Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, we'll call to order this regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Manteca, September 3rd, 2026. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Salk? Here. Paslak?

Here.

Fiore? Here. Vice Chair Jimenez? Chair Coleman?

Here. Thank you. That takes us to flag salute. Commissioner Salk, would you lead us today, please? 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?

Chair Coleman, there are no changes to the agenda, and there was a total of five supplemental reports provided for item D2 with a supplemental two as well. 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 moves us on to public comment. This portion of the agenda is reserved for persons desiring to address the Commission on matters 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 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 any extended discussion on any item not listed on the agenda. If commission action is requested, the matter may be placed on a subsequent agenda subject to commission consensus. Madam Clerk.

We did not receive early submissions for public comment. Chair, at this time, you may call for public comment via Zoom webinar or in person for items not on the agenda. Public 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. Do we have any hands raised on Zoom tonight?

We do have one hand raised on Zoom, Chair. It's Sudhakar. Thank you. Sorry, Sudhakar. Sudhakar, can you hear us?

Yes, are you able to hear me?

Yes, we'll start your three minutes now. Are you able to hear me? Yes, we'll start your three minutes.

Okay, yeah. Hi, good evening, Planning Commission and fellow residents. Thank you for the opportunity. Today, this is regarding the June 18th Planning Commission meeting that happened for a 0.82 acre of PQP to HDR conversion. At that time, city representative said it was the school district that is giving the land to the private developer, that city is just executing the agreement between this school district and the planning commission. So I raised a public request in the city of Manteca website, but it was requesting that agreement on what basis the zoning conversion is being happening. But the request was closed with updating only the agenda item documents, not any agreement between the school district and the school district. private apartment developer and I called the city and reopened it but it was closed again the same time. Why is the transparency and accountability missing when in these uh transactions that is decrementing a public site and also i request to have a new zoning code for musd versus the pqp city so that people will transparently know what what land is actually getting reduced it was said that pqp is increasing If PQP is increasing, it should increase by two acre, not by one acre. Because fire station is two acre land, that means it should be 15.87 plus two, 17.87. But what is happening is the PQP of MUSD is getting reduced from 15.87 to 14.87. And then the two acres getting added for the fire station. So since the city always claims that MUSD is a different entity, let's have a different zoning code for PQP MUSD and PQP city so that people have a transparent and information that is available. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have any other hands raised on Zoom?

No, Chair, we do not.

We have no comment cards.

No comment cards, Chair. Okay.

Anyone in the audience wish to address the Planning Commission on any item not on the agenda may do so right now.

All right.

Seeing no hands, we'll move 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, thank you. Do any commissioners have any items to disclose as part of ex parte communications? We'll start with Commissioner Salk. No. Commissioner Fiore.

No.

Commissioner Paslack. None. Vice Chair Jimenez.

No.

And I have none as well. Thank you. All right, takes us on to 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 an item be removed from consent and it will be considered separately. Madam Clerk, do we have any requests from the public to pull the consent item tonight?

No, Chair, we do not.

Thank you. Any commissioners wish to pull the consent item tonight for discussion? I will pull the consent item tonight for discussion. The consent item is item C-126-342, review and approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes for August 6th, 2026. Commissioner Salk was not in attendance for that meeting. So I just wanna confirm for the record, Commissioner Salk, and be able to vote on this item. Can you confirm that you've read the minutes and watched the meeting from August 6th?

No, okay.

Thank you for confirming that for the record. At this time, if there's no other, is there any other discussion on this item? Okay, then we'll call for a vote. Is there a motion and a second to approve all items listed under the consent calendar as presented?

Biori motions to approve. I second.

All right, we have a motion by Commissioner Biori and a second by Vice Chair Jimenez to approve the consent item tonight. All those who vote in favor will say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Commissioner Salk, can you confirm your vote, sorry. Okay, motion passes 5-0, thank you. All right, that takes us on to the public hearings. Madam Clerk, item D1.

Item D1, 24-416, planning commission conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution approving a one-year extension for site plan and design review, SPC 23-04, and conditional use permit UPJ-23-05 for the cottage court storage project located at 1280 Cottage Court, APN 208-260-22. Associate planner Tobin Barnum will be presenting this item.

Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the Commission, Associate Planner Tobin Barnum. The request before you this evening is for a one-year extension of an approved entitlement of site plan review and conditional use permit for the Cottage Court Storage Project. Quick overview, this is a one year extension request for the approved 311 unit personal storage facility with a manager's office and an RV trailer parking area. Project site's 4.29 acres, 55,000 square feet of structure on that site, and it's located at 1280 Cottage Court. It should be noted at this time that during the review of the entitlement extension request, staff identified an administrative discrepancy between the approved Planning Commission staff report and resolution, which was dated June 20th, 2024, and the approved project plans. After an extensive internal and external review of the plan submitted with this extension application, it is the determination of staff that the plans are identical to the plan set, reviewed, and approved by resolution of the City of Manteca Planning Commission on June 20th, 2024. And therefore, it's in substantial conformance. Further description and analysis of this whole process and the review is available in the agenda report for this item. The requested entitlement again is a one year extension of an approved site plan and design review, specifically site plan review 2304 and conditional use permit UPJ 23-05. This is a glimpse of the site plan. It's a personal storage facility with 10 standard parking stalls and 72 RV stalls, 311 storage units. Perimeter and frontage landscaping and a motorized front gate for security. So the recommendation from staff is that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution approving a one-year extension to the site plan and design review and conditional use permit for Cottage Court Storage Project. That does conclude my presentation. The applicant team are available by Zoom this evening. They were not able to make it to the chambers, but they are attending virtually, and staff is here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you.

Any commissioners have any clarifying questions for staff tonight before we hear from the applicant? No questions? All right. Does the applicant wish to make a presentation via Zoom tonight?

Chair, I don't see them online via Zoom.

Very good. They are on the other end.

Chair, to my understanding there are three members of the applicant team who are attending virtually. Are they in the waiting room for Zoom? Perfect.

Deepak, are you able to hear us?

If the applicant's online, if you would just speak at this time, you may do so. We'll begin your five minutes.

They don't have to be admitted.

Sorry, Chair, we're just having issues. The hands raised on that screen are not represented. represented on mine. So I'm not able to pull them up on my end as of right now.

All right, very good. We'll just wait a minute here.

Jim, David, and Orist, if you can hear me, there is also a phone number available in the link that you're provided. I believe you might be able to call in if you want to try that option.

Okay, we're in receipt of the message saying that they're going to try to call in. We'll hold on a second here and wait.

Chair, perhaps maybe we can move on to comment within the audience and then return to the Zoom if we can facilitate the process.

We can do that. We'd have to open the public hearing first before we hear comment from the audience. Is that correct, City Attorney? Yes. Very good. All right, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing on this item at 6.15 p.m. while we wait for the applicant to get online. Do we have any Dare I ask, hands raised on Zoom for comment or any comment cards?

Sorry, Chair, we have no comment cards for this one right now.

All right, is the applicant available? Can you hear us now?

Please enter the meeting passcode followed by pound.

We can hear you guys, but you guys can't hear us. Can you hear us?

We can hear you now, yes.

Oh, you can hear us. All right. David, you're up, buddy. They can hear us now.

Can you hear me? We got you. We'll start your five minutes.

Go ahead. Okay. Hi, I'm David Spiegel, part of the applicant team. We concur with everything that was presented by staff. We are asking for the one-year extension. The project has taken a lot of time. It has been especially difficult because of the water storage that was there. We only recently had the plan approved. We are currently working with Oak Valley Community Bank on a construction loan. The development team has used them before. We are highly confident that we'll be able to move forward. The lender needs all of the approved plans, the remaining project documents before ordering the appraisal. Once the appraisal is received, and all of our paperwork has been turned in for personal information, we anticipate approximately 90 days to process the construction loan. We anticipate aggressively fourth quarter, probably more realistic first quarter of next year to get it done. In addition to that, we've had numerous delays in plan check, complexity of the project, significant underground drainage systems cross approximately 50% of the property. It took additional engineering special attention during the plan review. We've utilized MCR engineering, Marshall Swift, who's a local engineer who is familiar. And he was the second one that we used because he has more specialty with the issues that we had. And after numerous years, we think we're there just subject to getting the extension from the planning commission.

