Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

tonight.

Chair Coleman, there are no changes to the agenda, and there was a total of one supplemental report provided for item D1 and 10 supplemental reports provided for item D3. 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 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 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 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 that's not 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 comments can be made on Zoom webinar by using the Raise Your Hand feature or by pressing star 9 on the line.

All right, thank you. Madam Clerk, are there any hands raised on Zoom for any items not on the agenda tonight?

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

We'll take the comment card.

Sudhakar Sati.

Good evening Chair and Commissioner. Thank you for the opportunity. I'm here to request help from the city to remove the impediments of storm drain for the two future schools that were announced, specifically the Tara Park. I'm not sure the construction around the home building is not stopping, but it's a storm drain issue for the school. So I request you to clear the impediments for the storm drain so that MUSD can start the school. And regarding the tin inside, so they need the water and sewer connection, but City put a clause saying the remaining residents who are in county not in city limits need to rejoin need to join to city limits in order for water and sewer to be provided to tin inside. When city can help Nile Garden, which is 1.3 miles away, for a water well, why can't city can help Tinin site, which is less than 100 feet from the city boundaries? And also, the same clause was never applied for a Griffin Park parcel, which is on the same side of the Tinin Road as the school site. but that was included into the city limits and why not the same conditions applied to the school side. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

All right. Do we have any members of the audience wishing to address the commission on any item that's not listed on the agenda tonight? Maybe so now. Okay. All right, seeing none, we'll go ahead and move on to 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.

OK. Do any members of the commission have any ex parte communications to disclose? We'll start with Commissioner Mendoza. None. Commissioner Fiore.

None.

Commissioner Pasluck.

None.

Vice Chair Jimenez.

None.

I have none as well. Thank you. All right. That takes us to item C, consent. Matters listed under consent are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion and one vote. There will be no separate discussion of these matters. If discussion is desired, a member of the audience or a commission member may request that an item be removed from consent and will be considered separately. Tonight, we only have one item on the consent agenda, which is item C1, 26-342, review and approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes from May 21st. Madam Clerk, do we have any requests from the public to pull the consent item tonight?

No, Chair.

Thank you. Any commissioners wish to pull the consent item tonight? No? All right. We'll call for a vote. Is there a motion and a second to approve all items listed under the consent calendar as presented?

Fiore will move.

Do we have a second? All right. We have a motion from Commissioner Fiore and a second from Commissioner Paslack to approve The consent item tonight, item C1, all those in favor will vote. Say aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. That takes us right along to the public hearings. Here we go. Item D1.

Item D1-26-142, Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and consider adoption of a resolution approving a modification to site plan and design review SPC-23-44 for the Little Camper Propane Project located at 2055 Moffett Boulevard, APN 228-050-25. Assistant Planner Allison Diaz will be presenting this item.

evening chair and members of the commission my name is allison diaz assistant planner and tonight i'm presenting a modification request for the approved site plan and design review for little camper propane facility the project is located at 2055 moffett boulevard spc 23-44 was previously approved by the planning commission on december 21st 2023 the project applicant is now requesting a modification of the improved entitlement for commercial development That includes a 2,100 square foot office, 6,890 square foot processing building, a 270 square foot fire pump house, and two storage buildings at total 13,963 square feet. Current adjacent uses are Highway 99 to the north, a reception hall to the east, Moffett Boulevard and RV storage to the south, and Camps Propane to the west. The zoning designation is heavy industrial and the general plan designation is industrial. The approved uses have been deemed compatible with the site allowing for processing and storage. This slide illustrates the previously approved and revised site plans for the project. Building number two was originally approved as a 6,890 square foot production building and is now proposed as a 6,925 square foot production building representing an increase of 35 square feet. The revision also includes a change in the building's orientation. However, these modifications do not impact the site's parking layout, circulation, or traffic flow. These are the previously approved elevations for the production building. And these are the proposed revisions to elevations for the production building. The revised conditions include specific details to align with the department's updated policies and procedures, along with the proposed modifications of project phasing. Phase one includes buildings one, two, three, and five, while phase two includes building four. Development of phase one shall occur within two years of this approval, and phase two shall occur no later than one year from final occupancy of phase one. A modification request to the conditions of approval and site plan design review entitlement that was originally approved on December 19 2023 is still consistent with the general plan and zoning. meets the required site plan and design review findings is consistent with the climate action plan and is sequence and pursuant to section 1533 to infill development projects. Staff recommends the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and approve a modification to site plan and design review SPC 23-44 for the Little Camper Propane Facility project located at 2055 Moffett Boulevard, APN 228-050-25. That concludes this presentation. Staff and the applicant are available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Diaz. Appreciate that. At this time, do any commissioners have any clarifying questions for staff on this item? Commissioner Fiore.

We're talking about phasing this project. So in phase one, it has to be ready for occupancy within two years, correct? Is that my understanding? That is correct. Okay, and if they slip a schedule on this, can they request another extension?

Yes, they can request an extension for the modification. Okay, thank you.

One question, Ms. Diaz. Conditions of approval have some red lines and changes. Can you just briefly summarize the changes in the condition of approval from the original project?

Yes, I can do that. So for development service department for planning, a site plan design review. We specified minor modifications and anything to that. All site development. Building architecture landscape on and off-site improvements shall be in close conformance with project plan set dated December 27, 2023 and the revised plan set dated April 2, 2026. We also brought up about trash enclosures. Trash enclosures shall be constructed in conformance with colors and materials primary to the primary structures all lighting and illumination and the developer shall also ensure that no loitering and no trespassing signage is posted to the specifications of the police department and any further modifications, additions or expansions on the site shall be subject to development standards in place at the time. And then also the expiration and going through the phasing which I read on our my presentation.

Very good, thank you. Any other questions at this time for the applicant? Do we have the applicant in attendance tonight?

Yes, they are here.

I'd like to make a presentation. Now is your time. And if you could just please state your name and title for the record.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commission members. My name is Elwin Heinen. I'm a principal engineer with Advanced Design Group in Modesto. I've been designing this project from day one back in 23 where we got it approved and so forth. The new project that we're wanting to extend and so forth is basically exactly the same. The problem is that financial occurrence during this here time that the owner couldn't handle it quite yet until now, but now it's a full-blown goal. we've got building number one completely designed and the site plan is pretty well laid out we're right now playing with PG&E there's power poles that have to be moved and we're waiting for their decision final decision on that along with frontier communication with telephone lines and so forth like this that's our hold up right now building number two we feel like we got that pretty well matched out and building number five we're working on it as far as the layout, but I think everything is going fine. I appreciate planning for assisting us with the development of the project and presenting this extension and so forth. If you have any questions, give me a holler. The owner is here. He'd like to say a few words.

Very good. Thank you, sir.

Hello, everyone. My name is Briggs Alavisos. I'm the manager of Little Camper, and I brought one to show you guys as well today. Thank you guys for your time. I really appreciate it. We're very excited to build this new facility in Manteca. I was born and raised in Manteca. Went off to college and then came back to Manteca and really excited to do business in Manteca, be our central hub for everything, all of our transportation and logistics. And just really thank you guys. We're excited to have the sustainability with us, you know, getting those tanks back out of the landfill, making sure that we're reusable just like barbecue tank exchange and just doing everything we can for the environment. So thank you.

Thank you, sir. Just real quick while you're up there, just one clarifying question. Have you read the conditions of approval, and are you in agreement with those conditions? Yes, I have. Perfect. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. Any questions for the applicant at this time? Commissioner Paslack, feel free to come back up, too.

That tank is going to be refillable, that one pound? Yes.

Yes, so this tank's built to the same specs as a barbecue tank. It's a 4BA240 tank, which basically means it can be refilled, and it has a life of 12 years until it has to be inspected again. So we refill them with a very safe, all mechanism electronically, and it's refillable for 12 years.

Any other questions? Thank you. You said that, just real quick, you said the timeline, it sounds like from Mr. Heinen, do you feel optimistic about moving forward in a more expeditious way at this point, after assuming you are approved for the modification? Yes. Yes, okay. Very good. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. At this point, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing on this item at 6.19 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, do we have any hands raised on Zoom or comment cards for item D1 tonight? uh chair there are no hands raised on zoom and we have no comment cards okay thank you any members of the audience wish to address the commission on this item you may do so now okay seeing none since there are no public comments there is no applicant rebuttal needed so we'll close the public hearing at 6 20. we'll bring it back to the commission for Further questions from staff or discussion? Commissioner Mendoza.

The conditions require a number of improvements directly in front of the business on Moffitt. Is there anything beyond those limits that this applicant needs to participate in or construct? I know that there's two signals. There's one at the new interchange at Austin and there's one in Moffitt. So are they just focused on their frontage?

