Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, we'll call to order this regular meeting of the Planning Commission, the City of Manteca, August 6, 2026. Roll call.

Commissioners Mendoza?

Here. Kaslack?

Here.

Fiore?

Here. Vice Chair Jimenez? Here. Chair Coleman?

Here. Thank you. That takes us to flag salute. I'll go ahead and lead today.

Flag salute.

Flag.

Thank you. All right, that takes us to agenda review and supplemental reports. Madam Clerk, are there any changes to the agenda or supplemental reports tonight?

Chair Coleman, there are no changes to the agenda, and there was a total of one supplemental report provided for item D1, one supplemental report provided for item D2, and four 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 on to item A, public comment. This portion of the agenda is reserved for persons wishing to address the Planning Commission on any matter not listed on the agenda tonight, but within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Speakers are limited to three minutes consistent with city policy regarding public comment in Brown Act meetings. Prior to public comment, the commission, by motion and vote, may extend or shorten the length of public comment consistent with city policy regarding public comment in Brown Act meetings. The law does not permit Commission action or any extended discussion on any item that's not on the agenda tonight. If Commission action is requested, the matter may be placed on a subsequent agenda subject to Commission consensus.

We did not receive any early submission 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.

Thank you. All right, Madam Clerk, are there any comments from any persons on Zoom webinar tonight?

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

OK, thank you very much. Any members of the audience wish to address the Planning Commission on any item not on the agenda tonight, they do so now. OK, seeing no hands, thank you very much. That takes us on to item B, disclosure of ex parte communications.

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

All right, do any members of the Planning Commission have any ex parte communications they'd like to disclose? We'll start with Commissioner Mendoza. None. Commissioner Fiore.

None.

Commissioner Paslack.

None.

Vice Chair Jimenez.

None.

And I have none as well. Thank you very much. All right, that takes us on to item C, the consent items. Matters listed under consent are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion and one vote. There will be no separate discussion of these matters. If discussion is desired, a member of the audience or a commission member may request that the item be removed from consent and considered separately. Madam Clerk, are there any members of the public wish to pull the consent item tonight?

No, Chair.

Any commissioners wish to pull the consent item tonight? Consent item being item C1, approve the planning commission meeting minutes of June 18th, 2026. If there's no members that wish to discuss the item, is there a motion and a second to approve all items listed under consent as presented tonight?

Fiori moves to approve.

Do we have a second?

As like, second.

All right, we have a motion from Commissioner Fiori to approve and a second from Commissioner Paslack. All those who vote in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? OK, motion passes 5-0. That takes us right along to the public hearings.

Madam Clerk, item D-1. Item D-1, 26-380. Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and find the Serene Place project exempt from further environmental review pursuant to section 15303B of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and adopt a resolution approving a site plan and design review, SPA 23-85, to allow the development of a fourplex for the Serene Place project located at 429 Sutter Street, APN 223-120-06. Assistant Planner Allison Diaz will be presenting this item.

Good evening, Chair and members of the Commission. My name is Allison Diaz, Assistant Planner, and tonight I'm presenting a site plan and design review for Serene Place. The project is located at 429 Sutter Street between North Sherman Avenue and North Fremont Street and is approximately 0.43 acres. The proposal consists of constructing a new fourplex while preserving and utilizing the existing single-family residence and converting the existing detached shop into covered parking. Current adjacent uses are multi-family apartments to the north, a single-family residence to the east, multi-family apartments to the south, and a single-family residence to the west. The project is located within an established residential neighborhood consisting of a mixture of single family and multifamily housing, making the proposed development compatible with the surrounding land uses. The property is designated medium density residential under the city's general plan and is zone limited multiple family residential R2. The medium density residential designation encourages a variety of housing types, including apartments. And likewise, the R2 zoning district allows both single family residences and smaller scale multi-family development. Because the proposal consists of a fourplex while retaining the existing residents, staff finds that the project is consistent with both the general plan designation and zoning. This is the site plan for the proposed project. The site has been designed with both the existing single-family residence and the proposed fourplex positioned toward the front of the property to maximize the available buildable area while avoiding the 100-foot PG&E easement that runs diagonally through the center of the site. The proposed fourplex is approximately 50 feet from the neighboring single-family residence to the west and approximately 20 feet from the single-family residence to the east. In addition, a 10-foot wide landscape buffer is proposed along the western property line to provide visual screening and create additional separation between the multifamily and single-family residential uses. The existing detached shop will be converted into covered parking, and the project provides a total of 11 on-site parking spaces, exceeding the city's minimum parking requirements of 10 spaces. Providing additional on-site parking will help reduce street parking within the surrounding neighborhood. The site has also been designed with a 20-foot wide drive aisle and a hammerhead turnaround, allowing vehicles to safely maneuver and exit the property in a forward direction. The project additionally includes a shared open space area featuring picnic benches, a community garden, and new landscaping throughout the site. These are the building elevations for the proposed fourplex. The building incorporates a Spanish-inspired architectural design featuring arched windows and entryways, curved porch elements, red clay tile roofing, earth-toned stucco finishes, and decorative metal railings, Juliet balconies, and ornamental metal gable brackets. Together, these architectural elements provide a cohesive, high-quality residential appearance on all sides of the building. A unique design feature of this project is a drive-through tunnel with a residential unit constructed above it. This feature provides direct vehicle access to the rear of the property where parking and resident open space are located. The tunnel has been designed with adequate width and vertical clearance to safely accommodate two-way traffic, while also providing sufficient access for emergency response vehicles and garbage trucks. The proposed conditions of approval have been updated to reflect the city's current policies and procedures. They include, but are not limited to, requirements related to the approved use of the property, project expiration timelines, compliance with the approved plans, parking requirements, adequate site lighting design to prevent light spillover onto the adjacent properties, compliance with applicable noise standards, ongoing maintenance of the site, and other project-specific requirements. Collectively, these conditions help ensure the project is developed and operated in a manner that is consistent with the city standards and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff evaluated the project under the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA and determined that it is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to section 15303B of the CEQA guidelines, which applies to the construction of small residential structures. The proposed project consists of a new four-unit residential building within an existing urbanized area and qualifies for the Class III categorical exemption because it does not exceed fixed-dwelling units. Staff recommends the Planning Commission find the project exempt from further CEQA review and adopt a resolution approving Site Plan Design Review SPA 23-85 for the Serene Place project as conditioned. 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. Do any commissioners at this point have any clarifying questions for staff on this item? Questions? I think I just have one clarifying question regarding the class three exemption being appropriate. Can you explain why we are applying class three for this project?

Well, it's less than six units, and it also does not have any unusual circumstances that would create the potential for significant environmental impact. This site is not located along a designated state scenic highway. It is not a hazardous waste site, and the project would not adversely affect any historical resources. Okay.

Perfect. Thank you very much. Commissioner Mendoza, or excuse me, Commissioner Fiore.

First staff, or the applicant, I found it unusual to see 2.5 feet of floor. Is that a reason for that to be called out? We have the first floor, second floor, third, but then we have two and a half. What did that indicate to me when I'm looking?

I think we'll hold off on the applicant until we open the public hearing.

Okay, I thought maybe staff had an answer for it. Thank you.

No worries. Any other questions for staff? Commissioner Mendoza.