Very good, thank you, sir. Just real quickly while we have you, can you confirm that you've read the conditions of approval for this project that remain? Are you in agreement with those conditions?

Yes, we are.

Very good, thank you, sir. While we have the applicant, are there any questions from any commissioners for the applicant tonight? No questions? No questions? OK. Hang on the line, sir, while we open the public hearing for public comment, just in case we need you. OK?

Sure.

Thank you. All right. We've already opened the public hearing on this item. So do we have any new hands raised on Zoom?

No, Chair. I have no new hands raised on Zoom.

OK. Any members of the audience wish to address the commission on this item may do so now. All right. Seeing no hands. Thank you very much. Since there's no hands and no public comment, we'll go ahead and, there's no need for applicant rebuttal, so we'll go ahead and close the public hearing on this item at 6.19 p.m. We'll bring it back to the Commission for any other questions for staff at this time. Any other questions for staff on this item? Just to confirm, Mr. Barnum, for the record, have the conditions of approval changed since the original approval on this project?

There are some amended conditions, primarily formatting and timing language in the planning side. There are some additional, I believe some additional language from the engineering as well. Those have all been reviewed by the applicants and agreed upon by the applicants. So most of the revisions were primarily formatting and timing related. Okay. Very good, thank you, sir.

Commissioner Fiore.

If the scenario comes up again with the app and there needs to be another extension, what would be, is there the possibility of another extension, in other words, and how long would that be?

Yeah, thank you, Commissioner Fiore. There is, you can only get one one year extension on your approved entitlement. That's per code. However, toward the end of that time, if the applicant or developer wanted to modify their site plan to some extent, they could apply for a revised, do a revised site plan, or a modification of the site plan, which would then potentially give them an additional two years But that, again, would have to come before the commission for approval. So it's not an administrative type of a change. So that's the only option beyond the one year for an extension.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

So on the conditions of approval, the text that's in red, is that considered a change?

That's the revised language, yes, Commissioner Paslack. So anything in red would be revised from the original. Very good, thank you.

All right, anything else before we call for a vote? All right.

Very good, okay, thank you very much. This time we'll call for a vote. Is there a motion and a second to adopt a resolution approving a one-year extension for site plan and design review SPC 23-04 and conditional use permit UPJ-23-05 for the Cottage Court storage project located at 1280 Cottage Court, APN 208-260-22?

Motion to approve.

Sorry, seconds.

All right, we have a motion for approval from Commissioner Paslack and a second from Commissioner Fiore. All those in favor will vote, say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Any opposed? Okay, motion passes five to zero. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right, Madam Clerk, that takes us on to item D2.

Item D2, 26-418, Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution approving a modification to the site plan and design review SPA-21-15 for the Union Crossing Apartments Project located at 1308 West Atherton Drive, APN 226-160-44. Associate Planner Tobin Barnum will be presenting this item.