Yeah. Hi, Commissioner. So the applicant will have to do some restriping that extends beyond their frontage. But other than that, and I think there might be some miscellaneous paving, but other than that, that's about the limit.

Okay. So then one of the items here, it says improvements along the project frontage shall conform to the SR99-120 signal plans thing it says for but it's the end the future signal and improvements at the intersection of Woodward Avenue market. So what kind of is there just are there going to be what? How does that affect people? Yeah.

Yeah, so the project is located immediately what would be the north leg, if you will, of the intersection of Moffett and Woodward. And so it's just beyond the signal itself. So it won't really have any impact to the signal. I think the minor striping change is essentially, like I said, along their frontage, but there'll probably be some changes to the striped median island, so to allow left ingress to the property. It's currently striped as a double-double island, so you can't make a left turn across two double yellow lines. So we'll have to make a break for that. But other than that, it should be pretty minimal.

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Any other questions for staff? Comments tonight on this item?

I just have two quick questions.

For the record, we can safely assume that fire is signed off on the modified plans and are supportive of the project?

Yes, they've reviewed it.

Very good. Thank you. And then this, from a secret perspective, relies on a class 32 infill exemption. Has staff evaluated the revised plans to ensure consistency there?

Yes, we have.

Perfect. Thank you. Any other questions?

All right.

All right, if there's no other comments or questions on this item, we'll call for a vote. Is there a motion and a second to adopt a resolution approving a modification to site plan and design review, SPC 23-44 for the Little Camper Propane Project located at 2055 Moffett Boulevard, APN 228-050-25?

I motion to approve. Is there a second?

All right, we have a motion to approve from Vice Chair Jimenez and a second from Commissioner Fiore. All those who vote in favor, say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Thank you. And that will take us to item D2.

Item D2-26-335, Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and consider finding the project exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and adopt a resolution approving conditional use permit CUP-26-36 for Gary Marshall Arts Academy to the operation of a school specialized education and training studio Use located at 232 West Yosemite Avenue, Manteca, California, APN 219-400-02. Assistant Planner Zuzi Mahunga will be presenting this item.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. Today, we're reviewing the proposed Geary Martial Arts Academy. So this project entails a specialized education and training studio use proposed to be located on 232 West Yosemite, which will be called the Indian Martial Arts Academy. The parcel is located in the DMU mixed-use downtown zoning district, which requires specialized education training schools and studios to have a conditional use permit. So the project is surrounded by commercial uses with the Tidewater Bikeway and Union Pacific Railroad located on the south. The project has a downtown general plan land use expectation and is located within the mixed use downtown zoning district. These pieces allow for retail and service orientated commercial. Here we can see the proposed floor plan for the martial arts academy, there are no modifications or expansions associated with this project, the applicant is just putting about an approximate 1000 square foot. Training mat within the building, as you can see there. Mr. Giri has practiced martial arts since 1980 and has developed expertise in multiple disciplines throughout the past 40 years. His proposed Indian Martial Arts Academy will offer a unique blend of traditional Indian martial arts focused on self-defense and fitness, creating opportunities for physical activity, personal development, and practical skills for residents of all ages. The proposed school specialized education and training studio use would bring a new martial arts academy in the downtown zoning district, which is suitable for uses that improve the vibrancy and pedestrian scale character of the downtown. Its close proximity to adjacent commercial uses is expected to contribute to local pedestrian activity, and the scheduled weekly class times are anticipated to have minimal noise and traffic impacts that will appropriately integrate with surrounding land uses. The project was duly noticed on May 29, 2026, and staff has received zero written comments as of today. The project was determined to be exempt from CEQAS pursuant to Section 15301, Existing Facilities. Staff recommends the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and find the project exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and adopt a resolution approving conditional use permit CUP 2636 for Geary-Marshall Arts Academy to operate a school specialized education and training studio use located at 232 West Yosemite Avenue, Manteca, California, APN 219400. Thank you for your consideration, commissioners. This concludes the presentation, and I'm happy to help answer any questions, and the applicant is also in attendance to do so.

All right, thank you, Ms. Munga. We very much appreciate it. Do commissioners have any clarifying questions at this time for staff on this side?

No. Okay.

You said the applicant is here. Applicant may come up to present tonight. If you have anything you'd like to present tonight, feel free. Just state your name and title for the record.

Thank you for everyone, all members. So my name is Amarjeet. So I'm teaching from last 40 years. And before 2000, I used to teach my police trainings. I was teaching the trainers for commandos over there. I already three-time international gold medalist too already. And I'm still going to international seminars, teaching for seminars, internationals everywhere, and still doing my practice too. So my motto is like all ages people, I will start from the six plus. And in the beginning, six to 13, I'm going to take the classes for early, after the school programs. And 13 plus to under 13 to 50. In the intermediate, I take over there, and I'm planning to the family members. Some family members or some plus 50 plus, they want to learn martial art or fitness. So they're going to take the end of the day. I'm going to take classes over that month too. So my motto is mostly to promote all communities that do sports, not drugs. That's my main motto.

Very good. Thank you, sir. I just have two quick questions for you. Have you read the conditions of approval on the project tonight? Yes, sir. And are you in agreement with those conditions?

Yes, sir. Very good.

And then one more I forgot to mention. I have one more question. Three, the activities for your classes are going to be entirely contained within the building, right?

You're not going to have to spill over outside? Inside on the mat.

The mat. Okay. Thank you, sir. Any other questions for the applicant while he's up here? Any commissioners? All right, thank you, sir. We'll go ahead at this point and open the public hearing on this item at 6.29 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 comment cards or hands raised on Zoom for item D2?

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

Thank you very much. Any members of the audience wish to address the commission on this item tonight may do so now. All right. Seeing no hands, there is no public comment, which means there's no applicant rebuttal required. So we're going to go ahead and close the public hearing at 6.30 PM. We'll bring it back to the commission for further discussion and questions for staff. Commissioner Mendoza.

I have a few. Even when you drive by this on the front, I'm assuming the front entrance to this building is off Yosemite. Is that the main access in off of Yosemite? Where's the front door to this? One of the things I notice when I drive by, there's a ramp. that raises off the elevation of the sidewalk. Is that a raised floor inside there? I've never been in the building. Yes, because it's, yeah, it's a raised floor already inside over there. That ramp makes it ADA accessible.

Yes, sir. And there are back door too over there, but main is on the front side.

The back door also you can get to it in a wheelchair. Yeah, I can leave open that one too, yes. Where's the...

The nearest ADA parking. I know this is in the. Yeah, they have a lot parking. It's on the front street parking too. And my left building, the left side, they are parking. The back side, they have plenty parking over there. No, but ADA parking. Wheelchair. Yes, sir.

There is one close to the front door or the back door?

Yeah, the back side is almost all over there, over there. And in the sidewalk, near the front door, the sidewalk, they have like maybe 10 or 12 parking over there too.

Okay. So it looks like only thing you're doing is you're rolling out a mat. No improvements to the building at all?

No need to improve anything. Just putting the mat over there.

Okay. Sounds good.

All right. Any other commissioners have questions for staff at this time?

No questions, but I just have a comment.

Commissioner Fiore.

This proposal takes me back to old gym days. You get in there, there's a mat and not much else. You work hard and whatever. I think it's a great infill project, quite honestly. If I had the time, I'd probably go in there and see what I could learn. I really appreciated this project. And thank you for committing this to our community.

Thank you, Commissioner. One question I have for staff, this falls under the DMU zone, is that correct?

That is correct.

So the DMU zone does not require off-street parking?

That is correct.

My understanding, is that right? OK. So can you explain how that works here in practice here? Because the project is estimating 150 students a day. 45-minute classes, 20 to 25 students per class. I assume that's going to create a lot of activity downtown, drop-off pickups. While there's no off-street parking required, can you just talk about how that policy would come into play with this project?

So I don't know if the deputy director would like to jump in about the studies that have been done in the downtown.

Chair, commissioners, yes, so as part of the city's city-wide rezoning process back in November of 2024, that scope of work entailed doing some heat maps related to parking. Those studies did reveal that there was ample parking for the downtown area in order to move forward with this policy decision to eliminate requirements in the downtown zone district. There's certain areas within downtown that are underutilized and again with the intent to encourage more walkability and make downtown a destination. This one encourages more businesses to locate in the downtown zone as well as encourage individuals to patronize those new businesses.

Thank you, appreciate that. And one final question for me. Since there is very limited modifications happening to the actual building, does this project still require an additional fire department sign off and inspection? And has that taken place?

Yes, Chair. So we still distributed the project to the fire department, and they did give us a general set of conditions about fire suppression, kind of boilerplate conditions, but they did review it and sign off on it.