There's a... There's something going on in the back that I can't figure out. It says encroaches into property. Is the neighbor to the north encroaching on this property? And there's going to be a lot line adjustment to take care of that? Okay, thanks.

All right, if there's no other clarifying questions for staff at this time, we'll go ahead and have the presentation. You're welcome to come address the commission, anything you'd like to address. And if you could just state your name and title for the record. Thank you.

Can you hear me? Yes.

My name is Jeremy Metz, and I'm an architect and a, I don't know, family member of this property. Real quick story that you might find interesting. The reason it's called Serene Place Apartments is because my grandfather and grandmother's name is Sam and Irene, and they moved here from Arkansas in 1945. They moved to Stockton when they were married, and then they bought the place in 1955, this property in 1955, and moved in and had three kids, and my dad was one of them. and they died about 10 years ago. Grandma and grandpa both died. So my dad inherited it and being the family architect, I looked at the zoning on the property and I said, It's his own multifamily, and I figured I'd look into it a little more. So it's been a few years I've been looking at this for four or five years, and finally I'm happy to see that it's in front of you guys for approval. So, yeah, that's a little short story about the property. It's family-owned, and it will be continued to be family-owned.

Very good. Just two quick questions while you're here. Have you read the conditions of approval on this project? And you're in agreement with those conditions? Yeah. Perfect. Thank you, sir.

Should I address the 2.5? While you're here, go ahead. Okay. I know it's a little odd because it's like, maybe you can think of it as a split level, but one side of the building, it has three levels. And because of the, it's basically the trash trucks and the fire trucks. If I aligned the floors on both sides of the building, the trucks couldn't get through. So I bumped up the other side just high enough so the trucks could get in. It just happens to be kind of split level. So that's why. Three on one side, and this side is just, it's at 2.5, so we just called it 2.5. Thank you.

Are any commissioners have any questions for the applicant? I have one right off the top of my head. Ms. Diaz recognized that there's 11 parking spaces, one above the kind of standard requirement. Are all 11 of those spaces assigned to units?

No, there's two ADA spots, and that was why it's 11, and one of them is EV, it has to be EV ready, so that's why it's odd. Okay. But they're not assigned, though, they're open.

Do you anticipate any spillover overflow onto Sutter Street from a parking perspective for this?

Not with 11 stalls, no. And the main house maintains its garage. It has a little single car garage on the side, the other side.

All right, any other questions for the app at this time?

No?

All right. Thank you, sir. We'll call you back up if there's public comment. So at this point, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing at 6.23 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 live comments on this item on Zoom webinar?

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

All right. Thank you. Anybody in the audience wish to address the Planning Commission on item D1 tonight? All right. Seeing none, before we close the public hearing, any last comments for the applicant before we direct action? We'll close the public hearing at 6.23 and 45 seconds. I'll remind the commission now that the public hearing is closed, all questions must be addressed to staff. We'll bring it back to the commission for discussion, deliberation, and any other follow-up questions.

Commissioner Mendoza, yes. Looking at your plans, it says close to two and a half foot setback between the existing house and the drive aisle. Is that the requirement of the city or is it too narrow, too wide?

What do you got? The public comment is closed right now. So the questions have to be to staff.

Is staff able to answer that question?

That would be more from a building perspective on the setbacks of why they're two and a half feet, but I believe it's just to be able to fit the apartment complex on the site and still meet the required setbacks on the side and the front and not encroach into the 100-foot PG&E easement. So that's why it's so close. And it is open. There are arches on the side, but as far as if it needs to be fire rated or whatnot, that's more of a building perspective.

Okay. Let's see. So the height is governed by the height of the truck going underneath. That's the fire truck.

The height is 14 feet, yes.

Well, I like the project. The only thing I would say is the neighbors to the east would be adjacent. I know there's a 10-foot setback there. But would the vegetation or the trees that are growing, would they be past points that ?

The trees will grow to about 20 feet in height along the property line there, which will help buffer the uses and block the windows. So it'll give the property on the east side so they can't see, the windows can't look down to their property. And there is a driveway as well from the property line to the house to the east, so that helps with the buffering.

Yeah, one of your pictures, I've seen a car come by 20 now. That's got to be the neighbor's car. Yeah. That's it. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you. Any other questions for Ms. Diaz or staff? Just confirming for the record, PG&E is, there's a PG&E easement in this property and they've confirmed that the proposed parking and garden space utilities, all of that will not be put there.

That is correct. They reviewed it and said there's no impact and nothing is to be built underneath that easement.

And then same thing, carrying off of Commissioner Mendoza's question regarding the tunnel height and width, the Antigua Fire Department and our utility services have confirmed that that's sufficient action, correct?

Yes, Chair. They've reviewed it and stated it's sufficient width and height.

Very good. And we've received no public comments with respect to anything related to the site, correct, from the administration?

We did receive a letter earlier today from the Housing Development Project. Yeah, just indicating to approve the project.

Yes, correct, we did receive that supplemental. It wasn't a citizen, it was from an agency. That's why I was specifically talking about citizens from the public. But yes, the commission is in receipt of an unsolicited letter from the California Housing Defense Fund kind of outlining the Housing Accountability Act, CEQA applies to this project. I think it's a reminder of the legal obligations that a municipality has relates to housing and points out that any noncompliance has led to some litigation elsewhere. Of course, we'll consider that context, but we'll apply our own findings.

The Chair, there were no comments from the public.

Thank you. All right. Anything else? Any other questions, comments, concerns? All right. At this point, I think we'll call for a vote. Is there a motion and a second to conduct a public hearing and find the Serene Place project exempt from further environmental review pursuant to section 15303B of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines and adopt their resolution approving a site plan and design review, SPA 23-85, to allow the development of a fourplex for the Serene Place project located at 429 Sutter Street, APN 223-120-06. Make a motion to approve.

Fiore, second.

All right. We have a motion from Commissioner Mendoza and a second from Commissioner Fiore. All those who will vote in favor, say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Any opposed? All right. Motion passes. Item D1 is passed 5-0. Thank you very much.

Item D2-26-375, Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and consider finding the Levels Lounge project exempt from further environmental review pursuant to section 15301, existing facilities of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines and adopt a resolution approving a conditional use permit CUP26-43 to allow for the operation of a bar nightclub used for the Levels Lounge project located at 159 West Yosemite Avenue, APN 217-210-42. Assistant Planner Zuzi Mahunga will be presenting this item.