Good evening again, Chair, Vice Chair, Commission, Associate Planner Tobin Barnum. This request is a site plan modification of an already approved entitlement, that being Forest Union Crossing Apartments. An overview of the project, this is again a request for modification of an approved entitlement. The site is 12.78 acres. with 300 residential units proposed in 15 multi-family buildings. The site also includes a clubhouse and a fitness center. The location's at 1308 West Atherton Drive, which is on the southwest corner of the intersection of West Atherton Drive and South Union Road. The adjacent uses are as seen here. Single-family residential to the west, to the south, and across the street to the east. Living spaces to the north. and then to the northwest would be the Chevron gas station and the Promenade Shopping Center and then further east along Atherton is Veritas Elementary School. The general plan designation and zoning are the same. HDR general plan and R3 high density residential zoning, they both explicitly call out high density residential as the preferred use so the project is approved and consistent with both zoning and designation. The requested entitlement, again, site plan modification. This is a previously approved site plan and design review entitlement, SPA 21-15, to allow cosmetic changes to the clubhouse and fitness center exteriors, and then to relocate the maintenance building and the dog washing station from the entrance area to sites within the gated community. This is a glimpse at the proposed relocations. Yellow is the maintenance building moving it east from its proposed, from its approved location, pardon me, to a little bit further inside and away from the main entrance. And the red is the dog washing station which would move due south right up against where the dog park is located. And the resulting entrance change will look like this. It will be converted to open space toward the entrance. These are the approved elevations for the clubhouse and the fitness center. Very similar architecture to the apartments themselves. And this is what is proposed. Sleek and kind of mid-century modern type style. Fresh and fits with the overall aesthetic and the experience that developers hoping to provide for their residents and tenants. The project was originally approved by Planning Commission on June 16th, 2022, and extended for one year by Planning Commission on August 15th, 2024. The project and proposed changes are consistent with the general plan, the zoning for the site, and with CEQA Article 10, Section 15162, subsequent EIRs and negative declarations. On Tuesday, September 1st, staff received a written objection to the requested entitlement extension, citing inconsistencies in the resolution and some of the project descriptors. Staff carefully reviewed this letter and found it contains substantive insights that required a thorough response. Staff has provided a revised resolution and a memorandum as a supplement to this agenda item to address these concerns. The inconsistencies, although worthy of addressing, do not indicate a major change to the site plan or any of its critical elements or to the overall operation of the project. Additionally, there's no impact on the project's adopted CEQA documentation or analyses. The project as presented is consistent with the approved, with the exception of the requested modifications, and it meets all the findings to support staff's recommendation for approval. So with this in mind, staff recommends the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing, approve a modification to Site Plan and Design Review, SPC 21-15, for the Union Crossing Apartments project located at 1308 West Atherton Drive, that is at AAPN 226-16044. And that concludes my presentation. Staff is here for any questions you might have, and the developer team is in the chambers with us this evening as well. Thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you, sir. All right, at this time, before we hear from the applicant, do any commissioners have any clarifying questions for staff?

No.

I think I'm gonna ask a couple now, and then I have more later. Mr. Barnum, on the conditions of approval, page one, it lists the project expiration date of September 14th, 2026. That's in 11 days from now. Can you confirm, is that a typographical error? Should it be September 14th, 2028?

The expiration? No, that's correct. December is what it says?

Chair, if I may help, Mr. Barnum, that was a typographical error. The intent was that the new expiration date would be the 2028th date.

Okay, because it did reference that date on page two. I just wanted to confirm for the record that we have an accurate conditions of approval document. The approval date, obviously, is listed as today, pending approval of... this modification today, but the expiration date will be 9-14-28. So if we seek passage of this motion, we will need to pass it with amended conditions of approval with a corrected date.

That is correct, Chair.

Thank you. You've said it in your presentation, but just to confirm, the request here seems to be very narrow in scope. It keeps the previously approved 15 building apartment project intact, changes simply the clubhouse and fitness center exterior treatment and relocating the maintenance building and the dog washing station. In summary, that's the essence of this modification. That is correct, Chair Coleman. There are no other modifications proposed. Okay, very good. All right, I think those are the ones I want to ask before we hear from the applicant. The applicant, if you're available, we'd love to hear from you at this time. Thank you, sir. And if you could state your name and title for the record. Appreciate it.

Chris Kelly, architect with LPS Architects, representing Legacy Homes. Overall, it's really the same project in the fact that it's 300 units. Yeah.

Sorry, a little low.

Very tall. Yeah. Overall, it's similar in the fact that it's 300 units. It's comprised of 15 buildings, each with 20 units, all with tuck under garages, organized in much of the same way. We did revamp the entire, I guess, front entry elements, which is the clubhouse fitness building based on current desires from legacy homes as far as how they want to serve their residents. As Tobin stated, we moved the maintenance building to the back of house and then also commingled the pet wash with the dog park. I think it's been a little while since I worked on it, but we increased the size of the amenities. We increased the size of the open space, but overall it has the same character. The architecture is a little different in appearance. There's more color added to it, but it's still a mix of plasters and plaster, exterior plaster, and then horizontal siding. As Tobin mentioned, that the clubhouse building and fitness buildings are radically different. I didn't necessarily put together before and afters, but in some of the documents, you kind of see what was entitled and what was currently stated today. But we're available to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

OK. Quickly off right away, I just want to confirm you're in agreement with the conditions of approval for this project. Have you read them and you're confirmed to be in agreement with us? Yes. Assuming obviously with a modified corrected expiration date of 2028 September. Can you just elaborate briefly on the reason for the change of the maintenance building and the dog station? What was the reason for the modification?