Okay. That's what I was looking for. Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Fiori.

Commissioner Coleman, you bring up a good point. You have, what, about 25 students per class, and it'll be... 9 to 9, and then on the weekends, there'll be a truncated hour. But we have events down there and whatever else. So I'm kind of trying to imagine the traffic pattern down there, especially for the younger kids. If parents are going to be dropping their kids off, are they going to want to loiter around and wait for the kids? Are they going to be an area for them to park? That type of thing. I'm just kind of wondering how we see the traffic pattern going on down there, especially if it becomes quite successful and they have waiting lists and more classes and additional instructors or whatever. But would we say 150 a day? That's not a lot. But what if they have a tournament? What if they have their graduation and all the moms and dads and uncles want to come out? How would we handle something like that in that area?

Good evening, Commissioner. As far as traffic patterns for that area, Yosemite does get congested at times, and particularly when there's a train event. And so with the parking that's off street right there, I don't know what the quantity of spaces are. from a visual, I think there's probably 20, 25 spaces or so in there. And so you will have some, as classes, one class is ending and picking up and another class is starting and dropping off kind of thing or parking, there could be some congestion created. during those transition times, I would suspect. However, typically it's short-lived, typically resolves within 10 minutes or so. And we don't see it as anything significant as far as traffic generation. Thus, there was no traffic analysis required. of the project when it was reviewed by engineering. So we think that it should be some periodic short-lived congestion that will clear fairly quickly and thus we don't see it as being a significant traffic impact as far as the circulation goes.

On the TIA, okay. Correct. Do we have any future plans for signage for local citizens and whoever to find parking spots If they can't find them there, are we planning to have maybe even just a larger plan where we can help our public find a spot?

I think there are plans that we probably examine and determine as part of the downtown specific plan process to help identify specific parking locations, which is one of the components that's being considered. So not necessarily as part of this project or in a new project, but it will be considered and evaluated as part of this downtown specific plan.

Which is in progress now, correct?

Correct.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Any other discussion, comments, questions for staff?

No?

All right. Well, at this point, if there's no other comments or questions, 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 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines and adopt a resolution approving conditional use permit CUP-26-36 for the Geary Martial Arts Academy through the operation of a school specialized education and training studio. Use located at 232 West Yosemite Avenue, Manteca, California, APN 219-400-02. Motion to approve.

Second.

All right, we have a motion to approve from Commissioner Paslack and a second from Commissioner Mendoza. All those that vote in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? The motion passes 5-0. Thank you very much. That moves us right along to item D3.

Item D3, 26-338, Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council make the necessary findings and adopt an addendum to the City of Manteca General Plan Update EIR SCH number 2020019010 prepared for the batch GPA Sites 1 through 4 project pursuant to sections 15162 and 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines approved general plan amendment GPA 26-52 and by ordinance approved rezone REZ 26-52 for parcels APNs 241-410-18, 241-410-19, 241-410-20, 410-20, 241-260-13, 241-260-33, 218-210-26, and 223-020-28. Associate Planner Saul Jobrak will be presenting this item. Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. Saul Jobrak, Associate Planner with Development Services.

Tonight, I'll be presenting the general plan amendment 2652 and rezone 2650 commonly referred to as the batch EPA sites one through four project. This is a city initiated effort involving four separate properties located throughout the city that are intended to improve consistency between the general plan and zoning map and support future public infrastructure planning and provide long term planning benefits. The project consists of four separate sites located throughout the city of Manteca, totaling approximately 32.918. The project includes amendments to both the general plan, land use map, and zoning map, affecting seven parcels. These amendments are city initiated and are intended to address planning needs identified throughout through implementation of the recently adopted 2043 general plan. The purpose of these amendments are to maintain consistency between general plan land use designations and zoning classification, to assist with future public infrastructure planning, create or preserve housing opportunities where appropriate, and to implement the city's long-range planning objectives established through the 2043 general plan process. Each site addresses a specific planning need, which I will discuss individually. Site 1 is located along a future commercial corridor where potential Caltrans right-of-way acquisition may occur in the future. The amendment would reconfigure land use designations to better accommodate future roadway improvements while maintaining consistency between the general plan and zoning. Under existing designations, approximately 11 residential units could potentially be developed. Under the proposed amendment, the site would support approximately 26,000 square feet of commercial development, which is more consistent with the surrounding area and future transportation planning efforts. Site two involves land use adjustments between a high density residential and public quasi-public designation. The purpose is to provide greater flexibility for a future city of Manteca Fire Station, as well as a future school site with Manteca Unified. while maintaining adequate acreage for the public facilities. The proposal would result in approximately 10.22 acres designated high-density residential and approximately 17.98 acres designated public-quasi-public. This is a almost two-acre increase in public-quasi-public. So a decrease in high-density, increase in uses that would allow public uses, such as schools and the fire station. Overall, the amendment would reduce residential capacity by approximately 30 units while improving long-term public facility planning opportunities. Site three is intended to support future planning for the relocation of fire station number three. The proposed amendment would change both the general plan and zoning designation from commercial to public-quasi-public. This change ensures the site is appropriately designated for the city move forward with relocation of the fire protection services to the area. Site 4, commonly referred to as the Cardoza property, is intended to create a future residential infill opportunity while preserving the commercial furniture along the corridor that is on North Main. The amendment would allow for approximately five residential units while still supporting the nearly 34,000 square foot of commercial development opportunities. The proposal creates a balanced land use arrangement that supports both housing and economic development objectives. The next two slides illustrate the proposed general plan and land use challenges changes for each of the four sites. The graphic compares existing designations with the proposed designations and demonstrates how the amendments improve consistency between planned land uses and zoning regulation. Collectively, these amendments represent targeted adjustments rather than broad policy changes and are intended to better align land use planning with future city needs. This is the zoning Staff reviewed the project for consistency with the city's 2043 general plan. The amendments support several general plan goals, including maintaining a balanced land use mix, promoting orderly infill, providing housing opportunities, supporting public facility, enhancing community services, encouraging housing diversity, and implementing responsible growth management. Based on this analysis, staff finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with goals and policies of the 2043 general plan are in the public The public notice for the hearing was completed in accordance with state law and city requirements. Notices were mailed out to all property owners within 500 feet of each of the project sites, and also published in the Manteca Bulletin on May 29th, 2026. When this was published, we hadn't received any comments, but since then, staff has received about a dozen to 12 to 14 comments, letters regarding site two, The comments primarily focused on and they were concerned with the school site and acreage of the property and its owners. The proposed general plan land use and map amendments do not involve any transfer of property ownership, land conveyances or changes to parcel boundaries. As such, the concerns raised are outside the scope of the proposed as redesignations. Staff acknowledges the comments received and we advise the commenters of the appropriate forums in which those concerns could be addressed. Staff evaluated the project under the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA. An addendum to the certified 2043 general plan environmental impact report was prepared pursuant to CEQA guidelines. The analysis concluded that the proposed amendments would not result in any new significant environmental impacts would not substantially increase the severity of any previously identified impacts and that no information has changed and no circumstances have changed. Therefore, staff finds that the addendum was an appropriate environmental document for this project. Based on the analysis presented in the staff report and supporting documentation, staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and adopt resolutions recommending that the city council first determine that an addendum has been prepared pursuant to SEPA guidelines, and second, approve the general plan amendment and rezone amendment related to this project. That concludes staff's presentation. Staff is available to answer any questions. Did you have any? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jobeck.

At this time, do any commissioners have any clarifying questions for staff? Commissioner Fiore.

On the site number two, we're calling the school district swap. What are we swapping? And we're designating that not as school, but we are designating it under the zoning general plan designations, correct? So there's a possibility at some point there won't be a school there?

Thank you, Commissioner. No, actually, so schools typically are falling under that PQP designation. So there is no change in that. My understanding is there is an arrangement between the City of Antigua and the school district for a portion of that area to be a future potential fire. The school has not gone away. As far as I am aware, the intention is still for a school to go to that site. But we were not made aware of any reduction in school size, just that we're accommodating the ability for both a school and a fire station to go into an area that allows. So schools, unfortunately, have to go into those type of zoning designations, and that's why the increase in PQP and not a decrease.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions at this time?

Commissioner Mendoza.

On site one.

You said slide one?

Site one.

Oh, site.

That area there, right above the project site, you have it identified as undeveloped land. That will always be undeveloped, correct?

So my understanding, and this may be a better question for engineering, but I believe a Caltrans right-of-way is at some point going to go in.

Yes, Commissioner, that's correct. It will essentially always be undeveloped. It's part of the interchange footprint, if you will, and accommodates the eastbound off-ramp and drainage basin.

