other Commissioners have any clarifying questions for staff? I just have one before we hear from the applicant. Was this parcel once three separate lots or is this one lot? Can you explain how that's divided? Yes, thank you,

chair Cole. It is actually three parcels contiguous. So there are two parcels that front onto Wawona Street and then the larger piece is actually landlocked north of those two. So one of those parcels, one of the two fronting parcels, the Western parcel actually has a single family home on it which would disappear for the development of this project. But the proposal is to merge those three through lot line adjustment process to into one one point six seven acre site. Very good. Thank you, sir.

I have a question.

Yes. Mr. Mendoza.

How did that property in the back get landlocked? How did that happen?

That is a great question and I do not have an answer for you. I'm not sure how that happened. That's been that way for a long time and I don't know the history of that. But unfortunately if you were to look at assessor's maps all around the city of Manteca, you'd probably see quite a few of those.

Thank you, sir. Okay. At this time, we'll invite the applicant up to give a presentation, if the applicant's interested and available or representative. If you could just state your name and title for the record, and we'll start your clock here.

Good evening, everyone. I'm KP Jahal. I'll be from the owner side. For applicant, it will be Sean from MCR. But, first of all, I'd to thank everyone for their time. It's been a long process with the planning team, engineering team, everyone. And just a little backstory on me before I get started on the project. You know, we're a family. I was born in Manteca in 2004. I lived here my whole life, so, you know, we're really glad of what what we're seeing in the area starting to develop.

I myself am actually a Sierra High graduate. I attended there four years right down the street. Went to Veritas Elementary k through eight. So, you know, I've had my upcoming here, and I'm excited to see what's happening in the city. And for this project, you know, I'm happy to give this opportunity for some students to have walking distance.

Everyone knows the traffic issues that happen in the city. Like, all the cars going in. There's not really much walking apartment type buildings in the area. And improvement wise, you know, we're happy to go all the improvements even outside of our frontage to connect, airport all the way to Fishback to allow for safe crossing for all the students. And I believe that is all I have if Sean wants to say some words to an applicant side.

Hey, Sean with MCR. Don't have a whole lot to say other than thanks for staff. They've worked with us quite well. We've been at it for over eighteen months at least. Project was ready to come to planning commission, but it was withheld because of the general plan amendment. I know there's a lot to unpack with this type of application. I'm having five resolutions here. It's pretty impressive. But moreover, when KP brought the project to us, it wasn't an infill vision. He saw a need in the area.

It's the first of its kind kind of east of airport in this corridor that we're all familiar with that has been sort of blight. Not that so much the residents fronting Wawona. I I do like the rural residents there, but the, you know, the homes fronting airport have have been blight in some sense that the road's narrow and it's highly traveled. And I know the city's working on a project to make airport more beautified. However, you know, seeing the infill desire and and wants in this area, KP's family thought, hey.

You know, they can capitalize on that, and they came to us. The landlocked parcel created some issues. We did a record survey on it with through our firm and then you know in addition to that we'll be doing a merger to merge the three parcels but yeah no I mean more than I think moreover you know, some of the infrastructure has already been kind of the groundwork's been laid. You know, I know drainage has been a hot topic in our city of recent from from an engineering standpoint. And in this parcel in general, these three are actually allocated to a basin south of Wawona that's been constructed. So we get to capitalize off of that as well. So it's kind of it it's ready to go, and it's almost like a a gym

in

disguise. And then in addition to that, KP's 's brought on API, which is a local architect, understands the needs and wants of the area, has brought what I thought is a very appealing building itself that addresses some of what the current renters are looking for. They're looking for more of resort style living without it being as flashy, and I think that's what this project offers. It'll set it, you know, set it aside from what else is available on the West Side Town currently. But, yeah, we'll we'll be available to answer any questions.

Alright. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. This time, we'll ask, if any commissioners have any questions for the applicant or representative tonight. Mr. Mendoza, kick us off.

You know, I think I talked to staff a little earlier and I asked if there was an example of this style apartment complex in Manteca, and the answer was no. Then I asked, well, was anyone that I could go see in the area? No. I would have to go to the Bay Area to see it. And to me, Manteca is not the Bay Area.

And the way this is configured, in my opinion, it looks like a hotel, not where you're gonna live for two, three years or five years. And and to me, it's all about the fact that the recreation, the open space is on the roof of this building. Unlike the well, other ones I've seen for the last five years, they're down on the ground. And I just, I know Manteca has to grow up and the example I gave staff was the senior living downtown. To me that makes sense there.

But to me this, I don't I don't see the need for it. This style of building. Like I said, it's a hotel. There's nothing but hardscape all over the place. There's two little areas on the ground that has a little bit of landscaping that you could sit down, I guess, but this is my opinion is it's not a really a good project for Manteca.

And you know, let me give you an one of the things about the you know, I like the fact they're putting the curb gutter and sidewalk from Fishback all the way to airport because it's probably needed. But it mentions the fact that there it's gonna take care of a a safety problem. What's the accident history there if there's a safety problem?