Sure. Well, I'd say it was originally designed by a different architect. So just in conversations with ownership, As far as property management, it was best to have the maintenance building kind of back of house away from the front entry, away from leasing, property management, fitness, clubhouse, kind of your social amenities, and to have it as more like a detached garage. It's about a 400-square-foot building, so think of it as a two-car garage as far as a maintenance building.

Okay.

And the original approval was four years ago. We had an extension and now a modification that will extend the time further. Is there a timeline for development that you're working with at this point?

And it takes the two of us to answer all the questions.

Sure. Garrett with GHPR. For the timeline, I mean, obviously we still have a lot of code updates to do on our construction drawings. The plans we currently have, we had full construction drawing sets under the 2022 code. Never submitted them to the city because we obviously ran into some hiccups with some SSGID relocations. That's taken two seasons now. and it took about 18 months to get a plan approval for that, which was required to be complete before we pull a permit. So with this modification, it would allow us to complete the irrigation work this winter. We would submit for building plans, construction drawings, start site development hopefully late next year, and be able to pull a building permit either late 27 or early 28.

Thank you, sir. Any other commissioners have questions for the applicant tonight?

Okay, all right, very good. Chair Coleman, could I ask a clarifying question? Could you, for my purposes, show me exactly where that typo is?

I wanna make sure I get that clarified or cleared up.

On the conditions. Page one on the conditions?

Yeah, it's in the header section where it says approval date and a project expiration date. So it says September 3rd, 2026 is the approval date, today's date, and then project expiration, September 14th, 2026. Right below the project location address.

Okay, thank you, Chair Coleman, appreciate it. Were you able to locate? Very good.

Okay, thank you very much. At this time, we're going to go ahead and open the public hearing at 6.34 p.m. Madam Clerk, do we have any hands raised on Zoom tonight?

Chair, I do have one hand raised on Zoom. Okay. That is Sudhakar again. I will allow him to speak. Sudhakar, can you hear us?

yes are you able to hear me your three minutes starts now okay uh good evening um commission and uh thank you for the opportunity so uh i see that the hdr is located right beside the single family homes Like the one on the apartments, I think it's Atherton Apartments beside the Bass Pro Shop. And that has a setback from the single family homes around 125 feet. I think there should be a redesign of the three or four buildings that are right beside the single-family homes. I think those four should be having a setback of 125 feet, and a redesign would... would have the privacy issues resolved, otherwise it will be a privacy concern for the nearby single-family homes. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, do we have any other hands raised on Zoom for this item?

No, Chair, we do not.

And do we have any comment card?

No, Chair, I do not. Okay, thank you.

Anyone in the audience wishing to address the commission on this item may do so now. Please come on up.

Hi, hello, everyone. My name is Amay Karanchkar, and I'm in sixth grade, and I go to Veritas Elementary. And my concern is where you guys are building the parking lot for the complex is my bedroom area. So when I go to sleep, the parking lot spotlight will shine through my window, and I don't think I'll be able to go to sleep.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

All right.

Anybody else wish to address the commission on this item? Please come on up.

Hello, good evening. My name is Avinash. Basically, we are living in the same community that Amai is living around. My concern is because there will be a school nearby and a lot of new residents will be coming into the community that is being built. There will be big traffic problems around that. The schools are... in the morning. It's right now having a lot of traffic problems and this will going to raise more cows around the community around the schools as well.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. Staff for the record. Um again up for consideration tonight is a modification of the site plan. Um The project to confirm has already been approved. Is that correct?