ZUZI MAHUNGA Good evening, Commissioners. Today I'll be presenting an application request for a conditional use permit for the Levels Lounge project. Levels is located on 159 West Yosemite Avenue in an approximately 3,000 square foot building. Levels is proposed to be a 21 and up lounge with a premium nightlife experience. However, the project is classified as having a bar and nightclub land use designation, which requires an approved conditional use permit in the DMU zoning district. As you can see here, the parcel is surrounded by commercial uses, retail, restaurant uses, salons, and service-orientated uses. On the left side of the site, there's a local gift shop that closes at 4 p.m., and to the right is a convenience store that closes at 2 a.m. The site is zone DMU mixed use downtown and it has a downtown general plan designation. The first picture shows surrounding parcels to the north of the property on North Main and Maple and the second displays parcels to the south on West Yosemite. Here we can see a street view of the current building facade. City records show that it was built in 1917 and is approximately 109 years old. The applicant has plans to make minor improvements to the facade, including but not limited to removing the awning and upgrading the windows and doors. I also want to emphasize that this entitlement is just to review the individual use of the proposed project and it's to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. Site design is not part of this project and when the applicant will submit their building permits, they will have to comply with current codes and meet all required public health and safety standards. On that note, here is the submitted conceptual floor plan. As you can see, there's bathrooms, bar area, and lounge booths, which I just spoke to show what the levels lounge is going to be like. The door at the back of the building will be for egress only, decreasing foot traffic on West Yosemite. While the applicant has proposed an occupancy of around 99 patrons based on square footage, occupancy will be determined in the building permit phase and building and fire codes will have to be met. For site operations, this project is proposed to open from 7 PM to 2 AM and have seven staff members, a manager, bar staff, a DJ, lighting control, and security personnel will be employed at the venue. Staff will be trained in age verification and responsible beverage service. The applicant is prepared to work with the police department to ensure public safety and security concerns are mitigated, include including creating an on-site incident log, which shall be made available to the PD upon request, and that is also in the conditions of approval. And some more additional conditions of approval regarding public and health safety has been highlighted here, including but not limited to mandatory surveillance cameras, a security plan, licensed personnel for alcohol and beverage safety, and a cap on the number of police service calls within 30 days. So more than three to five calls involving violence, public intoxication, or disorderly conduct may subject the CUP to review and additional conditions, modifications, or even revocations. This project was duly noticed on July 22nd, and we did receive one public comment. Just for the record, the comment expressed concern about nightclub and bar uses being banned in the CBD zone. The Manteca general plan and zoning has since been updated from the central business overlay district to the downtown and DMU zoning designation that we are familiar with today. As always, city staff would like to encourage the public to leave comments and attend meetings to facilitate conversations and strengthen community understanding of proposed projects. This project was deemed exempt pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA guidelines. 15301 is also known as existing facilities, which consists of the operation, repair, or minor alteration of existing structures. Staff recommends the planning commission find the level lounge project exempt pursuant to section 15301, existing facilities of the SICA guidelines and adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a bar and nightclub use at 159 West Yosemite Avenue. Thank you for your consideration, commissioners. I'm happy to answer any additional questions you may have. And the applicant is also in attendance today.

All right. Thank you very much. Any commissioners have any initial clarifying questions for staff? Commissioner Paslack.

So you indicated that this zoning district, let me back up. So the one comment that was received was about this particular nightclub being banned from the zoning. You indicated that that zoning district is no longer in place?

Yes, Commissioner Paslack.

But when I went on to the city website, it shows that it's just an overlay. That's the city's official ruling on that.

Good evening, Commissioner. So staff has been working on this exact question since the comment came up. City Attorney Boucher here, as well as the interim city attorney, weighed in. And we just received a little bit of clarification. I'm going to go ahead and just briefly summarize the comments. And we just want to clarify that the CBD 1 and 2 zone, overlay zone that you referenced, while it remains in Chapter 17.30, it's considered legacy language based on the fact that the zoning map was updated as part of the citywide rezone. That map established new zoning districts that would apply to this property, being the DMU or downtown mixed use. So the previously utilized CBD-1 and 2 were not carried forward, and the new, as I mentioned, DMU was established. So while the references remain in that chapter 17.30, the language and the references there are essentially legacy. They're outdated, and they need to be removed as part of the zoning code update, which staff is currently working on. So the DMU, the Downtown Mixed Use, is the appropriate zoning district along with the requirements thereof, and the previous utilized CBD-1 and CBD-2 are not applicable to the project. And therefore, the table that was referenced in the letter is essentially, I don't want to call it incorrect, but it wouldn't apply. As I mentioned, the language in that previous section is outdated.

So if you're not using that table, the other table that shows what's allowed is nightclubs.

Under the conditional use permit, which is what we're presenting to Planning Commission.

Thank you. Any other initial questions? I'm going to reserve mine for after the public hearing. Oh, actually, one question before the public hearing. This project is indicated as, I think, a class one CEQA exemption. Can you just briefly summarize why that's an appropriate use of the CEQA exemption here?

Yes, Chair.

So that exemption is for existing facilities with just minor alterations or just optional. Like if an owner moves out and somebody moves in, that is existing facility. The impact has already been accounted for. So we felt that this project was appropriate for that.

Okay.

Very good. Thank you. All right. You mentioned the applicant is here, so please come on up and we'd love to, For your presentation, please state your name and title for the record as well. Thank you.

My name is Rosie Quintana, and I will be the operating manager for Levels. So first of all, thank you all for being here. I'm very excited. Our team is excited to be here and for the opportunity given to invest in Manteca. Our goal is to provide a business long-term relationship with the city of Manteca. Therefore, we've seen Manteca growing, and we project that it's definitely going to keep growing, and we want to be part of that growth. Our goal, like I said, is to establish a long-term relationship, and I think we are confident, our team is confident that as long as we keep open communication with all departments, we foresee that our goal will be successful and the establishment will be successful. So any questions, concerns? We understand the responsibility this entails, and so... We're excited. Any questions?

Very good. Thank you. Just real quick, formal questions. Have you read the conditions of approval tonight? And are you in agreement with those? Yes. Okay. Thank you so much. Any questions for the applicant? Commissioner Mendoza.

You know, it's been a long time since I've been in a bar like that.

Yeah?

Yeah. I'm older. I'm older. Just older. But when I looked at your layout, and I know it's a...

It's an early schematic design.

Yeah. But if I went into the bathroom with another man, there's two toilets in there. But if I went in there with a woman, would that be acceptable?

Probably not. And that's actually part of our condition used. The restroom layout has to be developed more. But that will be developed during our building submittal.

Good.

Yeah. But I understand. Yeah. Great question.

Thank you. Any other questions for the office?

I just have a question. The food service is going to be kitchen appliances. How do you maintain?

Well, you know what? Oh, I'm sorry. That's still up in the air. I know we've discussed this. We are foreseeing to have maybe like counter items, meaning like toaster ovens, things like that. But we've... We still haven't set it in stone because we haven't worked with it. So it's something that's still up in the air. If we don't have the experience, it's something that we don't want to do. But we kept it there just as an idea that we have. To answer that better, I don't have the exact answer, just because we've been in business for over 30 years, and we want to introduce this new concept because it's something that we saw in one of our conventions, but we're still a little hesitant, but we wanted to bring it to the table just in case. But it's still something that's up in the air with our team.

Have you managed a situation like this somewhere else?

Have I managed a nightclub?

Yes.

Well, a bar? Yes. I grew up in the business. So just a little back story. Our family, there's two different families involved. My family and my husband's family, we merged together. It's funny because we grew up in the business, and then we married into the business. So my family owns nightclubs. His family owns nightclubs, bars, multiple establishments. And so now we've merged, and this will be our first joint venture. So we're very excited. And yes, I have plenty of experience. I've been in the business for many years. I started when I was 21. I'm 36 now, so I'm still learning.

Very good. Can you walk through what your thought process is on the security plan for the night?