And in that pink area right there, isn't really what it really is. I mean, I had a discussion with engineering just not too long ago where when you set an inner property for an interchange, it takes up half of that. So the only thing you really got left that could be developed is, I don't know, maybe two thirds of that. But the map clearly shows what it was before the interchange went in. And I think what happens over, it takes about 10 years to actually record the new map that show that that being Caltrans right away and that other piece being whoever owns it.

And thank you, Commissioner. Yeah, and I think probably a better slide I was going to show you, but this one would be to look at the, these proposed designations. I think that better aligns with that, what likely those parcels will end up looking like with those designations.

Someone bring that up on the screen.

Oh, sorry.

My apologies. I had another question. But I think when I looked at the map, I answered my own question. So I'm not going to ask.

All right. Any other clarifying questions at this point for staff? I just have if no one else does, I'll go ahead and ask one or two. In the public comment received in the supplemental, there was questions about in the presentation, you referenced the approximately 10.22 acres of HDR, approximately 17.98 acres of BQP, and a net reduction of approximately 30 residentially for this project. and there was a comment made about how the math doesn't quite add up. From my reading, are we aggregating the larger Site 2 area with that math rather than getting specific on the specific parcels? Is that why it doesn't quite match what the comment is saying in your opinion?

Thank you, Trent. Yeah, we typically will combine as a total acreage of the two existing sites. And in this case, since there is no a lot line adjustment, there is no transfer of properties. It's really just designations. These are, we're following kind of these, what we imagine these lines to be. So these are kind of what we, for the most part, what the lines will end up being, and that's what the outcome of that acreage will be.

Right, okay, perfect. That helps. And then you've said this, but I just want to clarify for the record. We're considering tonight the general plan amendment and rezone, not a land swap. Is that correct? Sure, that is correct. OK. Want to make sure we understand what's before us tonight.

Any other?

I might have a couple more here in the public hearing. Any other right now?

OK.

Thank you very much, Mr. Groback. At this point, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing on this item at 6.52 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, do we have any hands raised on Zoom or live comments tonight for item D?

Chair, there is one hand raised on Zoom, and I have received one comment card.

All right, we'll start with Zoom. Thank you.

It's from Samsung S.M.

Can you hear me, sir?

We have you. Your time starts now. Yes.

Okay. My name is Laxman. I had inquired about this information as soon as I received the information from a bulletin or a message in the mail. But I was given a conflicting, contradicting information from the city of Manteca. They're saying that, you know, it's an agreement between the school and private property has been taken place but they are saying that you know they have not done anything but why are we changing public place to a high residential and why and city is approving of to amendment this because this is school district has a habit of finding a place in between the homes and selling the land to the developers like it is happening right now. And again, they're selling the land and go buy, purchase somewhere else. This is the third time a Star Park school district has been moved. 17.98 acres and one and a half acres has been taken by the city for development of the streets that's supposed to be taken from the developers, not from the school district. In addition to that, again you were you were taking the school land for the purpose and giving away for the developers to expand there this is one of the habit school district has stopping all the activity to help the students you are helping the developers to have a more space but there's no space for the kids to go to they have to travel two to three hours every day to go to their right as a school student to get an education and walk to school has been compromised here for the benefit of the developers here. And we strongly oppose and all the community and I'm representing South Manteca House Owners Society as a public firm supporting the south side of the 120. I'm strongly opposing this as a representative of that organization, and I would stop, I request you to stop approving this plan change to the HDR development. So I request to take additional part to, you know, you can use the, you have been giving additional property to somewhere else for the developer, why are we extending from the school site? And additionally, Another thing is there's approximately about less than 200 meters or 500 meters, there's a public place available from belongs to city of Manteca, which could be used for the fire stations. You don't have to be in between at the compromising or at the cost of a student's education and environment. Why are we doing this? Why are cities are pulling it?

Thank you very much. Mr. Drobac, is the city taking land from the school district in this consideration tonight?

My understanding is the city is not taking any land, that this was an arrangement that already took place prior to this hearing, and that would have been, and this is part of the conversation we tried to have with folks, was That would have happened at Manteca Unified School District, any land transfer, not in the city of Manteca. So that would have been the opportunity to speak out at those items. This item tonight, Chair, is only a cleanup to make sure that the designations can accommodate schools or a fire station, any public use, not an increase in housing.

Thank you. And the modified PQP area, is that... The map kind of shows it may actually be getting slightly larger than it was. Is that correct? Or is it roughly about the same size?

Thank you, Jerry. Yeah, actually, it's an increase in two acres, approximately two acres in PQP, which would allow- Providing more land. More land for schools and fire stations. Very good.

Thank you, sir. All right, we'll take the comment card.

From what's from Sudhakar Sati.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioner. Thank you for the opportunity. My name is Sudhakar. And I strongly oppose the proposed conversion of public Qazi public land to a high density residential at site two. So I do not understand how come the school site increased because the school site before this zoning conversion proposed was 15.87 acre. And the HDR beside it is 11.22. And if 1.87 acre was taken from HDR for a fire station, the HDR should have reduced to around approximately two acres less. That should be 9.22. But if you see the representation of the post, it says 10.22. Where is the additional 0.82 coming from? It's coming from the school site. school site is getting reduced from 15.87 to 14.87. If you add both fire station PQP zone and the school zone, it will be 16.87, not 17.98. The agreement that happened between school district and city is that the one acre that was dedicated by the school district would be used for the sole purpose of fire station. But city has split that one acre into 0.18 and 0.82. 0.18 would be used for fire station, but remaining 0.82 instead of returning back to MUSD for public use, it is being given to HDR. The other thing is when the decision to acquire one acre for fire station would have dependent on school district declaring it as a surplus. that doesn't entitle city to convert that zoning conversion without doing a planning study of how many existing residences were there and how many kids within 1.25 miles of walking distance live around that site area. There are around 1,200 kids that are last enrolled in the last school year for a TK to 8th grade and 600 of high schoolers. So the planned capacity of the school is 1,000. What about the future 2,000 homes that are coming? It's the responsibility of the planning commission based on the general plan a GPA land use seven, which says that adequate school sites need to be provided for the neighborhood. I request planning commission to reject this zoning conversion from PQP to HDR. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Commissioner or chair. Sorry. We have one more, um, that's popped up on zoom.

All right. Let's go with that one.

Neil.

Hi, my name is Neil Mani. I am resident of Oakwood Trails and I am here to, can you guys hear me? Yes, we have. Okay, so I'm here to oppose this zoning conversion and to clarify the previous statement that have we reduced the school site. This school site was reduced when there was an arrangement done from MUSD to city, a transfer of a parcel of land for the fire station. And at that point of time, our city council members had an outreach saying that we need fire station for the safety of new houses built here. And we had a lot of discussion about this. And finally, this land was given for fire station. the school site which is left after this allocation for fire station is already less for the number of houses being built here. And now when city somehow decides that, okay, we have a surplus, this land should be given back for the school so that we can accommodate the number of students in this area. But somehow this was decided that, okay, we have a surplus. We will give it for the high density residential. This, in my opinion, is totally wrong. We should anticipate the number of students going to this school. And if there is a surplus, please give it back to the school rather than giving it to the builder. So I hereby formally strongly oppose this conversion. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, I have a question. I want to comment.

Do we have another hand raised on Zoom?

No, Jim. Hello. I have raised... Hello, I have raised a hand on your... ma'am i'm trying to uh ask a question that you're i believe this predicting that can you this member of the public already spoke okay the public comment yeah the three minute time limit is still but i have answered i have one more question there you are raising the negative unfortunately your time is up we don't have any more time once you've already addressed the commission after three minutes do we have any other hands raised this is unfair

Sorry, Chair, I keep muting and it's unmuting. No, there's no other hands raised.

And we can confirm that individual has already spoken.

Yes, sir.

Okay. Thank you. So we'll go ahead and at this point ask for the audience, any hands raised in the audience wish to address the commission on this item may do so now. Come on up.

Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Venkat and I am a resident of Southwest Manteca. I'm here tonight to voice my strong disapproval of the proposed zoning amendment from PQP to HDR as well as concurrent reduction of the mass plant Tara Park Elementary School site at Woodward and McKinley. PQP zoning is a designation meant to protect the community's future safeguarding space for infrastructure, parks and education by shrinking the school site footprint and flipping the surrounding public land to high density apartments. This commission is choosing from short-term housing density over the long-term safety of our kids. When families invested in Southwest Mandica, we were promised a spacious, dedicated neighborhood school campus. Downsizing the acreage for Tara Park site compromises the school's layout before a single shovel hits the dirt. Squeezing a thousand student TK to eight school onto the shrunken parcel reduces the vital buffer zones, limit safe, onsite drop off loops, and forces school traffic to spill directly out into the surrounding neighborhood. We should be expanding public space to accommodate our city's massive growth, not shrinking the school boundaries to clear the path for multi-story residential development right against school fence. Furthermore, converting adjacent land to HDR introduces an immediate dangerous land use conflict. High density residential developers bring intense multi-car traffic volumes, continuous street fleet, and high turnover street parking. Funneling this dense high traffic flow directly onto the elementary school zone effectively strips away our children practical ability to safely walk to the school. If parents can trust their seven or eight years old can safely cross the intersection, it's denying their right to walk. And I urge Planning Commission to vote against this zoning conversion from PQP to HDR.