That's correct, Chair Coleman, and extended. And if I may add as well, on the initial approval, Manteca Unified School District was a part of the review process. They assessed the site for compliance, they assessed schools, assessed schools nearby for capacity. There were no concerns expressed. I should add also with the matter of traffic, the main entrance to the site is conditioned to be signalized. So any traffic issue will be mitigated prior to the buildings even being occupied. And adding additionally, the entire frontage will be improved with sidewalks and striping, curb gutter sidewalks, so it'll be safer all the way around, mitigate traffic. With regard to light, there's a photometric plan that's approved as a part of the site plan package. Landscaping around the perimeter is vertical to help screen and lights are are required by code to be shielded and downward cast. So light trespass is a significant issue. It's addressed in the CEQA document. So there is no anticipated concern for light trespass or giving people a tan in their bedroom as they're trying to sleep.

And that signal, is that Atherton is the main entrance point?

Atherton, yes. Very good. Chair Coleman, that's correct. Thank you. It'll be due south of the Living Spaces project for property.

Okay. Thank you, sir. All right, anyone else in the audience wish to address us? Please come on up.

Good evening, sir.

This is Mahesh. I live into the same community. We purchased this house about three years back looking at school is nearby. Also, we travel to work and Along with this project, what we are seeing it around 300 houses or the 300 apartments considering one kid per apartment where it does or maybe at least 0.75. It will bring you to the total of about 200 kids getting added. into Veritas, which is really difficult right now as well, Veritas, to extend with the current population and the development, what we have seen into the Pulte, West Atherton, as well onto the side of the West Woodward. It is already bringing us into the complications where we are not able to accommodate or the quality of the kids' education is hampered right now. And with this, I recommend kind of, you know, these things need to be kind of postponed and being set back to the proper MUSD, considering these governing bodies are different, different holding patterns. They have different approval ratings. They have different ways to study this. We need to send this message to them as well and wait for their due diligence to be done.

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

Yeah, good evening, Chair Coleman. Thanks for giving this opportunity.

I sent a written email with 31 points, objections, and here is a confirmation from Deputy Director Jesus Orocos. I hope somebody from the commission is going through all those 31 points. My name is Ravi Kiran Karanchikar. I'm the resident of 1662 Sanderling Avenue, which is the boundary with the applicant's property, which is coming in. I have a couple of questions based on the attachments we have for today's changes. The first one is, if I look at landscape plan sheet yellow 0.1a, it labeled as CMU wall along the property line. If you look at that property line, there are 10 houses. First two houses has the masonry wall, rest of the houses has fence. But in the 0.1a L, it has CMO wall along the property line. But condition of approot number 34, it requires only 24-inch box trees. I've read every condition and I cannot find a wall anywhere in the term. So my question is, is a masonry wall required along the property line? Yes or no? If yes, which condition number requires it? And at what height? Usually the masonry line, the walls are supposed to be eight feet tall from the tallest point of the base. I don't see that anywhere in the plan. If it is required to be built, I would expect that to be done first before any activity start including grading. Because all the dust particles, noise, and everything, we want that to be stopped first even before any work starts. I still have one minute. I had a point about the dates which you already asked to correct, so thanks for that. I have some follow-up items on the illumination point of view. I don't see any study in all the attachments about the lighting. I think what the question that little boy raised, I really worry how many small kids will be impacted because of that. Because the height of the buildings is 40 feet, and there is a pathway in between which has the parking lots and I don't know, we cannot control at what time people come to their homes and go. We definitely don't want younger kids to awake in the middle of the night. I still have 18 seconds. One last question is about the five phases. The project was originally approved in 2019, then some entitlements were brought in 2021, 2022, and now we're extending to 2028. So I don't encourage this and then we won't be able to continue this forever. We need to have some deadline. There are more questions in my e-mail. I would request an e-mail reply. Thank you. Thank you.

A question for staff, the public commenter does note that there's no CMU wall requirement in the conditions of approval. However, on the project plan set on attachment five, it does specifically state CMU wall in part of the design. So can you clarify, is a CMU wall part of this project?

CMU wall, thank you, Chair Coleman. CMU wall by code is not a requirement between Housing between multifamily and single family it's not a requirement, it is a nice amenity for the folks who live in those single family homes, especially if they were there first. But it is not a requirement if the developer has provided a CMU all on the plans and the plans are approved, and that is what the developer will be held to construct a CMU wall per code, the maximum height for CMU all in the city of Antigua seven feet. unless it is a sound attenuation wall next to a severe noise generator like a highway, for example. But in this case, a seven foot wall would be the maximum height allowed.