Yeah, so security, I know that's our main concern all the time, security. So we do have personnel. We have one main guard. I shouldn't say guard, our head guard. And he's the one that manages all different locations. We usually have monthly meetings just to make sure that everyone's on track. We do reports for each establishment because we have multiple establishments. So we make sure that each establishment maintains a journal with any incidents that are happening. We have a special person in the front. which is the guard. And he specifically only takes care of the door, makes sure that our attire is whatever attire it is for that night or just our overall dress code. And then we have security inside and we have security always at the bathrooms and any exits. In this case, I think there's only one exit and one entry. So that's where we keep our guards. We have radios. We do have overall security cameras. and we're managing, that's why there's an operations manager. In this case, that would be me, and I'm operating from all the different angles where we possibly can have any bar area, burst rooms, where any incidents might occur, and that just comes with experience and based on what we've experienced. And again, this is a new venture for us. It is a lot smaller than any of the other establishments, so we're very confident that we know where to set our security and where we have our points for security surveillance. And they have radios, so we operate through radios.

Then closing time dispersal, you're expecting egress to the back?

Well, we're expecting, yeah. We're expecting to do egress both. We're going to have one main entry, but after 145, then we secure egress both front and back.

Very good.

But we just don't want anyone coming in through the back.

Do you anticipate coordination with Manteca Police Department for support as needed from security?

I'm sorry?

Do you anticipate any coordination needed with the Manteca Police Department?

Oh, yeah, definitely. And I think throughout the existence of the business, there's going to be a lot of communication because I think that's been our main... What's the word? Our main... It's why our business is so successful because we've always kept a very open communication. And, I mean, things are going to happen. It's just part of the nature of our business. But as long as we're able to have that open communication and communication you don't understand what the city wants or what police department wants and what we expect as well, you know, everything should be manageable.

I know the initial plan states up to 99 occupants, and I know that will change likely with the permitting process and the building code and the fire inspection. How do you plan to handle reaching capacity and line spillover? How will that be managed?

So we have clickers, and we usually do crowd barriers. We should start straight, but for any reason, I mean, I don't think we're going to have this issue, but usually we'll wrap around the building depending on which, in this case, I think it's the store in the corner that will be closed during our operation hours. So if anything, we need to circle around that area.

So that would minimize impact to your neighbors? Yes.

Oh yeah, we want to be good neighbors.

Absolutely. Okay. Any concern regarding noise enforcement?

So far, no. I mean, I know they said in our CUP we have to have like a certain number, but I don't see that being an issue. And I mean, that's always something that can be managed.

And is it still Thursday through Sunday? Is that the planned operating hours or operating dates?

Yes, Thursday through Sunday.

Do you anticipate needing to operate Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday?

It will, just depending on how our market responds. We're looking like special events or maybe special, just depends. I mean, but we wanted to put that out there in case we do plan to have maybe holiday events, holiday parties, corporate parties, just to get a little bit more use out of the space.

Last question, have you done any outreach to your neighbors in downtown?

I have not, no. So I first wanted to get my CUP and kind of get my foot in the door here, and then I have to start now pushing everywhere, not just my neighbors, but building police department and everyone.

Okay. Thank you for indulging me.

Yeah, for sure.

Any other questions for the applicants?

Is there other clubs in this local area that you guys run right now?

Not in Manteca, but Modesto.

Modesto?

Tracy.

What are those called?

We have the bigger ones in Modesto. So Palladium, Spotlight, Botanero, Moana. We have other bigger ones.

Everybody good? Okay. Thank you very much. Yeah, no, for sure.

Thank you, guys.

We're going to open a public hearing and we might call you back. At this point, we will open the public hearing at 6.47pm. 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 live comments on Zoom webinar or any comment cards?

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

Okay, anybody in the audience wish to address the commission on this item, I do so now, and you're ready to go, so fire away.

I would thank you. Jeffrey Axland with Axland Real Estate. I have a business downtown. I actually manage the building next door to this, to the east of this building. I think that with conversations with other businesses that I manage in town, other people I know, I think this will be a great addition to downtown. The only concern I have is that what wasn't mentioned is that above the convenience store to the building to the east, above the convenience store I manage, we do have residential properties right up above. So the concern would be thumping music until 2 a.m. for the residents that live upstairs. And I'm really hoping that they'll have some way to calm that noise down so that it won't affect our tenants upstairs. it'll make it even a little more difficult to rent those out. But all in all, the project is a great project, and we really could use it downtown. But I did need to say something about the noise and make sure that we have noise under control and that our tenants will not be damaged or disturbed being upstairs from that.

So thank you. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Any other members of the audience wish to address the commission on this item may do so now. Come on up, sir.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Charles Paz. I am the president of our downtown district in Manteca. I'm also a commissioner, commissioner for District 3 in our Parks and Recs Commission. And I own 50% of a restaurant in downtown called Besitos Fine Cuisine, which we are celebrating our 10-year anniversary this year, being in downtown for a decade. I didn't write anything. I don't have an AI speech ready to go. I kind of speak from the heart, and I kind of like, what's on my mind? I am all for this project. Our downtown needs a nightlife. If you look online, a lot of people in this town are asking for more food, hospitality, and entertainment. Right now, we kind of have a little bit more health and beauty in our downtown, but we need places where you could grab a bunch of friends on a Friday night and say, hey, where are we going to go hang out? I know there was concerns about some of the surrounding businesses and if this is gonna hurt them. And in actuality, it's gonna help them. elevates the rest of the people in our downtown district. As a restaurant, now we could be open on some late nights. Now we could tell these people, come get a good steak, come get a burger, and then go have fun at your club and lounge. Go get your table, go have your nightlife. Or even go down the street, go get a slice of pizza, have retro pie, and then go enjoy a nice night. I think there was talk too about what happens when the lines overflow. Well, guess what? When the line overflows at this nightclub, The R&B is right around the corner, Deaf Puppy is open. We have our other surrounding businesses that are going to help support each other. I was reading some of the conditions and everything and yes, safety is a big concern. So as a downtown district, if there's any questions or anything that they have or they need help strategizing, where should security be or where some of our parking lots or everything like that, we're more than willing to help this club. There's a lot of negativity in downtown. The first thing when we had our mural go up, comments are, how long until it gets vandalized? We just put a lot of new planter pots in our downtown to start making things look pretty. First thing, when are the homeless people gonna break them? When this project comes up, first thing people are saying, how long until something bad happens? We can't have that mentality in downtown waiting for something bad to happen. We just have to go with the flow, make it work, and help support everybody and each other. I am really, really looking forward to this place opening because it is a nice place to, when you have a place that has a dress code or a table service or security, you kind of get rid of the people that are gonna go in there and do bad things. And that's something that we look forward to. I do, and I'm missing one thing on the report though, that there is no table for the president and the first lady of downtown. So maybe if we could put that in there. That'd be great, but all in all, they have our support. It's a great thing for our downtown and I look forward to this place opening. I do ask one last thing, and I'm sorry I went over my time, but as a commissioner and as the council, I do ask for a little bit of grace and patience as we build this up because we want to encourage businesses to come into our downtown and invest in these buildings rather than discourage them and not come and bring stuff that we do need to help the city. Thank you guys for your time.

Thank you, Mr. President. Any other comments on item D2 tonight from any members of the audience?