Thank you for your listening to this.

Thank you, sir. Before we have the next speaker, just to clarify for the record from staff, Before us tonight is not consideration of any project, construction, or development activity. Is that correct?

Thank you, Chair. Yes, that is correct. So I believe a portion that they're describing is an action that's already been taking place. So what we're doing today is making the designations consistent with the actions that have previously already been. Very good.

And Mr. Chair, just to kind of build on that, it's actually just a recommendation to council. So there is another forum.

Very good. Thank you. All right, any other hands raised in the audience wish to speak? Please, come on up.

Good evening, Commissioner. My name is Shashank Tiwari, and I'm a resident of Oakwood Tales Community, which is like South Ventica. And here I'm here to formally oppose Agenda Item D3, specifically the joining conversion of Site 2 from PQP to high-density residential. The point one, the reality, our immediate area already has 3,000 existing households with another 2,000 homes currently under development. We desperately need infrastructure, not more density. The shrinking school site in March 2025, the Tara Park school site was reduced from nearly 17 acres down to 15.87 acres. The current proposal hacks it down even further to 14.87 acres. We support our first responder and recognize that 0.18 acres is needed for Fire Station 6. Taking the remaining 0.82-acre abbey from our children and handling it to a private developer for profit is unacceptable. The legal agreement between MUSD and the city actually states that this land was conveyed for use as a public purpose, a fire station. It even contains a 10-year flowback provision requiring the land to return to MUSD but is not used for public safety. The boil is on relocating this land to private developers for lot nine directly while the intent and the letter of the contract D3. The proposal directly violate the Manteca own general plan, city codes, respectively goal LU7 CF8 which mandates maintaining a sufficient land inventory for the school to support growth. Policy CF1.2 which state new development cannot outweigh the city's ability to provide essential services like schools. Goal LU3, which guarantees our neighborhood safe, walkable access to local schools. Please protect the public interest. Resign the decision relocating these 0.82 acres to a private developer and return this land to the school district where it belongs. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, anybody else in the audience wish to speak on this item? Please, come on up, sir.

Good evening, my name is Srivas Nambudiri. I'm a resident of our Bourbon community south of 120. So I'm standing here to oppose the PQP conversion into HDR. I'm talking specifically about the one acre land that MUSD has given to the city for the purpose of fire station. What we have learned is that only 1.18 acre of that land is being used for the fire station and the remaining 0.82 acre the city is planning to convert it into like an HDR zone. So I'm opposing this because already the land for the Tara Park Elementary School is not enough for the current residents and there are more residents planned for in the area and it is not sufficient to meet the future requirement. So instead of converting that land into like an HDR, it should be given back to MUSD so that the space can be utilized for the school. Even the agreement between the MUSD and the city is to use that space for the public utility like fire station, but only part of that is being used and the remaining is converted into like an HDR zone which is against that agreement. Moreover, the agreement also states that if the land is not used for a fire station within 10 years, then it should be given back to the MUSD. But once it has been converted to an HDR and residents are being built, then there is no way. to convert it to like a school site. So considering all these things, I request to reject the proposal for converting the PQP line to an HDR. Thank you. Thank you.

Anybody else in the audience wish to speak? Please, sir, come on up.

I am opposed to the rezoning that has been stated. It's for the site near the Laurel Park. Nile Garden and Veritas are the assigned schools to the residents near that site. And those two schools are overcrowded as of today. They have been overcrowded for the past two years. and we needed this school two years ago. If you look at other communities near us, River Islands, or like Fallsum near Sacramento, or like Mountain House, all those communities build the school, and then they build the housing. As a city in Manteca, we have not done it. and the school district has sent a letter saying that the new school will be built in 2027. The first schooling year will be 2027. So far, they have not done anything, and when we asked about it, they're saying they're facing challenges. and they're still trying to figure it out. Given this context, approving any rezoning will have a negative impact. As other people have pointed out, we don't have a clear picture of what the demand is, how big the school needs to be, and we are building a lot more houses. Those numbers are not clear. For that reason, if we were to rezone it, then this will have a negative impact for the ability of MUSD to build a new school there, and it severely impacts the residents there. with overcrowding, and I'm also opposed to the commercial rezoning, reason being it has a negative impact on the traffic patterns. We have recently, there's a new commercial zone, which is where the Maverick gas station exists, and that has changed the traffic patterns, so I think I'm opposed to this at this point. Thank you. Very good. Thank you, sir.

Anybody else in the audience wish to speak on this item? Would you like to do so now? Yes, please.

Thanks, everyone. According to the convenience of one-acre Tara property, the district shall convey the one-acre Tara Park property to the city of Designee by grant deed within 120 days following the effective date for sole use of a public purpose. I do not see any way the 0.28 acre being given to the So I would like to see where this has been stated about the portion of land being given. So I do not find anything related to that portion of land being given. So I would like to know where it is being stated. Yeah, this has been given to the developer. we would like to know how they converted this to PQP to HDR.

OK. Thank you, sir. Anybody else in the audience wish to speak on this item?

Chair, I do have one more hand raised on Zoom.

Okay, just to confirm, it's from someone that has not already spoken?

Yes, it's JVS.

Thank you.

Hello.

Yes, go ahead.

Hi, my name is JVS. My name is JVS. I had a conversation with Manteca Unified School District day before yesterday, two days back. They told me the school is not started because city has some water flow issues and all. City has been figuring out, but looks like city has not responded to them. They're waiting on this. And also they noted that the 0.8 plus acres were there is the part of additional dwelling units for the Joshua apartments to convert into HDR. That's the agonist of the decisions that should have taken by the city. And also there is a city imposed some charges for the development purposes to the MUSD, which is not legal. I'm trying to understand why that is happening and in exchange of that amount, MUSD is giving away this land to the city and obviously it is going to the developer next door and that under the the parcel the area that this joshua is giving apartment hdr is giving to the city is not in a proper direction in a proper area but by changing this i'm i feel that something is happening behind the scenes probably you know i'm not sure as a guess a good guess i think let's say quid pro quo has happened. Otherwise, that additional property, whatever has been given to this developer would have been auctioned for the excess land. But that I didn't see any auction has been conducted publicly to give it away to the high density developer. And you're giving away some property in somewhere else That should have been given to them, not taking this stuff from the school district. I would request you to consider returning back the property acquired from the MESD to the school district itself or auction in public. Who may ever takes it, takes it. And you know, you're reducing the values of our homes by doing all this kind of activity. I strongly oppose on giving away the PQP property to the developers and that should be avoided. And also, I would request you to consider not development charges that were assessed. And in view of that, you are changing the property of the MESD should be cleared and given back to them and stop implementing any changes to the public site designated for the Tara Park School, Dexter Ramos. I would request you to help us and help the kids in this area to have a walk to school. And every parent cannot take three miles away after the school hours to school for them to play. That's causing a lot of problem or inconvenience to the kids as well as we are stopping their right of playing at this school. And I request you to consider this and stop changing of the zoning and also giving back the property to the MUSD gas. I want a response from this. MR.

Thank you, sir. Do we have any additional hands raised from any new commenters on this?

MS. No, Chair.

MR. Another call for the audience. Anybody else that hasn't already spoken on this item wish to address the Commission? Okay. Thank you. City's the applicant on this one. So I guess we prepare to keep the public hearing open while we continue to ask questions or city attorney recommend closing the public hearing point.

The questions that you'll be asking, are they questions as it relates to issues that came up? Yes. Are these clarifying? So if that's the case, then yes.

We'll keep the public hearing open. Thank you. Any commissioners have any questions at this time? Commissioner, do you?

I guess I just want to hear some of this put on record. Is the city responsible for schools, for building them, developing them?

Commissioner, thank you. No, the city of Manteca is not responsible for the development of schools. Actually, I wanted to show the map just so we're clear, I think, on the concerns that I was hearing. If you look, the top right one is property that they have concerns with. I think the line that they may be describing is that brown portion that's south. The city's not involved, actually. That's between a private party and Manteca Unified School District. So any concerns of any land conveyance or any transfer of property actually wouldn't take place by the city or in the city. So the city is only responsible for that blue area for the north. So in this case, a lot of the questions or concerns actually would best be taken up with Manteca Unified, who could be able to discuss why they're transferring a portion of it. The city's not involved.