Thank you, sir. And then there was a comment made about what ostensibly amounts to, I believe, light pollution adjacent to the property. You had referenced lighting earlier in the clarification comment, and it was addressed, I believe, in the original CEQA evaluation with the original project approval, that's correct?

That is correct, Chair Coleman, and there is a photometric plan's a mandatory part of every site plan review application, so it would be in the original plan set. That is assessed as a standard part of every site plan review. The requirements per code are that foot candles as measured from the property line should be essentially zero. or the equivalent to the brightness of a full moon on a cloudless night. Not poetic, but that's the measure at the property line. And again, the standard for lighting fixtures is shielded downward cast with a cone no greater than 60 degrees in spread. So I can tell you, Staff is on top of these things. Recently, we had a project that was a self-storage facility that was adjacent to homes that installed fixtures that was blasting the homes behind it with light. And we went out to the site, and we required them to replace every single light on the facility, and that was a lot of light fixtures. So we are on top of those things. Great.

And as part of that approval, should the development be in violation of the approval, the conditions of approval with respect to the lighting? This is an example of what the city can do to enforce that. Is that correct?

Absolutely, Chair Coleman. We go out on site. Typically, if a planner who takes a project to hearing is still on staff at the time that construction is completed and inspection occurs, That planner then goes back out. That was the case for me with that self-storage facility. I took it to Planning Commission. I then was the planner to go out and do the inspections on site and found those light fixtures, was able to work with the neighbors and get those light fixtures changed. So it is very much, planning is very much involved in the process before, during, and after construction.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

All right. Oh, question, go ahead, sorry.

A little bit of clarification for the walls. It's in the plans, the plans are approved. Should that be then in the conditions of approval?

It can be, but again, it's not a requirement per code. So planning would condition it if we felt there was a substantial reason to require it. Say, for example, if there were a hazard on the other side of the, property line a reason to create such a substantial barrier. It is a big cost increase for the developer to acquire a wall. In addition to the construction cost, there's the engineering involved. So to oblige them to something that is not required by code is not a practice we like to get into. But if the applicant The developer wants to provide a wall. That is definitely something that we appreciate. Development is better for it. The neighborhood is better for it. But it is not conditioned because it is not a requirement and there is no inherent danger or reason to create a more substantial barrier between this site and the adjacent.

Thank you. Any other members of the audience that haven't spoken yet wish to address us on this item may do so now. OK. All right. Seeing no more hands, we'll go ahead and have our applicant rebuttal period begin at this time. You're welcome to come back up if you'd like to address any of the concerns that were brought up from any of the comments tonight.

I think the biggest thing was the wall. There is a wall shown on the approved landscape plans, part of the application submittal, and that's what our construction drawings actually show. I can't tell you exactly how high, but it is a CMU wall.

Okay, very good. Thank you, sir. Commissioner Fiore, if I may, a point of clarification. In addition to that fence, What is a requirement by code between multifamily and single family is a 10-foot wide landscaping buffer with vertical trees. So that is there against between the parking area that the young man spoke of and the property line. There's a 10-foot wide minimum landscape barrier with vertical trees that over time will get taller. So that combined with the light shielding, the downward casting, and so on will provide them with no light trespass onto their properties.

Thank you.

While the public hearing is still open, do we have any other questions for the applicant before we close it? No? OK. All right. At this time, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing on item D2 at 6.51 PM. We'll bring it back to the commission for any follow-up questions for staff or discussion amongst us. Any other follow-up questions for staff? All right, no one else has anything. I'll go ahead and start a few things that I just want to clarify for the record. Just to confirm, there was some talk about items related to the original CEQA approval, especially lighting. And there was a mention in the public comment, a supplemental we received as to the EIR being stale. Isn't it correct that The age of the EIR does not necessarily apply any relevance here at this point. All the protections from the original EIR are still in effect. Is that correct? Yes, sir.

Chair, if I may answer that question for you. Yes, the CEQA remains valid up until the project is deemed expired. Since the commission's considering action on this project, as long as any of the original approvals remain in place, the CEQA in essence is in effect.