I wasn't planning on speaking on this. The next one is my thing. Joe Rosamond just happened to be here. So I think this is one of those things that like all the Facebook warriors have keep asking for for downtown, let's get downtown looking better and having more businesses and be more like some of those other cities they always like to quote. So this is a good thing for that. And I know that I think the scope here is more like for like the sequel waiver or whatever you guys call it, right? So some of the things that haven't been talked about that I think it could be, and this is all based on assessing that it's only gonna have minor improvements to the building. well, okay, well, that building was designed 100 years ago, right? And now we're adding in bumping music to quote somebody earlier, right? And so just like what are the impacts on a very old building with that on top of a great point for the impacts of the residents that are nearby in those other buildings as well. But I would just be concerned with some of the impacts of the building itself from constant loud music with that seismic type of nature type of thing. And then And I know that's going to be covered when it goes through all the planning with the safety stuff for the fire department and whatnot. But it just seems very long and narrow. And if there is an emergency where people have to get out, is the one door in the back and two doors in the front going to be enough for that human flow? So that's all I had. A hope and a prayer isn't a plan, though, brother.

Thank you, sir. OK, anybody else wish to address the commission on item D2 tonight? All right. We'll call the applicant back up, since there was a few comments in the references made about a chair for the first lady of downtown. But specifically, there's concern raised about noise for nearby residents and then some of the other building safety

Okay, so just based on my experience, I'm not an engineer, but I know that when we go through planning and the buildings are, not the buildings, but the aesthetics inside, it will usually be designed so that those waves, those sound waves will be absorbed. Don't ask me how. I just know there is an aesthetic appeal to it, and so I understand the concerns, but I know that is something that we look forward to. Not just for outside noise, but inside too, because we have bottles and all those sound waves do project out into the actual space. So I know it is designed. I'm not sure how, but I know it is addressed. So I understand. Yeah.

And specifically as it relates to the noise impacts of the nearby residents, have there been any mitigating measures that you know of for that that was addressed in the first comments?

No, to be honest, I'll be very honest. We've never had the issues. Again, like I said, I think it's design and engineer or whatever the calcs are for sound waves. It's usually within that. I understand the building is pretty old, but that should also be something that addressed. I know in the past we've done extra cushion, not cushion, but padding. It's a special padding that we lay on walls. I mean, I don't know because sometimes it's not code, fire code proof. So It's just a matter of knowing what the architect will advise or the engineer will advise to keep those levels low.

And should there be, assuming you end up operating, should there be concerns? Are you open to addressing those concerns at a later date? Oh, yeah, for sure.

Oh, yeah, definitely. I exchanged numbers already. So if it does become a concern, you know, like I said, the idea and the concept and the goal is to work together. So, yeah, I'm open to it.

Thank you.

Yeah, for sure.

All right, before we close the public hearing, any other questions? All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

We'll close the public hearing on this item at 6.57 PM. We'll bring it back to the commission for further discussion. Any questions for staff? Any discussion?

No questions for staff, but I do appreciate all the folks in the audience speaking up and kind of giving us a little bit different perspective of what's going on. I appreciate that. I know we're just doing the CUP and the designs will all be later, but I know that our wonderful staff is going to note down that noise abatement might be one of them. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Fiore. Anything for Commissioner Pasluck?

So I know you said the overlay without the official legal ruling.

Commissioner, if I may, based on that, in COORDINATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WE WOULD RECOMMEND AMENDING THE RESOLUTION, AND IF I MAY SHARE THE LANGUAGE THAT WOULD CLEARLY EXPLAIN THAT. THE LANGUAGE WE PROPOSE FOR INCLUSION IN A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE RESOLUTION IS WHEREAS ORDINANCE NUMBER 02025-01 REMOVED THE CBD-1 DESIGNATION FROM THE PROJECT SITE, AND AS A RESULT, THE PROPOSED BAR NIGHT CLUB USE IS EVALUATED PURSUANT TO THE APPLICABLE USE REGULATIONS OF THE DOWNTOWN MIXED USE BASE ZONING DISTRICT INCLUDING TABLE 17.22.020-1 OF THE MANTIKA MUNICIPAL CODE UNDER WHICH A BAR NIGHT CLUB USE IS ALLOWED SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. AND THAT LANGUAGE WOULD ADDRESS THE REMOVAL OF THE CBD-1 IN ADDITION TO THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE THAT MADE THE CHANGE TO THAT ZONING MAP AS WELL.

NO, THE ORDINANCE. THIS IS WHEREAS ORDINANCE NUMBER 02025-01 ALREADY REMOVED.

IT REMOVED IT IN 2025 THROUGH THE ADOPTION OF THAT ORDINANCE.

So are there plans to do a zoning update as it relates to this central business district overlay language in the zoning code?

Sure. Absolutely, yes. There will be a zoning code update. As was mentioned earlier, staff is working on those updates. And it will, in essence, clean up all inconsistencies and ensure further consistency with our general plan.

And I think, I appreciate that. I think the public comment we did receive in advance of the meeting does reference that specific section of the municipal code, but it's referencing what effectively is a part of the municipal code that's already been removed by Ordinance 02025-01, is that correct? If that's your understanding, yes, okay. Very good. There's also reference to either staff or the applicant attempting to bypass that by using the term lounge instead of nightclub. However, we can clearly see that the term nightclub was not only referenced in the presentation tonight, but it's in page one of the staff report. So very clearly a bar nightclub, not a lounge. Project name is Levels Lounge. So just to clarify that confusion. All right, any other comments, questions before we make a long look? No? Okay. I think our findings tonight have to, three things as always. Is it consistent with the general plan? literally in the vision statement of the general plan is calling for a vibrant downtown. This certainly, we can find that this does add to a vibrant downtown. Is it compliant with the municipal code title 17? We just got that answer. It is compliant as a result of the removal of the CBD language from ordinance 0205-01 in 2025. And then is it compliant with CEQA? And we got that answer Public hearing, it is compliant with CEQA and CEQA exemption one. Without further ado, we'll call for a roll call vote tonight for this item. So is there a motion and a second to conduct a public hearing and consider finding the Levels Lounge project exempt from further environmental review pursuant to section 15301, existing facilities of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines, and adopt a resolution approving a conditional use permit, CUP26-43, to allow for the operation of a bar nightclub used for the Levels Lounge project located at 159 West Yosemite Avenue, APN 217-210-42 as amended, whereas ordinance 02025-01 removed the CBD-1 designation. from the project site. And as a result, the proposed bar slash nightclub use is evaluated pursuant to the applicable use regulations of the DMU or Downtown Mixed Use Base Zoning District, including table 17-22, excuse me, 17.22.020-1 of the Manteca Municipal Code, under which a bar slash nightclub use is allowed, subject to approval of a conditional use permit.

A motion to approve.

We have a second.

Fiori's second.

All right. We have a motion from Vice Chair Jimenez, a second from Commissioner Fiori. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Mendoza.

Approve.

Commissioner Fiori. Approve. Commissioner Paslack.

Approve.

Vice Chair Jimenez. Approve. Chair Coleman.

Aye. Motion passes 5-0. Thank you very much. All right. Item D3, madam.

Item D3, 26-398. Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance for a zoning text amendment, ZTA 26-62, to amend the entitlement requirements for fueling stations set forth in Table 17-22-020-1 of Section 17-22-020. relating to allowed uses and required entitlements, and adding chapter 17.98 relating to fueling stations development and performance standards to title 17 of the Manteca Municipal Code. Deputy Director Jesus Orozco will be presenting this item.