Yeah. Commissioner, engineering, we inquired with PD, but there was no are you in terms of pedestrian versus car or just vehicles? Total. Yeah we did not get any significant data from PD that there is an accident history there. It was simply just an observation to close a gap and especially with the high school proximity and if we're looking at a 44 unit apartment complex to provide safe travel for the students but also just to also close that gap on essentially what will be a major intersection as airport is widened in the future as was alluded to.

So at some point it was going to happen but since this project is here they'll do it all. Correct. That's all I have.

Okay Commissioner Saab.

So you mentioned that there's 80 there are 80 parking stalls. Does that does that include visitors parking?

Applicants are welcome to come. You can stay up if you like for these questions before we open the public hearing.

I'm sorry.

No, you're fine.

Can you read that?

Does the 80 parking stalls include visitors parking or is that just for residents?

It'd be a combination of both.

Do you think that would be enough? Because I'm just kind of thinking. So there are 21 bedroom and twenty four two bedroom units. So total 44 units. So it's just kinda thinking, you know, a lot of folks here, you know, family or family city city family. Right? So I assume one couple a couple would have at least two cars so, and there might be families that come visit want to come visit. Another thing I was thinking of are there do have we received any comments from fire department any concerns at all regarding this and I see that there's

two questions there right

yes two questions I

believe the parking criteria the quota is met through the municipal code for the requirements per veteran so we're we're when we're land planning, those are some of the first things we do. We have to we have to plan per code and and with that is the stalls are gonna drive the size of the building. It's not kind of they work concurrent and so the stalls yet meet the criteria that we're required to do. If we were to over park, then we're starting to get into excessive parking, and and it's gonna look like Target parking lot where nobody's in parked anymore, potentially. That's an exaggeration.

Fire, I'm glad you mentioned those. They did comment on it. That that was actually one of our biggest hiccups was maintaining, fire access around the entire building, unimpeded. And and what it did at the end of the day with the with the site design itself is on the South side, most adjacent to the rural residents that are there today, it actually removed parking along that entire stretch because of the the requirement for fire to have a fire apparatus vehicle to stage in front of the building during the event of a fire of such. And so it's actually it kinda worked as a devil in disguise in the sense that it would the neighbors won't have to have headlights flashing into their houses with parks you know, cars parked type of thing.

And so it's it'll be a little bit more private in that sense. But, yeah, fire fires looked at it, commented on it.

Commissioner Sock if I may add a clarification to as a staff the fire is a standard reviewer for every entitlement that comes through even a preliminary parking as Sean mentioned is governed by our Municipal Code Title 17 and there's no requirement for visitor parking within that title. So all it requires a development to account for is units, number of apartment units and the bedrooms within those units and the breakdown of that one, two and three bedroom units and studios and then that gives us a ratio for calculating the parking requirement. But there is no requirement in our muni code for visitor parking.

Thank you Commissioner. Any other commissioners have any questions for the applicant?

I had a couple of questions.

Vice Chair.

Since So it's landlocked on those sides, have you guys accounted for, like, when you're laying sewage piping or water piping, the disruptiveness to the surrounding areas because it's so landlocked I don't know how much space you have to actually work. I don't know much more about that but that would be one of my concerns. Like how all that gets laid and how disrupted is that to these neighbors that are the homes are pretty close.

Yeah, I mean it's all looked at. Mean within field development you're you're gonna have situational neighbors without that's unavoidable. I mean, in a perfect world, we would be at the edge of town breaking ground on the next orchard. In this case, we're breaking ground in the back of somebody's old ranch that has all antiquated parcels broken down by deed, which is why we have this whole landlocked parcel situation happening. We also have kind of a diversified land use designation around the perimeter of it.

I know we focused on the fact that we're asking to be general plan amendment rezoned from the very low density to this high density, and that that sounds like, woah. What's an impact? But if you if you just scale yourself back a little bit and you look at airport their entire Airport Corridor is commercial, And and so we're gonna have commercial immediately adjacent to this project, which will bring amenities to people that would otherwise you know, this this collective neighborhood will be able to now take access access to. To. And I just believe with the development of Airport Way, you're gonna continue to see this type of growth because Airport Way is the gateway to Mantico and it it, you know, people are gonna want to access 120 and go to the Bay Area and come back.

That's the it's always been the set here. And so I I it's this is the first of its kind, which is why I I think it will be critiqued, and and and rightfully so. It should be. We should all take a look at it because we wanna set a precedence to what, you know, what what the site of town looks like. What your concerns it's hard when you have a project that's 1.6 acres and an entire region warrants a master plan of sorts.

But when you have all these different property owners, we just we don't have the luxury of having the neighbor hop on board and and join us for, you know, for a development project. And so it's been looked at. It's just we're trying to mitigate it through the requirements that were held to, but we can't do more. You know, it's it's hard to. At the end of the day, it's just it's part of development.

Madam vice chair, if I just may briefly elaborate on that. So the project's initial study and mitigating monitoring reporting program actually does have certain mitigation measures, such as you can have construction during certain periods of time. And that should mitigate some of the concerns with surround noise with surrounding areas. As far as, the noise that's going to be generated from the use itself, the the acoustical analysis prepared for the project determined that there wouldn't be any significant impact to that

Thank you.

To the surrounding areas.