Is the city responsible to find sites for schools?

No, the city doesn't, does not designate sites for schools. Typically, the school district, they are, we will help designate and work with them, but the school district, they are the owners of the property, so they typically would own that PQP piece. We would, as part of the general plan policy, look at trying to designate lands with the PQP designation to be able to accommodate those uses.

I have a couple of other questions, but I just want all of us in the room to understand this process between the school district and the city and private concerns and things of that sort. I do recognize there's a hand raised in the room. So the city's not responsible for looking for school sites, but can we make an assumption that the school district owns other areas south of the 120 for future schools? Do we know that?

Yeah, I can't speak to what properties they own, but typically schools will procure land with anticipated growth.

Do they procure them usually from private parties, or how do they just have been institutionally owned by the school district at some point?

No, I think that there's probably some work that goes into identifying growth within cities, and then they would look to where that development would be happening, and then they reach out to whoever is willing to sell property. So that city typically might be a property owner who could sell. It may be a private property owner. Typically, it could be anybody who sells.

In a way, the city is out of the picture as far as designating school properties, locating schools. But the city is trying to accommodate the schools by zoning them so that they can build a school there, correct? Correct. And if we didn't rezone this area, what would happen?

If we didn't rezone this, we would likely have proposed uses that wouldn't be consistent with the zoning.

And if we rezone this, one last question. If we rezone this, is this set in stone?

as far as whether a fire station goes there? Oh, PQP, yeah. Like council had mentioned, this is a recommendation to the council, city council, and so nothing's set in stone right now. This would just be a recommendation. Ultimately, when it got to them, things are still not necessarily set in stone. City needs for a fire station could go away tomorrow, and it's designated PQP, which would allow the development of a school site or other public use, not residential. So we cannot build homes in PQP.

I just wanted everyone's ears in this room to hear some of those responses. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Any other questions from the commissioners tonight? All right. As a reminder, commenters can only comment one time on one item. Mr. Jobeck, this CEQA addendum in the staff report, I think it's a net decrease of roughly 33 residential units citywide with this general plan amendment, sites one through four combined. Really modest reduction, but how does that kind of resonate with our arena strategy in housing? Is that an impact there? And tell me about that.

It shouldn't impact anything as a whole. As we continue to develop some of the areas in the current projects, we're likely to pick those units up through either density bonuses or other development with medium density items.

And this relies on the 2024, or excuse me, 2043 general plan EIR for the purposes of CEQA with this project, is that correct, or this general plan? Correct. Any reason why a supplemental EIR or subsequent EIR wasn't considered, or are we of the belief that the general plan EIR is sufficient?

Thank you, Chair. So my understanding is with the general plan EIR, it looked at all these uses and they go with an addendum because there's no significant change. Very good.

While I understand that it's a private transaction between the Manteca Unified School District and the developer or the landowner, excuse me, the other parcel, has the city, or excuse me, has the school district have they commented to the city on their position on this general plan amendment? Did they have a opinion? Have they communicated that?

We did not receive any comments from the school district. And for clarity, the city, because all three parties are connected, the city is involved in some role in making sure all this is matching with these agreements that are occurring.

So I guess in plain terms, I guess just for clarity, Are we actually, with this reason, are we actually shrinking the plan, the school site relative to the earlier plans to gain HDR along with Joshua and Yukon? Or is the school site actually larger, better configured than what the district wants under this proposal?

Thank you, Chair. I think that's part of why this can get a little confusing is we keep referring to it as the school site. And we're actually not discussing a school site. What we're discussing is the PQP designation. So if I was to say the combination of the fire station and the school, whether that was a net increase or a decrease, that's a separate item. What we're really trying to look at today is just the PQP component of it.

And that goes back to my earlier question about we're not considering any projects for development tonight. This is a rezone and general plan amendment. Correct. And for the record, has the city attorney's office reviewed the project and find it to be, or the general plan amendment, find it to be consistent with the general plan, 2043 general plan?

Yes.

Thank you.

Commissioner Mendoza. You know, I heard something, and maybe I shouldn't even be asking it because it's not part of it. Is there a delay in building this school? And is there a conflict or something the city is trying to work out so they could actually do this? Thank you, Commissioner. Or that school district would be able to build school?

Commissioner, if I may interject briefly. Staff is not aware of any sort of information as it relates to that specific matter.

Thank you.

Any other questions, or we'll close the public hearing. We'll close the public hearing on this item at 7.30, yeah. Just from a comment perspective, I myself am a resident of southwest Manteca, so I don't live within 500 feet of site two, but I do empathize with the need for services on the southwest side of town. I think there was a comment made about you know, we needed a school two years ago. That may be true, but we needed a fire station five or 10 years down. So I think there's varying needs and it's all necessary for the growth that we're experiencing in this community, especially on the southwest side of town. So I empathize with the commenters. I think what we're looking at before us tonight is not in alignment with kind of the legal basis of the comments, because we're not considering much of what was discussed tonight in the comments. We're considering a general plan amendment and a rezone, not a land swap, not a private development, not what's going to be used on the PQP, public quasi-public land, or the HDR land, or the fire station itself. I think the efforts from, I believe the efforts that staff have made with this has actually designed to do much of what that the commenters actually want in the long run, which is help enable services to come to Southwest Manteca. And if we consider what's before us tonight, we're obligated to ensure that this is consistent with the 2043 General Plan, consistent with the Manteca Municipal Code Title 17, our zoning ordinance, and ensure that it is not in violation of CEQA. I think I find that it does fit those benchmarks. Any other comments? Questions are over. Okay. All right. Robust discussion. If there's no other comment, it's time to call for a vote. Is there a motion and a second to adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council make the necessary findings and adopt an addendum to the City of Manteca General Plan Update EIR SCH number 202019010, prepared for the Batch GPA Sites 1 through 4 project pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines? and approve a general plan amendment GPA 26-52, and by ordinance, approve rezone REZ 26-52. For parcels APNs 241-410-18, 241-410-19, 241, 241-260-13, 241-260-33, 218-210-26, and 223-020-28. I make the motion to approve. Second. All right, we have a motion for approval by Commissioner Mendoza and a second by Commissioner Paslack. All those who vote in favor will say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes, 5-0. Thank you. Madam Clerk, Item D4.

Item D426-339, Planning Commission conduct a public hearing for the Yosemite Mixed Use Conversion Batch GPA Site 5 project, and by motion consider adoption of the following. One, a resolution recommending the City Council make the necessary findings and adopt an initial study mitigated negative declaration SCH number 2026040460, an associated mitigation monitoring and reporting program prepared for the Yosemite Mixed Use Conversion Batch GPA Site 5 project, and two, A resolution recommending the city council approve general plan amendment GPA 26-39 to amend the general plan land use designation of approximately 21.11 acres from industrial I public quasi public PQP and the medium density residential MDR to commercial mixed use CMU for the Yosemite mixed use conversion batch GPA site by project parcels APNs 241-300-04. dash 05, dash 06, dash 07, dash 67, dash 68, dash 71, dash 74, dash 75, and dash 76, and 3, a resolution recommending the City Council approve rezone REZ 26-39 to amend the zoning map for approximately 21.11 acres from public quasi-public PQP planned development PD light industrial M1 and limited multiple family dwelling R2 to mixed-use commercial CMU for the Yosemite Mixed-Use Conversion Batch GPA Site 5 Project Parcels APNs 241-300-04-05-06-07-67-68-71-74-75-76. Associate Planner Saul Jobrak will be presenting this item. Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. Second time, here we go.