Good evening chair, commissioners, staff and members of the public. Before you we have a zoning text amendment to Title 17 which does two parts. It's updating the land use table and establishes a new chapter within our zoning text. This particular zoning text amendment entails the fueling stations and development and performance standards. A little bit of background on this. The Council did have discussion in late 2025, December 2025, regarding growing concerns with the continued development of of fueling stations, concerns until the peripheration of fueling stations, as well as concerns with compatibility with surrounding land uses. Staff did bring forward a presentation to the city council on June 16, 2026. At that meeting, staff did present several options, three of which staff has pursued and is in part this evening's presentation. One of the options entailed a temporary moratorium on the development of a fueling station. The second one entailed a zoning tax amendment. And the third option was a conditional use permit requirement for fueling stations. At that same meeting, council did provide staff with direction to come up with a phase approach. And at this time, staff has prepared a draft zoning text amendment, as I mentioned, an update to the land use table, as well as a new chapter. The first component, which is the moratorium, is being prepared separately for council consideration, which is, I believe, scheduled for a September 1st city council meeting. That being said, I do want to note that this ordinance was prepared with the entire city in consideration and not addressing any specific site or consent for any specific site. So this is intended to address all fueling stations throughout the city. The first part, the update of the land use table within section 12.220, which establishes the various land uses and the required permits in each corresponding zoning district. Presently, fueling stations are allowed in four zone districts. And this proposal will actually eliminate the allowance of building stations in two of those commercial zone districts. Leaving two zone zones, which would be the commercial mixed use zone district and the general commercial zone district. In both instances, fueling stations will be elevated from the minor use permit requirements. to a conditional use permit requirement, which requires a greater degree of discretion and allow for greater input from members of the public. Generally, minor use permits are considered at the administrative or staff level. for certain uses. However, now as opposed under a use permit process, the filling stations would be subject to planning commission review and approval. The second component, the addition of a new chapter, chapter 17.98, which is the Fueling Stations Development and Performance Standards, as it's been titled for this proposed amendment, does a number of things. I just want to highlight the ones that are generally or have been of concern to members of the public. I do also want to note staff has considered general comments, concerns and inquiries presented to staff as well as concerns presented at city councils and planning commission meetings as well as community outreach meetings. So taking into consideration all those pieces of information staff has prepared, the ordinance that addresses as much as possible. And so, but some of the ones that I believe are of relevance of this evening are like the distance requirements between fueling stations. There is a provision in there that requires a minimum 500 foot distance between fueling stations. Another one's a site and development standards for those specific locations. As an example, future fueling station locations need to have a minimum parcel size of 0.5 acres. And that's to ensure that generally they're not in locations that are in-fill loss or in between older parts of uh residential um areas and so forth um and it also ensures that um that a project would be capable of meeting the other distance requirements associated with with with with the code additionally the code does mandate that building stations be located on CMU and CEG zone districts located along arterial thoroughfares and major collector thoroughfares. And generally that's what's already in place for these types of zoning districts. You generally wouldn't see neighborhood commercial along an arterial or a major collector. So by default, this will ensure or codify that Even if there is in the event there is a parcel that's a CMU or CG zone and it's not located along one of these thoroughfares or street classifications, it would not be allowed. Another component is the street frontage access location and ingress in ingress dimensions. This ensures that site design actually is considerate of the public safety with regards to ensuring vehicles have proper maneuvering into and from the site, as well as ensuring that there isn't any conflict with adjoining residential uses. And this is based on the size, potential size or configuration of a parcel. They're not all regular, rectangular, or square-like dimensioned. Some of them might have some irregular property lines, and therefore this, to some degree, ensures that there's adequate distances and ensures there isn't any impacts with surrounding land uses. Another component is architectural design standards. This is kind of a catch-all and it's intended to be applicable to most projects moving forward, not necessarily just filling stations as part of the zoning code update. And then proximity restrictions to residential zones. This particular provision requires a minimum 300 foot distance as the crow flies. from fueling station buildings, fielding canopies, underground storage tanks, as well as any other accessory components to a fueling station. And again, as I mentioned, this would be as the crow flies. And it's really a minimum distance from any adjoining residential property. There's also performance standards embedded. The performance standards are already a standard requirement of all projects, but this further codifies the requirements to ensure projects are thoroughly or even far more critically reviewed. for compliance with any hazardous storage material compliance, noise, odor, and vibration standards that the city currently has in place. And then this particular chapter also addresses non-conforming or existing uses that will become non-conforming if they do not meet the standards being proposed under this chapter. And again, the code is intended to address fueling stations, future fueling stations, as well as existing ones. So the code also does account any future expansions or modifications to existing fueling stations as well. In considering this zoning text amendment, in evaluating the applicable general plan goals and policies, land use policy 1.3 does mandate that any zoning code policy is consistent and compatible, provides consistency and compatibility between land uses. Staff's evaluation of all the factors does believe that this code does ensure compatibility and consistency between the general plan land use map and the zoning code for future developments. And in addition, the land use policy 4.3 also mandates that ordinance ensure that all commercial non-residential development is compatible with further adjoining land uses, such as residential uses. So considering all those factors, the proposed fueling station ordinance does is in compliance with the general plan. The zoning text amendment is also, the commission is able to make the necessary findings as well to present a recommendation to the city council based on what's been proposed tonight. The item was duly noticed under a 20-day notice. This public hearing was noticed with the Manteca Bulletin. Since it's not site-specific, it was noticed via the paper consistent with state law and local municipal code. So I'm going to note any future specific sites would be subject to their respective 500-foot radius. But since this was not site-specific, it was subject to the noticing requirements of a newspaper. Since this is really a policy matter, this project is exempt from CEQA subject to section 15061 of the CEQA guidelines which is called the common sense exemption because it can be seen with certainty that adoption of this ordinance would not create any environmental changes as it is simply just a policy decision. That being said, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending adoption of this ordinance alongside its CEQA exemption. That completes my presentation. I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Deputy Director. Any questions for the staff on this item? Commissioner Mendoza.

Some of these I know that, like, Safeway, some of their stores have gas, you know, gas pumps, Costco's, Sam's Club. I don't know about Walmart, but they're pretty big outfits. So do all these policies that are going to be implemented affect those kinds of gas stations also, or fueling stations?

Yes, all fueling stations.

OK, thanks. Thank you. Any other initial questions for staff? Commissioner Fiore?

When will this go into effect immediately?

So after the general procedure for this, after it's introduced by the city council, generally there's a two-week meeting in between. So at the first stage with the city council, there's an introduction and waiver of the ordinance, followed up with a second reading and adoption. So just between that time frame, we're looking at about 30 days from now, plus an additional 30 days for for the ordinance to go into effect. So between now, we're looking at about 60 days. I will note that the ordinance will be introduced to the city council at the same time as the moratorium.

Thank you.

Commissioner Mendoza.

No, and the staff reported or identified that Nantica has 33 existing building stations and five that are approved but not constructed. How many of the five that are not constructed would be impacted by this or they wouldn't be built?

I don't have an exact number for you, Commissioner, but I do believe that they would be impacted if they do not procure a building permit by the time their approval or entitlement expires.

Then they will be impacted by it?

Correct, yes.

All right, thank you. So along that lines, if a project applicant with a project already in the pipeline reaches their expiration date and they apply for an extension, they would be subject to the new ordinance. That is correct, yes. And then to clarify, anything that's already entitled, this would not apply, assuming they have an active permit.

Entitled and a permit, yes, that is correct.