Thank you, commissioner. Mister Mpaslak, any questions?

Another question about safety. I didn't see it and there might be a staff question. Is there going to be a stop sign on that intersection coming from the apartment building out to Wawana? Is that going to be a four way street?

Correct commissioner there will be a stop sign to stop traffic exiting the proposed development.

Thank you. Question for you, sir. Commissioner Mendoza made reference to kind of the building elevation appearance of he used the phrase hotel. I also thought of the exact phrase when I saw the building elevation because it's what it looks like on its surface. I guess my question is, there's that repetitive window look.

I can't really tell from elevation how much is balcony availability versus non balcony, all of these types of kind of subjective nice enhancements to apartments. But are you open to any design changes as it relates to kind of the modularity of the appearance of the building to make it fit more of that neighborhood cohesive feel? And and just anything you can elaborate on insights on the design would really helpful.

I don't I don't wanna speak for the owner out of turn, but I think they would be open to it. Employing a local architect, were you know, we we do that with the impression that they have a read on what the wants are in in the area and so that what we're presenting know, architecture is is more of an art, so it's sometimes, you know, much like commissioner said here, you know, it it it it's not doesn't fit the area. Right? And then but then you go and look at I don't wanna give bad examples here, but the architecture that's that's dates back from, you know, a decade ago, that was the first thing on that corner, which was Stadium Center. You know, it it matched the architecture that's associated with BLD.

Then we had Loma come in and it fits but it's changed. It's changed to today's kind of fit fit architectural look. Where I'm going with that is just trends. It's all about trends. I sat here maybe six years ago when Bruno Machado presented the sports arena that he built behind Home Depot, and one of the commissioners at that time, it was almost insulting, but he he said, did you look at what you were building?

Do actually look he actually questioned Bruno. Did you look at the architectural renderings of what you're gonna put back there? It doesn't fit. And you go there today, and it's probably the best looking building out there. And it just took time, and everything caught up to it.

And then you had, you know, quick quack came across street, and you wanna talk about hideous, you got quick quack, and then you got sports arena. So it's pick your poison. But I guess what I'm getting at is it it does seem out of place, and maybe it isn't as warm as we would like or inviting as we would like for a residential community. But to answer your question about the architecture, yes. I think they could go back and soften some of the edges, make it make it make it a little bit more traditional.

But I I don't the commitment that I think you you may want, I don't know how we would present that. You know? Is that something that would get conditioned that and then then we're at the discretion of the building department, and it just seems seems open ended a little. And I don't want I just don't want that to be contingent. The contingency right here is, hey, we're not satisfied with the architecture. Go back to the drawing board. That's the unfortunate part here because what's been presented, it's a mixed feeling. You got some people that think it's great and others that don't and I think that's with all architecture.

Alright thank you sir. Alright any other commissioner questions for the applicant before we open the hearing? Okay. Thank you, sir. All right. At this time, we're going to go ahead and open the public hearing on this item at 06:55 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?

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

Are there any members of the audience wish to address the Commission on this item? I do so now? Come on up.

Hi my name is Nathalyn Bergman. I live two doors down from the odd shaped lot. I'm not familiar with the processes here, so if I was supposed to fill something out, I didn't know. I've talked to my neighbors. We're elderly now, all of our neighbors. My next door neighbor can't come because he's not going to be with us much longer. His wife has to take care of him. My next neighbor is an RN like I am and couldn't be here today because he's working. We heard that they were going to develop the property. All the neighbors heard.

And when they even said apartments, we thought, Okay, they're going to be the regular apartments you see in Manteca, you know, the two story kind. I agree. Do like progress. If he was building condos, two story condos, condos, or a few houses. Because the last time I was here is when my husband came here to get that area zoned residential estate.

And I live at 1941. His rendering of this and it does look like a hotel is horrifying to me as a neighbor. I know to my other neighbors. If you can imagine your home and having a balcony looking down into your pool, on the picture it's on up now you can see my pool from the balconies, let alone from the rooftop. I didn't even know there was going to be a rooftop.

That is so horrifying to me. I really would like you to look into some impact studies. We're going to lose our peace in the neighborhood, which is what it's famous for. The parking is ridiculous. Every family in America has two cars. They have spaces for 80. That means they're going to be parking on the street. The traffic coming out of a one way driveway and I'm very familiar. I remember the house that used to be there. So I'm very familiar with this property.

When it comes out of the apartment, it's right across the street from Boxcar. And all of those homes are two story. Again, two story is not a problem. But all that traffic is going to come together in the morning. When you go to work I drive the Altamont every day When the kids go to school, I foresee a lot of accidents from those apartments, people being in a hurry. I've got to get my kids to school. I've got to get over the Altamonte. And you only have that one driveway in, one driveway out. It's too dense for that area. That modern apartment building, if it was on the other side where all the other new beautiful apartment buildings are, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

But it's in the wrong area. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other members of the audience wish to address the Commission? May do so now. Come on up.

How you doing? My name is Jim Zimmerman. I live right next door to the property that they're asking to do, and no disrespect to KP and his family. But, you know, I moved out of here twenty three years ago from the Bay Area to get away from, you know, the the hustle and the bustle. Bought this property.