So, Sol Jobarag, Associate Planner with Development Services, and I will be presenting a city-initiated general plan amendment and zoning map amendment to what we're referring to as Batch GPA Site 5, also known as the Yosemite Mixed-Use Conversion. The project consists of approximately 22.95 acres located southwest of Yosemite Avenue and South Airport Way. The proposal is city-initiated, includes both a general plan amendment and the zoning map amendment to establish consistency across the project area. Purpose of this amendment is to create consistency between the city's general plan and zoning maps while establishing a unified commercial mixed use land use pattern across the site. The amendment supports future opportunities for mixed-use residential and commercial development, encourages infill development within an existing urbanized area, and advances several general plan goals related to housing production, economic development, and efficient land use plan. The site currently contains a mix of industrial, commercial, and residential uses. Surrounding land uses include commercial and undeveloped properties to the north, commercial and residential uses to the east, agricultural land to the south, and agricultural uses and the city's wastewater facility to the south and west. Given the site's location along major transportation corridors and its proximity to existing commercial development, staff believes that the commercial mixed use designation is appropriate. Today, the site contains a mixture of general plan designations, including industrial, public, quasi-public, medium density residential, and commercial mixed use. Similarly, the zoning map includes development, public, quasi-public, light, industrial, R2, and commercial mixed-use zoning district. This patchwork of designations creates inconsistencies between the general plan and zoning maps, and staff is seeking to address those through this amendment. The proposed general plan amendment would redesignate the entire 22.95-acre site to commercial mixed-use, specifically approximately 9.32 acres of industrial 7.39 acres of public quasi public and 4.27 acres of medium density residential would all be converted to commercial mixed use the intent is to create a single unified land use designation for the area consistent with the proposed general plan amendment the city also is proposing a zoning map amendment that would rezone the entire site to commercial mixed-use. This would replace the existing mix of planned development, public-quasi-public, light industrial, and R2 zoning designations within the single commercial mixed-use designation. The rezone would ensure consistency between the City's General Plan and the zoning maps. Staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the goals and policies of the 2043 General Plan. The amendment supports infill development within an existing urbanized area promotes efficient use of existing infrastructure and public services, provides opportunities for future housing, supports economic development, and encourages orderly and coordinated growth. For these reasons, staff finds that the amendment to be in public interest and consistent with the 2043 general plan. It's important to note that no development project is being approved tonight. the environmental analysis evaluated a reasonable future build-out scenario under the proposed commercial mixed-use designation, which could include approximately 250,000 square feet of commercial development and up to approximately 520 residential units. These assumptions were used solely for environmental analysis purposes. Any future development proposal would require separate entitlement applications, public hearings, and environmental review. The project was properly noticed in accordance with city requirements. Notice was mailed to all property owners within 500 feet radius of the project site and published in the Manteca Bulletin on May 29th, 2026. As of the preparation of the staff report and to tonight, staff has not received any public comments related to this project. An initial study and mitigated negative declaration was prepared for the project. Environmental review evaluated potential impacts related to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards, hazardous materials, noise, tribal cultural resources, mitigation measures were incorporated where necessary, and a mitigation and monitoring and reporting program has been prepared for the project. Based on the analysis, all potential impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels. based on the findings presented in the staff report and environmental analysis. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and adopt resolutions recommending that the City Council first adopt the initial study, the mitigated negative declaration, and mitigation monitoring reporting program, and second, approve the general plan amendment, and third, approve the zoning map that goes with it. That concludes staff's presentation. We're happy to answer any questions from the Commission. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Any clarifying questions for staff at this time? Commissioner Mendoza.

To the east of this amendment that we're proposing, all that area to the east between Airport Way and the boundary, is that all zoned correctly this time? Is that why the line stopped there?

Thank you, Commissioner. Yeah, so I think we were looking at this area because there were some designations that went over. There were multiple designations within existing legal properties. We have other general plan cleanups going on. I'm not aware of any that are east on Yosemite there as of right now. I think the deputy could speak to that with more clarity.

Can you repeat that question? I want to make sure I understood correctly.

Okay, so airport way to the west hits this property, whatever, I don't know what number it is, but is that zone correct? Is that zone CMU at this time?

At this time, yes.

Okay, that's why it stopped right there. If the next two cars was over, were sort of all over the place, it would have discontinued, I would assume, right?

Very likely, yes.

Okay, all right.

Thank you. Commissioner Bastak.

So if this goes through, what land use designations will no longer be allowed? Industrial and PQP?

Yes, if this was recommended and approved by the City Council, the designations that would be going away would be that the medium density residential, the industrial, and the PQP. But the medium density residential is housing, and CMU would allow housing with a commercial.

But still would be allowed? Yes.

There's no industrial. Which industrial there was, like we were saying, they almost define like spot zoning. So it's kind of these odd little designations that don't really match. And this is part of what we try to do is clean it up so we have some consistency with the surrounding use.

Is there any businesses there like industrial or PQP that would be legal non-conforming converted?

Thank you, Commissioner. So we did look at that business there, and we believe it will still conform with the CME. It appears to be an office. We believe it should. Thank you.

Mr. Drobac, the initial study mitigated negative declaration speaks to development potential of, I think it's 251,341 square feet of commercial and a maximum of 519 residential units under the CMU designation. So can you confirm that this kind of, this is the intensity the environmental document relies upon for this project, for this amendment? and any higher density that would require a fresh CEQA analysis?

Thank you, Chair. So actually, so CMU in our general plan has specific densities. So what they do is when they're doing the analysis is they'll look at the range of the densities. Typically, they don't want to look at the low end. They're looking at the high end. So that's where that number comes from. It's the highest if it were built out based on the density of our general plan.

Okay.

And this actually goes back to the last item. And now we're talking about whether we pick up units anymore. These are the type of things that the city's looking at trying to pick up the units. Understood. Thank you.

Any other questions before we open the public hearing? All right. At this time, we'll open the public hearing at 7.44 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, do we have any hands raised on Zoom for this item or comment cards?

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

Thank you. Anybody in the audience wish to speak on this item may do so now. All right. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing at 7.45 p.m. We'll bring it back to the Commission for further questions and discussion.

The only question that I had is across the like on the other side of Yosemite, is it zoned?

Thank you, Commissioner Reischer. It's not zoned. I think there's some different designations over there. I think there's some commercial designations and some non-conforming industrial uses that are in a commercial designation.

but it aligns.

It does, yeah. Commercial, CMU, they typically are pretty closely aligned. We try to refer them to transitional and traditional type designations, which is where we get.

Thank you. Any other questions, comments?

No?

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Groback. This is a three-parter. We'll go ahead and do it all together, I think, for the sake of convenience. So we'll call for a vote. Is there a motion and a second to adopt a resolution recommending the City Council make the necessary findings and adopt an initial study mitigated negative declaration, SCH number 2026040460, an associated mitigation, monitoring, and reporting program prepared for the Yosemite Mixed-Use Conversion Batch GPA Site 5 project and Adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve General Plan Amendment GPA 26-39 to amend the General Plan land use designation of approximately 21.11 acres from industrial, public, quasi-public, PQP, and medium density residential MDR to commercial mixed use CMU. For the Yosemite mixed use conversion batch GPA Site 5 project parcels APNs 241-300-04-05-06-07, And adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve rezone REZ26-39 to amend the zoning map for approximately 21.11 acres from EQP, public, quasi-public, plan development, PD, light industrial M1, and limited multifamily dwelling R2 to mixed-use commercial CMU for the Yosemite Mixed-Use Conversion Batch GPA Site 5 Project Parcels APNs 241-300-04-05-06-07-67-68-71-74-75-76. Yori moves to approve. I second. All right, we have a motion for approval from Commissioner Fiore and a second from Vice Chair Jimenez. All those who vote in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Thank you. Item D5.

Item D526-337, planning commission conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution recommending that the city council find the Chamberlain annexation project exempt from further environmental review pursuant to section 15319 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines, approve annexation ANX25-33 by authorizing staff to initiate annexation proceedings for APNs 218-020-008 014-017-018-019-024 and 025 and approved prezone PRZ 25-33 by assigning a general commercial CG city prezoning designation to APN 218-020-014-017 and 025 by adoption of an ordinance amending the zoning map set forth in section 17.20.040 of Title 17 of the Manteca Municipal Code for the Chamberlain Annexation Project. Deputy Director of Planning Jesus Orozco will be presenting this item.