And the reason for that is, I'm going to assume, is because there's a significant amount of cost involved that they've already paid and work already done that would involve a lot of complicated back and forth with the city.

Correct. And henceforth, the provision that addresses non-conforming. Very good. So they just, yeah, would roll into that category.

Yeah, you said the timeline is about 60 days. So if they adopt the moratorium, would that be an immediate effect for that piece, or is that the same time?

Yes, so the moratorium, as mentioned, is tentatively scheduled for City Council consideration on September 1st. At that time, it will go into effect immediately, because what is being potentially considered for adoption is an urgency ordinance that would go into effect, as mentioned, at that time.

To clarify for the record for the public, we're not considering a moratorium. Correct. In the ordinance itself, page three, it lists fueling stations shall be separated by a minimum of 500 feet. And then it speaks to the spacing requirement may be waived when the approving authority determines that unusual site characteristics, roadway geometry, or redevelopment opportunity justify a reduced separation. Can you confirm, would that be a ministerial process for that, or is that a Planning Commission consideration?

As Deputy Director mentioned, as these are being elevated from a minor use permit to a conditional use permit, the reviewing and approving body would be yourselves as a Planning Commission.

Very good. Thank you. So any redevelopment opportunity or any... Um, the approving authority essentially is the planning commission for condition. Okay. So there wouldn't be city staff would not be making that.

That is correct.

Very good. Thank you. Um, the 500 feet designation seems to be a standard, uh, kind of baseline metric for a lot of distances with respect to city plan. Is that accurate to say?

It's an industry number in land use. I wouldn't say it's specific to this. There are provisions with government code. As an example, ABC, the Department of Alcohol Average Control, they set similar distance requirements, whether it's 300 or 500. The Department of Social Services also sets specific distances for daycare and adult care facilities. So it's an industry standard number. It's not specific to land uses per se. Very good. I do want to add an additional bit of comment. With regards to distances, staff did evaluate existing gas stations or fueling stations, and for the most part, most fueling stations are less than 300 feet within an existing single-family residence. this ordinance would actually provide that distance that currently does not exist with filling stations. With the exception of maybe two projects that have been entitled, that potentially would satisfy the proposed development standard.

I think you knew where I was going with the next question. Where did the 300 feet number come from versus the 500 feet separation with respect to the two filling stations?

Well generally the 500 is for ensures an over, it prevents an over concentration, over saturation, overlap of services so to speak. So the code does allow for no more than two fueling stations at an intersection. Anything within that would require that they're at least 500 feet distance. The 300 applies for a fueling station distance between residential uses.

Okay. The language in the ordinance, and you referenced it in the presentation with respect to an adjoining property is referenced. The 300 feet distance, would that apply to, as written, only adjoining properties, or would it apply to properties that may be 300 feet that aren't adjoining?

It would apply to all properties, in essence. So the minimum would be that they have to be at least 300 feet.

As you said, as the crow flies, as the language from the site itself, which site is defined in our municipal code as the actual building apparatus or constructed part of the land.

Correct. The municipal code does have a definition for site as well as well as adjacent.

Okay. We're gonna, I'll circle back to the word adjoining. I'm wondering if there's a better way to clarify that in the actual ordinance, since what you're describing to me seems like it doesn't not necessarily have to be adjoining to be within the requirement.

Yes, you are correct.

Okay. And same process regarding, it says subject to city engineer approval. Wouldn't, again, going back to a conditional use permit process, wouldn't commission be the approving body, not the city engineer?

Correct. So in hindsight, when the ordinance was drafted, it was contemplated that, again, there might be some irregular parcel sizes where some consideration of waiver would be necessary. And the code would look to the city engineer to make that determination if it is, in fact, safe. And it would still meet the purpose and intent of the ordinance.

And that would effectively then be a recommendation by the city?

Correct, yes.

We can look at that language as well. And then on page 5 of the ordinance, there is reference to a chapter 17.100 as it relates to this being an amendment to chapter 17.98. I'm just curious if that's a typographical error or is there a different chapter also?

Can you repeat that for me one more time?

Page five of the ordinance as written says 17.100.60 for performance standard.

That is a typographical.

Okay. So it should be 17.98.60, is that correct?

Correct.

Okay. So we can correct that as well. Any questions on this side this time? Any other questions for staff?

I just want a clarification here. The point that you brought up about adjoining and adjacent, we're basically going to say from a particular central point in that fueling station will be a radius of 300?

Correct, based on like filling dispensers, canopies. And again, just going back to the term site, the site could be one or two or a single parcel. Some projects do encompass multiple parcels.

And just to clarify, the language specifically says minimum of 300. Was 500 feet considered? Was that found to be prohibitive for development? Or again, going back to the 300 feet number, trying to understand.

Correct. Yes, it would be prohibitive for the land development specifically. So as I mentioned earlier, There may be some situations where parcels have some irregular dimensions, and ultimately staff does want to ensure that we're not precluding anyone's land rights to develop.

Thank you. Any other questions before we open the public? No? All right, at this time, item D3 will open up the public hearing at 7.26 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 comment cards or hands raised on Zoom?

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

All right.

All right, so first is Cindy Weiss.

Yes, this is D3.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. My concern regarding this ordinance change has a lot to do with some of your questions, and that is the use of the term adjoining. So for example, using the term adjoining to me, seems confusing in that it might allow further development around a gas station and then those properties would then become adjoining and not the homes that could be within 300 feet outside of those additional development that would be occurring around it. So, for example, if a gas station complex were to be allowed to be built where it would have additional convenience stores and other things around surrounding the gas station, then would those be considered adjoining and not in the property's homes that are within the 300 feet? So in that case, I have a great objection to that, if that were the case. And I think if what you're describing, your intent is for it to be 300 feet as a crow flies, regardless of other properties around the gas station, that might be approved either at that time or later. then you should remove the word adjoining. So there is no confusion later on down the road by some other person that would be reviewing that. In addition, there is a section in there that talks about noise being allowed, has noise considerations for dealing with noise for gas stations within 300 feet of a residence. So I don't understand why that would be needed if you were allowing gas stations to be within 300 feet of a residence. It seems a mute point to even have a conversation in the ordinance about noise on gas stations within 300 feet.

So that to me was confusing, and I think it needs to be dealt with and addressed.

And secondly, with respect to giving some leeway for city engineering to make some, you know, allowances on their own accord without it stipulating that it would need further commission review or public hearing review or city council review, that I have an objection to as well. Because I think that that could be, whether deliberately or not deliberately, mishandled. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Jeff, do you want to address questions or are you going to wait until after the end of the comments?

At your discretion, Chair.

I think while it's fresh, I think we answered one question with respect to the city engineer confirm they are not via final approval, still would come before Planning Commission and or the city council.

That is correct, Chair, and staff is prepared to provide revisions to that specific sentence at the commission's discretion, as well as the term adjoining by striking that term. And then maybe if I can just briefly before I forget. Yes. As it relates to the 300 feet distance from a residence. Again, as I mentioned, the ordinance also applies to existing uses. And in the event this provision was placed within the ordinance in the event that an existing fueling station, like I mentioned, some of them are much closer than 300 feet. they decide to have video or some form of audio feature within their fueling pumps that adjoining residents within proximity are protected as well.

Right, so an example would be we have a new station on airport in Atherton that has a video pump. So if that was in close proximity to a residence playing an audio commercial on the video could be heard loudly, potentially, if there wasn't a noise.