Property. You know, it was county back in the back in the day. You know, it was nice and quiet. You know, I know there's gonna be progression and things are gonna happen like that, but I've got concerns about, like, you know, we're in we're all well water out there where we live. And I know I've read where, you know, when they start doing construction that it can start messing with the, you know, the sediment, gets into our well, where we may have to wind up replacing the well.

And I understand if our well fails, we can no longer use our well. We have to tap into the city. So then, you know, that's another added expense that we're gonna have be if we have to, you know, get rid of our well. And I know they're saying they're gonna put curbs and sidewalks in. You know, we all get flood irrigation. Right? So they're gonna have to do something over there when they put the sidewalks in. Where's the flood water gonna go? Is it gonna go out into the street? Or, you know, I'm they were concerned about that too.

You know, the the fencing, the privacy. I mean, you know, I I understand them wanting to put apartments in, but four floors, I mean, four you know, I mean, like she said, you know, they'd be looking into our backyards. You know, we I'm just concerned about, you know, things like that. What else do I have on here? Sorry.

And the traffic. Some of you probably don't live in that area, but Natalie will tell you there's a lot of traffic, especially since when they closed when you Wawona, when it came out to airport before, there was a stop sign there. So, you know, you took your life in your own hands trying to get out onto onto airport. Well, now that they've done again, so everybody used to go to Daniels. Now they put that stoplight in there, everybody now comes down Wawona.

And then during school time, football games, baseball games, soccer games, constant traffic going through there. And I believe, you know, putting more apartments in there, it's just gonna add to more traffic, more noise. You know, like I said, we moved out here. It was it was quiet. It's definitely gotten a lot louder with traffic and everything. And I I believe putting 40 apartments in there was was I don't know. I just I don't think it's the right thing. You know? Put yourself in our place. If you guys had bought a piece of property out there, wanted to be, you know, nice and quiet, you came out here for that reason, and now all of a sudden, things are gonna change and you got people looking in your backyard, you know, especially you said

from the balconies and stuff. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Any other members of the audience wish to address the commission on this item? May do so now.

All right. Seeing none, we'll allow the applicant or representative to return to the podium for any follow-up comments or answers to any of those questions that were presented by the public tonight. We'll start your clock here.

Yeah, a lot to unravel there. I do appreciate the neighbors coming. That you know, that's the whole point of getting this public notice out is to is to hear the neighbors. Sometimes I wish we could get it out a little bit sooner so that we can mitigate their prior to coming in front of you in a public forum and talking about it because it requires us to pivot immediately and come up with maybe unrational decisions. You know with that you know I just want the neighbors to know that we hear them loud and clear.

I will talk with the owner about the concerns with the height of the building the concerns with the rooftop decking our open space on top and see if there's things that we can present to staff to help mitigate those concerns to help alleviate the stress. The traffic would only be mitigated through less amount of units. There's nothing more that we can do beyond that. I think having a three way stop sign at the intersection is a great idea or a four way stop sign for that matter or driveway. I do hear the neighbor that last spoke with Wawona is busier.

Busier. Mean, for those of us that know Manteca, you know, Wawona is our Wawona is the road you use to get across town when you don't want to use the 120 and you want to stay off Yosemite. That's the fact of the matter. And so it's kind of our little secret. Beyond that, beyond talking to the owner, I don't know how we move forward here other than, you know, I can't I don't want to recommend tabling it, but I don't know how we point.

That's I appealing to not only the community but to the neighbors. That that'd be my request.

Alright. Thank you, sir. Yes. You've still got some time. Go ahead.

I was gonna say, thank you guys everyone for the comments. I feel like we've been open to ideas. You know, it's been public knowledge. I wish we would've known sooner so we could have also helped. We listened to everything everyone has said. It's been posted. It's been, like, eighteen months. It's been in the public. So and there's another thing I wanna note is just I think due north, correct me if I'm wrong, there's also high density zoning and just to the east is commercial, which fall under all the same requirements as our property we are proposing will do. So once those are already, you know, developed, it's gonna be the same thing just north and just west of it.

So I just wanna say, yeah. I know, hopefully, we can help fix anything we can, and If you guys have any questions, thank you.

All right. Thank you, sir. Okay. At this time, we're going to go ahead and close the

Chair?

Oh, yes. Sorry.

Point of clarification. Yes. I heard the applicant's representative mention excuse me a four way stop at the driveway and just to clarify when I answered the question about the stop sign previously it's just a stop sign for the driveway so it'll only be a two way stop for you know the opposing street segment to the south and then the driveway itself on the North Lake so.

Understood. Thank you sir.

Thanks.

Appreciate that. Okay at this time we'll go ahead and close the public hearing at 07:06 p. M. We'll bring it back to the Commission for additional questions for staff and deliberation. Any Commissioners have any additional questions for staff at this time?

I just had a comment.

Commissioner Paslag.

You were talking about the zoning just north of that. I see that this is in policy zone two, which encompasses the whole Kaiser facility, the apartments we approved a few months ago, all the way down to this property. It's basically the policy I guess is planning on high density building.

That is correct.