Good evening, Chair, Commissioners, staff, members of the public. Before you is a city-initiated annexation. The project scope entails seven parcels, three of which are privately owned parcels. The other four are generally Caltrans or public right-of-way parcels. The annexation area generally includes approximately 17.4 acres. The site's generally located on the southwestern section of Lathrop Road and Inheritance Way in the northeastern quadrant of the city. I'd like to point out that there is no development being proposed as a component of this annexation. Some characteristics of the annexation include to the northern, there is no development at this time, or it remains undeveloped. On the southern side, again, it's mostly undeveloped with Caltrans and then some components of Caltrans right away. On the eastern side, you'll see some rural residential and ag land currently being farmed. and on the western side of the annexation boundary, again, mostly Caltrans right away. The annexation itself is basically squaring off current city boundaries. On the northern, the northern boundary line will basically go down center line of Lathrop Road. The southern will basically connect and align with the existing city boundary The annexation boundary on the eastern side actually has a terminus at property line. It does not include the right of way, traditionally like we see in other annexations. And on the western side, again, the boundary aligns with existing city boundary. So it's basically squaring off the city limits in this section. A component of this annexation will entail that it detaches from the Lathrop-Manteca Fire District, and this area will primarily be serviced by the City of Manteca Fire District. Important to note, the closest fire station to this site is actually the Manteca Fire Station, which is approximately a mile and a half. And the Lathrop-Manteca fire station is approximately two miles. Another key component of this annexation is that there is some water utility lines that runs along Lathrop as well as some SSGID transfer line as well. The site currently has a commercial general plan land use designation, and it currently has a county zoning designation. However, as the site is incorporated into the city and becomes part of the city subject to the city's zoning, it will receive a general commercial zoning designation. which would not necessarily affect existing business owners or property owners within this area. I'd like to point out that you can see on the exhibits that a lot of the area is in white. Again, I believe the commissioner doesn't mention that it does take some time to map out. completed improvements, Caltrans improvements. So that's why we see some of the land still remain there. However, it does not have any real viable land use for future growth. This project, like all others, has been duly noticed to the Manteca Bulletin, as well as affected property owners, and staff has not received any comments at this time. Because there's no development associated with this annexation, and it's purely a reorganization of boundaries, that does not intensify any component of this action. Staff determined in its environmental review that the project is, in fact, exempt from further environmental review pursuant to section 15319, which annexations of existing facilities and lots for exempt facilities. Therefore, no further environmental CEQA reviews warranted at this time. Should there be future development, further analysis will be conducted to address that development at that time. That being said, staff is recommending that the commission recommend to the city council authorization pre-zoning the site through ordinance and authorize staff to submit an application to LAFCO and initiate annexation proceedings for this area. Again, this annexation does not include any development. It really is... squaring off boundary lines that perceivably will encourage future development to the eastern and the northern side of this area. Currently, staff does not have any proposed developments in this vicinity, but again, we do expect that this will encourage future development in either direction, facilitating the facilitating the city boundaries that would allow for that. That completes my presentation. I'll be happy to take any questions you may have.

Thank you. Questions for staff from the commission at this time? Commissioner Fiore.

I have a question for everything. In the report, you mentioned a detachment agreement with the city in the Lathrop-Manteca fire. When we annex this piece of property, is this going to put additional stress on our fire department for time and resources?

I don't believe so, and as an example, I believe sometime early last year in 2025, there was a fire and Manteca Fire was the first one to respond on site. I think because of that, that really adds justification on staff's part why we should move forward with this. Again, keep in mind that there's only three private properties. So there wouldn't be further real significant increase to the service area than what it already is at this time. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? Deputy Director, has LAFCO been consulted already? Have they identified any concerns from their perspective?

Yes, LAFCO, the Local Agency Information Commission, the Fire District, internal departments have been consulted on this matter. LAFCO did provide comments which have been addressed through the sequel review process and will be documented as staff submits its application for annexation.

Okay, thank you. Yes, sir, Commissioner Mendoza.

So inheritance way is still a county road based on looking at the configuration?

Correct.

Front of the city, but county maintained.

That is correct.

All right. If there's no other questions at this time, we'll go and open the public hearing on this item at 7.58 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, do we have any hands raised on Zoom or any comment cards for this item tonight?

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

All right. Anyone in the audience wish to speak? Please come on up.

I live directly east of the annexation section, and it was my understanding that y'all were annexing that for the billboard. and that you were gonna make that billboard electronic. Is that correct?

I'll refer to staff on that.

Is this part of the public hearing component?

Public hearing is open, yes. Do you have any other comments before staff answers for you? No, okay, thank you. Question about, is this land being purposed for a billboard? Is that before us tonight?

No, that is not before us tonight.

Okay. We're considering a general plan amendment, not a billboard project, because there's no new development.

Annexation and pre-zoning.

Excuse me, you're correct. My mistake. Annexation, pre-zone. Thank you. Anybody else in the audience wish to speak on this item? All right. Thank you. All right, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing at this time at 7.59. Bring it back to commission for any discussion or comment. Okay. Very good. So at this point, we'll go ahead and call for a vote on item D5. Is there a motion and a second to adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council find the Chamberlain Annexation Project exempt from further environmental review pursuant to section 15319 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines? Approve annexation Annex 25-33 by authorizing staff to initiate annexation proceedings for APNs 218-020-008-014-017-018-019-018-019-018-019-018-019-018-018-018-018-018-018-018-018-018-018-018-018-018-018-018-018-018-018-018-018-018-018-018-018-018-018-018-018-018-018-018-018-0 dash 024 and dash 025, and approved pre-zone BRZ 25-33 by assigning a general commercial CG city pre-zoning designation to APNs 218-020-014-017 and dash 025 by adoption of an ordinance amending the zoning map set forth in section 17-20-040 of Title 17 of the Manteca Municipal Code for the Chamberlain Annexation Project.

A motion to approve.

Fiori seconds. Fiori seconds. All right. We have a motion for approval from Commissioner Paslack and a second from Commissioner Fiori. Paslack first. Fiori second. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

All right.

Motion passes 5-0. Thank you very much. That will take us right along to staff comments tonight.

Thank you, Chair. Director, one like senses regards for not be able to make this meeting. He is at home resting. Second, I'd like to thank staff for their incredible work during preparing for this meeting, and it was a very busy meeting, but I also want to thank the Commission. for getting us through this. It's probably our longest meeting as of this year. I want to thank the commission for a productive meeting. Want to wish everyone to have a good weekend, enjoy your Father's Day weekend. If you're a FIFA fan, make use of your July. Staff does not anticipate having any meetings in July, so you'll get a break, a little summer recess. and then we will reconvene in August. And if you're still off, music on Maples should be happening still. So that completes all of staff comments this evening.

Thank you, sir. All right, Commissioner comments.

Commissioner Mendoza. I have a comment. I guess it's something that occurred Tuesday over there at the golf course. You know, there's a lot of kids there at the golf course. They're getting, you know, they're getting lessons. A lot of people, a lot of young kids playing tennis as you drive by. There's plenty of kids there and families. And on the other side of the golf course, just to the south of it, there's a baseball diamond. And on Tuesday, and there's an area there where there's a bathroom, I think. And I don't know if there's another building there. But there's some very rough people there that are really getting out of control. And there was an incident that occurred on Tuesday where one of these guys that was spun out on drugs wanted to jump over the fence and go after the kids because he claimed that they were saying things about him. And the kids weren't doing anything. And then when we left the park to the intersection of Center and Union, he was out there in the street basically yelling at all the people that were driving by and almost getting out in the travel way. So I would hope that the city does something about that baseball diamond, secures it or does something because something tragic happens because, you know, there's a lot of kids there. And I know that when I was there that I was watching all this and the coach, you know, intervened, you know, the kids were just trying to get away from the fence that separated the the baseball diamond from the golf, the little putting green there. And the coach, you know, sort of defused the situation, which he did for the most part, but it could have got very, very ugly. So that's just something for the city to keep an eye on. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Fiore.

First, I always thank staff for their professionalism in preparing us for these meetings. Second, I want to thank the public for showing up and voicing your opinions. It means a lot to us. We hear things sometimes that we don't usually read in the documents. And third, if you're down in Santa Clara County and you want to go to FIFA, please take BTA. That's a plug. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Chair Pasolak, anything tonight?

Thanks to the staff for putting all this together. I appreciate it.

And I just hope everybody enjoys their July off. I hope that you guys take some time, too. But the maps that we approved tonight, the batch maps, I know that that takes a lot of work to figure out if all of the batches fits what we what the city and what the public would want in those areas. So overall, I felt like most of those apps were, they fit what we wanted. So thank you guys for that. I think that those were some good approvals.

Thank you. Yeah, I'll ditto a lot of the comments made. I think the staff preparation tonight to get five public hearings in one meeting is ambitious, and we did it. So I really appreciate the hard work that went into that, the questions that were, all the work that went into before the meeting to make sure that we were prepared. And a really big special thank you to the public for coming out, just like Commissioner Fiore said. You know, what the Planning Commission does is, you know, there's a procedural component to it, and there's a level of education that the public can gain by being here and learning what we do and what the City Council does, and it's not the same thing. And, you know, what's before us are usually very specific items that we have to put through the lens of what the Planning Commission jurisdiction is, and that's more the public gets involved the more the education that happens in the and the better our community is as a result so for the members of the public that came thank you very much for those that participated on zoom thank you very much please come to the next meeting and the next meeting after that the next meeting after that so we can continue to learn from each other and make sure that we're fulfilling our obligations correctly so um happy father's day this weekend to the fathers Hopefully, it's supposed to cool down a little bit, I think, 80s or something. Oh, it's going to be great. Thank you, guys. We'll go ahead and adjourn the meeting at this time at 8.07 p.m.