That is correct. Yes.

Thank you. All right. We'll take the next comment card.

Next comment card is from Joseph Roseman.

Good evening. You guys kind of took the wind out of my sails. So anyways, I just wanted to, you know, thanks for listening to us. I want to begin by acknowledging the progress that's been made here on this ordinance. It recognizes that these fueling stations can affect people in the residences and whatnot with traffic, circulation, noise, lighting, environmental quality, and compatibility with our residential neighborhoods. So thank you for getting this done and getting it done so quickly. And we've kind of already talked about it, the 300 versus 500 foot rule. I get it. I would like to see that also be stricken is the ability, is that wording of the sitting engineer being able to approve things. And I'd like to see that 300 foot rule be like the hard set. And because of that one verbiage there, that 300 foot rule away from residences could be changed, and I know that's not the intent, but I'd like to see that to be the bare bones minimum, like no, it cannot go below that. With really, you know, 500 feet, and you guys already touched on this too, but with 500 feet being like the normal, right? That can then get reduced through the commission. Let's see, and really that's it. Let me go through my notes here, because now I have to do this ad hoc. That's all the same. Yeah, okay, and we also asked, and you guys already talked about this, is closing the potential loophole here for the terms of joining or adjacent, so that if there's a parcel change or a lot line change or something like that within a certain parcel, that it doesn't create a buffer towards this residential 300-foot distance. yeah but overall yeah we support the early size support the ordinance appreciate the city's effort. As we go forward on it so thanks, thank you.

Speaking to the language as it relates to the city engineer approval, would it be more appropriate to use the term recommendation by the city engineer versus approval.

is comfortable with direct okay yep.

And then with respect to the term adjoining, just to circle back to that, I think, would it be amenable to just strike the word completely adjoining and just go straight to any adjoining property zone for single family residential use?

That does not object.

OK. Thank you. Anybody else in the audience wish to address us on this item? We do so now. All right, since the city is the applicant, we'll keep the public hearing open and if there's any other questions for the applicant or comments.

I just have one comment too. I think I can echo from most of us. I appreciate the fact that the staff did this so quickly. They really put a lot of effort into it. I'm sure you went around the city and and did some field review on the location of the existing stations, but I mean, I know this issue came up a little bit ago, and I'm very happy to see how you've taken this on and really been considerate of the city in general and the residents in particular. I think going forward, it's a living document. It can always be changed if something's not working. We're trying to nail that down tonight, but something will come up, I'm sure. But this is an excellent first. So thank you for that.

Thank you. In reference to the noise comments and the noise limits specifically, again, that will be considered as part of conditions of approval during the CUP process.

That is correct, yes.

So we can handle those applicant by applicant in the future.

Correct. They'll be in a case-by-case basis through the CUP process.

Very good.

One more comment.

Yes.

I see what you did. You took away all those minor permits and you gave them all to the planning committee. I see what you've done.

We enjoy keeping you busy.

You're not complaining.

I think one of the significant changes here, and I don't want to understate it, is the fact that we're reducing essentially allowable fueling stations to be required to have a conditional use permit for all instances. There are no minor use permits anymore as part of this zoning text. which requires, like you said in the beginning of your presentation, a much more rigorous process, obviously, right here, and a non-ministerial process, meaning it must come before us and staff will not be making those decisions, correct?

Correct.

Very good. All right. Any other comments, questions? All right. I'm going to close the public hearing on this item at 7.36 p.m. Any other deliberation, discussion between us? All right, we're gonna have two amendments to make then to the motion as it relates to the term adjoining on section 17.98-050 in reference to the 300 foot distance for any property zone for a single family residential use, striking the word adjoining. And then another amendment as it relates to the access point in 17-98.050 as it relates to access, including the distance measurement shall be from the center line of an access point to the curb return at the nearest property line and a shorter distance may be allowed at the recommendation by the city engineer and not approval. If you guys are agreeable to that. I will make a motion, or excuse me, I will call for a vote. We're gonna do a roll call vote on this one. Is there a motion and a second to conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution recommending that the city council adopt an ordinance for a zoning text amendment ZTA 26-62 to amend the entitlement requirements for fueling stations set forth in table 17.22.020-1 of section 17.22-020, excuse me, related to allowed uses and requirements, required entitlements and adding chapter 17.98 relating to fuel stations development and performance standards to title 17 of the Manteco Municipal Code as amended, removing the word, the term adjoining from section 17.98-050 of the ordinance and changing section 17.98.050 item number four to the language of recommendation by the city engineer, striking the word approval next to city engineer. And then lastly on page five of the ordinance, correcting the typographical error to 17.98-60 performance. Do we have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Looking for a second.

Fiore seconds.

All right. We have a motion from Commissioner Paslack, a second from Commissioner Fiore. Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Mendoza.

Approve.

Commissioner Paslack.

Approve.

Commissioner Fiore. Aye. Vice Chair Jimenez. Approve. Chair Coleman.

Aye. Motion passes 5-0. Thank you very much. All right, that takes us on to staff comments tonight.

Good evening again, commissioners and chair. I'm gonna go first since Jesus is in need of a break after that presentation. So thank you again. Thank you again for the flexibility as we navigated through the questions that came up with levels in the COP. I know a little bit of changes at the last minute, but appreciate again, the flexibility, the opportunity to be able to move that project forward. We're definitely excited for that as well as the fueling station zoning code amendments. As Commissioner Iori mentioned, just the opportunity to be able to ensure higher level developments within the city with regards to those fueling stations. So thank you for your time in reviewing those and the comments this evening as we move that item forward. That's all that I have.

Thank you.

Deputy Director.

new updates, we will reconvene the first meeting in September.

So we're off the hook for August 20th?

Correct.

All right. Thank you, sir. Any other staff comments? All right. We'll take it back to the commissioner comment. Anybody have anything tonight? Commissioner Mendoza?

It's just... Long time Manteca resident. It's nice to see things happening downtown that people would want to visit so they can stay here and not go to Livermore or wherever they go. Thank you.

Love it. Commissioner Fiore, any comments tonight?

Thank you. Thanking staff for their professionalism and getting us prepared for these meetings.

Thank you. Mr. Paslack.

Yeah, I just want to say the same thing to the staff for all the hard work. I noticed that the presentation was better.

Vice Chair.

I just would like to point out that I feel like tonight was a good example of the city really listening to what people have been asking for a while. Thank you. Yeah, I'll ditto all those comments. I think there's some particular

you know, tricky elements to a couple of these items and I appreciate the work from the city attorney's office and the staff to work through those challenges and help us help public and help everyone else in the city to ensure that we're representing them. Well, as vice chair said, um, a lot of work went into this meeting tonight. I appreciate it very much. Um, and, uh, I'm excited for the public participation, both before the meeting and during the meeting. We always appreciate the public coming out, and it helps us so much to get an understanding of the concerns, and honestly, sometimes in many cases like tonight, the praise that is out there for some of the projects and items that the city's working really hard to to enact for the community. Got a lot of new businesses opening. I'm excited to go try one of them tonight for dinner. But it's a fun time in Manteca. It's supposed to be like 100,000 degrees this weekend, I think. Is that what I heard? So stay cool, and we'll see you in September. Thank you. Meeting adjourned at 7.43 p.m.