Plus the commercial along first And quarter quarter twenty see a apartment buildings like on each side of Kaiser the of do we have plans of for some buildings there?

On the East Side of Kaiser there was an entitlement that for apartment an apartment complex that has since expired But there was just an apartment complex approved just directly South of Kaiser on the other side of Yosemite. And I can tell you there is another application in review right now for an apartment complex on West Yosemite Avenue west of that Kaiser complex south side of the road and that's a large building so that one is going to be coming your way in the next few months.

And question to I don't know if this would be pertinent. So the look of the entitlement we just did is very different from this. Now you're saying that there's a third public coming. I know if there's any we should take into consideration. Should they be cohesive? Or is this one being more on the commercial side of airport or where they're gonna develop eventually sometime if that if that cohesion is working? So I I don't know. I mean, they're kind of on two separate sides. But guess I'm just wondering if it should be more, like, as a standard look between the three projects or having this one stand out. Is that okay?

Because there is a hotel that's on the other side that looks kind of the same shape. I know it's a hotel versus apartments, but as a building looking, it's not that different. So I don't know. That's just my point.

It it is a difficult proposition. And I will just add as a point of clarification. At this point, we do not have any adopted commercial design guidelines. So that does put us in of a muddy spot of subjectivity. So that being said, planning staff reviewed based on municipal code and guidelines that we do have. And whether the building looks good or does not look good really is up to the eyeball looking at it.

Thank you. Mr. Mendoza, Commissioner Salk, any questions for staff at this time or comments?

We're sorry.

Please. Mhmm.

Let me know if it's not appropriate or not. But I'm from the Bay Area, so I'm pretty familiar with traffic and stuff. So the concern I have as a resident are parkings, especially I've seen this in the past where a lot of people have more than one car like I mentioned earlier, even if it's just for one bedroom apartment, but a couple could have two cars at least. So that's why 80 parking stall was a concern. I kind of raised that.

And also the rooftop deck, I'd love to have that. But if I were to be the neighbor, I'm not sure if I want that. I don't know how you can mitigate that. Addition for sure but maybe something that, you know, kind of think about that and parking for sure too. And I'm pretty familiar. I know I haven't been here like as long as you do but just looking at the area close to schools. Costco. A lot of now that we mentioned about, you know, hospitals. And I think, yeah, having additional stop signs will be good as well because there's gonna be a lot of traffic in and out of airport way.

Thank you.

Commissioner, if I may.

I appreciate your comments as well as the residents in the area and I just wanted to add and kind of echo what planner Barnum had said with regards to parking. We have our zoning code. The project has met the minimum requirements for that. I would note that within the next six months, we have a zoning code amendment, text amendment process coming forward, so that'd be the opportunity for the commission to be able to comment on that. But with regards to parking, they've met the minimum for the project at that site.

I'd also add in response to commissioner Mendoza's comments about the architecture. This is the first that's coming before the commission in the in this, I don't wanna say hotel type look, but there are others in the process, others that are also considering and utilizing rooftop space as more of a community space. One I can think of on West Yosemite now that'll probably be coming to the commission this summer, let's about. So it's not the first. Similarly, we've also had significant interest on the West Side Of Airport right at Wawona for a similar type project, much, much larger though, similar architecture, similar style.

So to your point, yes, this would be similar to maybe some more of the Bay Area architecture. However, I think that we're going to start seeing much more of that. We we're seeing it now in the entitlement process, and, certainly, I think you'll be seeing it as a commission within the next six months or so as well.

And if I may, as a couple extra points of clarification for the commission, just with regard to the rooftop deck area, if you look at the plan set, what you'll notice is it does have two points observation kind of points where you can go to the rail and kind of look out. Those are on the north side of the building, south side of the building but there are no observation points on the east and west ends of that observation deck. So you can the view is either north or south. So just as a point of clarification on the architecture there. And then with regard to traffic, certainly always a concern in Manteca.

That's one of the biggest hot button concerns on every project that comes through. This town is growing explosively, so traffic is continually an issue. The staff report, page 11, does have a snip from a traffic analysis for the Rotten Robbie fueling station and the traffic signal that was installed as a condition for that project. And what that analysis shows is that signal took the level of service, which was at a D or F in that intersection up to an A. So complete opposite end of the spectrum completely resolved the traffic and congestion issue at that intersection.

So this project benefits directly from that and any impact that this project might have intersection still leaves it in a very healthy and very acceptable level of service for that area. So traffic, sure, there will be more traffic. No question. Anytime there's a person, there's traffic. But level of service is greatly improved from what we have historically known for that intersection with the recent development there.

Mr. Mendoza.

Intersection at Fishback And Wawona. I haven't been there recently but it goes all the way through. Right? It's not a it's a not a t intersection. It's a four four legged.

That's correct, commissioner Bennoff.

Okay. And it's and it's not signalized. Correct?

Correct. It's a four way

sign.

So you know with all these kids coming out of this 44 unit, would you need to do something to that intersection to get them across that street? Would there be something that maybe would require the applicant to pay for something that could be, well, will be necessary in the future since all this development is going to occur along that corridor?

Commissioner Mendoza a good question. That is I believe would be answered by the requirement from the Manteca Unified School District for this project to annex into their capital facilities district. And my understanding is within that would be infrastructure to provide safety for students traveling to and from the school. So being that there is a high school close by, being that there is an elementary school close by, then this project proposes to improve the right of way, pedestrian and bicycle traffic along Wawana on the north side of the road, having three children myself, I know anytime you have an intersection near a school, you've also got a crossing guard. So my anticipation would be, although the school district has not spoken explicitly to this, is that during school hours before and after whenever students are going coming, there probably will be a crossing guard at that intersection.

That's the way it is in my community, every community I've lived in. That's my anticipation. But I have not heard explicitly from the school district about what that method would be.

Do you know why they wrote the letter opposing this? I didn't get a chance to read it.

I do. There was typically when it went well, typically. Without exception, when there is a residential project proposed for the City Of Manteca, the school district asks requests of the applicant to enter into conversation with them for annexation into their school district into their capital facilities district. In this case the letter was sent to the applicant and it just kind of got missed and so that conversation never happened. So the project was going to was agendized and the public hearing notice went out and the school district said hey what's going on we haven't heard from this applicant.

So they then sent the correspondence to us which you received and since then the applicant has reached out to the school district and has initiated that conversation. So that's how that that letter came to be.

So they really don't oppose They they just want some financing.

They they they they're opposed, if I understand their languaging language correctly, and I don't want to speak for them, but my understanding is they they oppose residential development without investment into the district because their facilities district allows them to be able to develop that infrastructure to provide safety and resources for the children coming to and from school.

Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner. The applicant is asking if he could

address that as well. Unfortunately, public hearing is closed, so we cannot entertain the applicant any longer, unfortunately. However, just to follow-up on Commissioner Mendoza's discussion regarding the Manteca Unified School District letter, my interpretation is correct. It is community facility district that they're requesting for funding mechanism for the 44 unit influx. I think if this was a two forty four unit property, we'd have a bigger question here.

I don't know and maybe you know is there an average number of school age children expected at a 44 unit complex? Do we know the quantity for Manteca historically? I don't know that. I know typically it's,

I think, 3.2 residents per dwelling unit typically. I don't know what an average number would be. But I would assume if it was one to two children per unit, that would be 80 to 100 children, 80 ish kids potentially.

So I can say that the recent numbers we've received back from one of our consultants regarding average number of residents per household has actually gone down below the three per unit. So if we're looking at let's just say three in the two bedroom, that leaves most likely a student per. But again, I looked at the school district and unfortunately they're not here to provide that information or

comment on the letter they sent. So hypothetically, you could argue there's at least 50 of the units would have school aged children potentially. You could even argue maybe more. Let's say there's at least one in every unit that's 40 kids. Yeah. Okay. Understood. Noted for the record. Is part of the permitting process for this the developer required to pay any school impact fees as it relates to this project?

Yes, they are. So if the applicant and the school district are somehow able to come to agreement, they would still be required to pay their school district fee directly to Manique Unified for their impacts associated with every square foot of space, whether there's a student living there or not.

Very good. So there will be some funding from this project, not just despite a CFD? Correct. Okay. Thank you. As it relates to the concerns surrounding privacy that were expressed from a rooftop terrace to a fourth story apartment with view down into fencing, Are there any concerns with respect to CEQUA as it relates to this from a mitigation perspective that staff would like to comment on?

There really wasn't anything in the Sequa document that addressed that view per se. It does address questions such as scenic vistas, which Manteca does not really have any designated scenic vistas. So there really isn't anything in the CEQA document that addresses that view because it is not an environmental issue per se. It doesn't really have an environmental impact. But that view is yeah, there is nothing in the secret document speaking explicitly to that. Okay. Thank you.

There was reference by one of the residents in the area with respect to potential for well damage during construction. Can you confirm for the record the insurance requirements carried by the project developer? Would that protect the residents should such a situation occur?

I'm, I don't know if maybe Director Wenlock or Deputy Director Roscoe has an answer to that question. I'm not familiar with that myself.

So every license contract in the state of California is required to have their own insurance, and my assumption based on your question was it be if there is an issue that there could be either complaints or litigation with, CSLB, Contractors State License Board, in regards to their license, and the work on-site.

Okay. So it is required essentially for a licensed contractor to be fully insured in those kind of situations. Good. There was reference to parking, and I understand it's been very, very clear by staff tonight that the project meets the minimum requirements for parking. With 44 units and 80 stalls with no assigned visitor spaces, it's reasonable to expect that visitor flow could result in double parking within the unit, which could impact fire or overflow onto Wawona.

It does look like there are parking is allowed along Wawona on the north side of the street. I've driven down the street many times. There's cars parked along that pathway passageway, which can create potential hazards. But I think it's important to note that that's something that may need to be mitigated should an issue happen down the road with respect to parking. Obviously, there is an isolated pathway all the way around three sixty degrees around the development, which is adequate certainly for a fire engine to do the job that they need to do should there be an emergency.

I'm just concerned if there's a lot of visitors and there's a party and park people are parked all along that pathway, the fire truck can't get through. So I'm going to expect that red curbs are installed, clear fire safety lanes are installed, and enforcement I assume there'll be enforcement should there be any issues related to illegal parking in the Is that fair to state?

That's a fair expectation. I'm not certain as to what kind of red curbing the fire department is requiring on the site. I could check the plan set and see if there's anything called out as far as no parking. But definitely on-site parking will have to be regulated by the property owners. And hopefully no one will be doing any kind of double parking there. Hopefully people will be respectful but that is really something that's regulated by property owners.

Very good. Okay. So sorry, I've got a few more. With respect to our zoning ordinance for high density residential, it currently states that there's a maximum of 25 dwelling units per acre as part of our zoning ordinance. Our general plan lists high density residential as a 30 unit maximum for 30 dwelling units per acre as a maximum.

Can staff just explain why there's a discrepancy there with respect to our zoning ordinance and our general plan as it relates to this project? And what kind of expectations the city is relying on to allow this project to proceed at 26.3 dwelling units per acre?

I may be able to answer that, Chair Yes. Commissioners. So as part of the city's recent general plan update for the 2043 general plan, it's almost expected that there will be some inconsistencies with the zoning code until the zoning code gets updated. As director Walling mentioned, staff is working towards bringing forward a an updated zoning code to reflect those inconsistencies within to ensure full compatibility and consistency between both documents. At this time, staff is relying on state state statute to guide us through this process.

The state generally generally looks at the density, the highest density of either documents. And it's been clearly applied in various housing types, whether it's market rate, bonus density projects, and other similar like projects. And so at this time, the project is in compliance with the goals and policies of the general plan and the zoning ordinance with the exception of the density under the R3 Zone District.

And I believe you're referencing government code six eight

are

correct. 65860, excuse me, with respect to that kind of superseding general plan deferral, Correct?

You are correct, chair. Okay.

It does specifically mention amending the zoning within one hundred and eighty days. Is that you mentioned a six month outlook for that. Is that part of that process?

We certainly missed that deadline. And again, it's a big undertaking

Yep.

To ensure compliance or consistency between both documents.

Okay. And if I could ask the deputy city attorney, is the city attorney's office comfortable with the government code 6500860 application in this project as it relates to referring to the general plan versus the zoning ordinance?

Yes. More specifically, it's 65,860. If you look at, say, I don't know if you have it in front of you, section 1B

kind

of goes into what Deputy Director Jesus mentioned, and we're fine with his statements. We echo his sentiments.

Thank you, sir. I just have some comments, and I appreciate staff, and I appreciate the amount of work that has gone into this project behind the scenes and the availability of staff to answer questions and it's been tremendously helpful for the commissioners. I can speak for myself and I'm sure my fellow commissioners when we say that. There are obviously some concerns expressed tonight on the project as it relates to kind of neighbor impacts, neighborhood impacts, traffic impacts. Some are to be expected with growth.

Some could be mitigated, which some of them are through the mitigated negative declaration and the mitigating monitoring program. We can expect reasonably 50 cars added, I think, is a reasonable expectation to Wabona and Daniels. Daniels And Airport continues to be a very challenging intersection, Even with after McKinley is opened, as someone that frequents that area almost daily, this is going to add to that load, also obviously add to Wawona, east and westbound. I understand there are improvements and enhancements made for pedestrian traffic, which is a good thing. I think one of the challenges we're having with the kind of design elevation is the fact that we still do not have objective design standards in the city of Manteca.

So I think that to Mr. Barnum's point, it unfortunately enters the area of subjectivity versus objectivity, which is not within our purview to decide as a planning commission. Even though we may not, quote unquote, like the way something looks, we don't have an objective standard to go off of. So we have to, in many ways, kind of put that to the side at some point. I think objective of the commission in every single project that we hear is we have to look and put through the lens of does the project meet the general plan requirements, is it consistent with the general plan, is it consistent with Title 17 of the Manteca Municipal Code or zoning ordinance?

And does it violate CEQA? Or is it consistent with CEQA? And those are our kind of burdens of obligation. And that's really our role tonight, just like it is with any other project. In the site plan and design review findings, staff is asking us to make the finding that the site layout, as well as the landscaping, lighting, and other developmental features is compatible with and complements the existing surrounding environment and ultimate character of the area under the general plan.

There's a fair amount of subjectivity in that as well, unfortunately, due to the fact that there are no objective design standards. I think the concerns that have been expressed relate to the impact on the neighborhood and the feel of the environment in the area. This is a low density residential. Staff is asking us to make this a high density residential area to satisfy the project and the applicant. So we're obligated to make those findings.

And I think that's where some of the concerns have been expressed tonight by my fellow commissioners. Do any commissioners have any other comments or questions? Sorry, I hogged the microphone for twenty minutes. No? Okay.

All right. So this is an item that is a three part item with respect to the agenda. The first step is related to the initial study and mitigated negative declaration. The second step is related to the rezoning. And the third step is related to the project. We're going to handle those as three separate motions tonight because of the nature and the kind of complexity of the project and the ask tonight. So we're

going to

look at you have a question, sir? Sorry. Okay. We're going to start with the first item. And then each item, we're going to ask for a roll call vote for this, for each motion. So if there's no other deliberation or discussion, we can entertain a motion on item C2-one.

Chair. Yes, sir. For the record, staff will recommend you read out that motion.

So the specific request is, is there a motion and a second to adopt a resolution recommending city council Council make the necessary findings and adopt an initial study mitigated negative declaration, SCH number 2000025100770, and the associated mitigation monitoring and reporting program prepared for the Wawona Apartments project consisting of a development application for a general plan amendment, GPA 20 four-seventy six, Rezone, REZ 20 four-seventy seven, Lot Line Adjustment, LLA 20 four-seventy eight, site plan and design review SPR 20 four-seventy nine, and a minor zone modification MZM-twenty five-one.

I motion to approve.

Second?

We have a motion to approve by Vice Chair Jimenez and a second from or did I get that backwards?

You're correct.

You made the motion. Motion to approve by Vice Chair Jimenez and a second from Commissioner Paslak. All those who vote in favor will say aye. Aye. Opposed?

Okay. Motion passes on item c two dash one, five to zero. Second item on the list tonight is, is there a motion and a second to adopt a resolution recommending city council approve a general plan amendment to amend the land use designation of approximately 1.67 acres from the very low density residential to the high density residential HDR land use designation for the Wawona Apartments Project APN February.

Motion.

I'll second. Alright

we have a motion from Commissioner Paslak and a second from vice chair Jimenez. And I missed the roll call vote on the first item. So can I call for a roll call vote on that?

Commissioner Mendoza.

For the first one or the second one?

Second one. The second one.

Aye.

Commissioner Paslack? Aye. Commissioner Salk? Vice Chair Jimenez? Aye. Chair Coleman?

Aye. Motion passes five to zero. And the last one but not least, is there a motion and a second to adopt a resolution recommending city council adopt an ordinance to, one, rezone REZ 20 Four-seventy 7, approximately 1.67 acres from the residential estate R E to the multiple family dwelling R-three Zone District. And by resolution approve two, lot line adjustment LLA 20 four-seventy eight merging the project parcels and three, site plan review SPR 20 four-seventy nine for the physical development of the 44 unit multifamily residential development and four, minor zone modification MZM 20 five-one allowing a 10% reduction from the open space requirements for the Wawona Apartments project located at 20052019, and 2027 Wawona Street, APN 220 Two-one Hundred-fifteen-fourteen And -nine.

Commissioner Mendoza.

We don't have a motion yet on the table, sorry. Is there a motion to approve? I'll do a motion. Do we have a second? Okay. I'll second the motion. Roll call vote, please, madam clerk.

Commissioner Mendoza. Aye. Commissioner Paslak. Aye. Commissioner Salk? Vice Chair Jimenez? Aye. Chair Coleman?

Aye. Motion passes five to zero. And to clarify for the record, that was a motion from Commissioner lak and a second from me, Chair Kulman. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you for your patience in getting us through that item. Let's move on to item D, staff comments.

No staff updates on my behalf. I just wanna wish everyone a happy Easter. Passing it on to director Wanlot.

Good evening, commissioners. I actually didn't have anything either, but happy Easter and, thank you for your time. I know items, the second one, can be a little bit difficult. So thanks for working with us. I appreciate the residents from the community attending as well and their comments. So thank you.

Alright. Thank you, staff. Let's bring it back to the commission for commissioner comments tonight. Anyone like to start? Commissioner Mendoza? No comments tonight? Commissioner Salk, anything you'd like to add? No? Commissioner Paslack?

I just want to say thanks to the staff again. That was a lot of work on that particular project. They're always willing to answer our questions.

Vice chair.

Yeah. That was a pretty large initial study to go through. So we appreciate all the work that goes into that. And I also appreciate my fellow commissioners preparation for these kind of meetings. I know it was a lot to go through but I appreciate you guys going through it just as much as I do because you have a lot of thoughts that sometimes I miss. I appreciate that. Thank you.

Absolutely. Thank you. I'll echo the comments. Tonight's projects, this particularly item C2, the amount of work that went on behind the scenes and the amount of questions that got answered in advance of tonight's meeting and even during the meeting by the staff. We couldn't do this without you, and I know you couldn't do this without us, I suppose.

And it's a two way partnership, and we really appreciate your availability, your commitment to professionalism, and making sure that we have the answers to the questions we need to make the right informed recommendations tonight. Very much appreciated, as always. I want to thank the staff again for allowing us to attend the many of us to attend the Planning Commissioners Academy in March. It was a wonderful event in Anaheim and certainly continue the learning journey of the state of California and planning. And it's a never ending responsibility by the staff and by us, quite honestly.

So it's one of those things where you think you know everything, and then you learn something new. I want to thank the members of the public that came out tonight, as always. It's a very important part and responsibility of being a citizen of this community. If you have impacts and you have things to say, we need to hear it. And we appreciate you coming out.

And while I understand that there's frustration sometimes with some projects, we have a responsibility and we have a role to play, and so does the city council. And they're going to have a role to play in one of the items tonight at a later date. So happy Easter to everybody. Hope everyone has a good weekend. We'll adjourn this meeting at 07:40PM.