Thank you.

Chair Cole, if I could add to that too. It should be noted the CEQA document is not pertinent specifically to just this site. This property is part of a planned development, which is a much larger area. It includes the land to the north and some land to the east as well. So the EIR document is a large document covering a large area of land. This is just one piece of that. So all those other developments that are happening that are a part of that are also covered in that EIR document. The addendum that's identified is specific to this project due to an increase in the number of apartment units with this application versus what was originally approved. So there was an increase from 281 to 300 units. The addendum came to account for those additional apartment units. Okay, thank you, sir.

There was, as part of the supplemental, there was some confusion about exactly what kind of plan set was being proposed or approved. I think if I'm understanding correctly, Attachment 5 in the publicly disclosed item for D2 tonight has the proposed modifications plan set. Is that correct?

Yes, Chair Coleman, that's correct. There is a site plan showing the relocation of the two accessory structures, and then there are architectural color renderings showing the color changes and the architectural changes to the pool house and the community building.

Okay, and that's the document I was referencing earlier that lists the CMU wall that the applicant spoke about that is listed in this proposed modification document. It does list the title of Trillium Apartments on that plan set. Is that a previous name for this project or?

That name is actually just it's a new brand that was originally approved as Union Crossing. Therefore, we brought the extension forward as Union Crossing because that is the name that was on the approval, the initial approval. Trillium is just kind of a brand. And so that I'm assuming is connected to the freshening up of the two accessory structures and the color changes. Okay.

There was concern about the project boundary. Did the project boundary change from the original approval on this, or is it the same exact boundary?

No, Chair Cole, there's no, Coleman, there's no change to any of the boundaries, any of the points of ingress, egress, number of units, height of building, placement of the buildings, internal circulation, landscaping, other than more landscaping where the accessory structures will be moved from. Okay, thank you very much.

So, yeah, thank you. The original project was, when this was originally approved, was this lot zoned as general commercial and did it change to HDR after approval, to your knowledge?

That is correct. It did change to HDR at some point down the road. It was actually zoned PD before, which is kind of a, not an ideal way to handle PD zoning, but that's the way it was handled before. It was actually zoned PD and then it was changed when we did a zoning cleanup later on to HDR, which is what's consistent with the general plan and the approved uses.

Right, so our approval tonight on modification would be consistent with the general plan today, which is an HDR designation. That is correct, Chair Colton. Okay, very good. Let me see if I have anything else. In the response by the planning department to the supplemental item number four, there was discussion about phasing, or this being a phased development up to five phases. Is there any expectation on a timeline for those phases at this time? Or is it too preliminary to understand the timing for phasing?

Chair Coleman, I would defer to the developers for that question. I have not been informed of any timing, but I would let them answer that question.

We can't, public hearing's closed. That's right, I apologize, I apologize, thank you. I should have asked it when the public hearing was open, that's okay. My apologies. No problem, just was curious. The revised resolution was received by the Planning Commission. The revised resolution, from my interpretation, substantially clarifies this project, this specific approval in a meaningful way. And it does specifically list the proposed modifications included as attachment five of the agenda report to confirm the updated, modified site plan and design. So at least with that, it kind of removes that discrepancy that was existing, I think, with the original resolution that was published. Sorry, that was a comment, not a question. There's one more I have. Let me find it. There was a discrepancy on, but I just wanted to clarify for the record to make sure I'm understanding correctly as it relates to, I can find it in my large sheet of notes here. The revised conditions refer to a January 24th, 2021 plan set, and then it was dated December 22nd, 2022. And now we have modified proposed conditions, excuse me, proposed modifications with today's date. Is there a discrepancy between the 2021 and 2022 modifications or conditions?

Thank you, Chair. The difference is the original plan set has the 21 date on it. The approved, the modified site plan has the 22 date on it. Okay. So, although they were not originally submitted together with the original approval, entitlement approval, they are now combined, provided the commission should approve, they would be combined, and so the dates wouldn't quite match. That's actually not a very uncommon thing when you have plan sets, you'll have the landscape plan designed by the landscape architect with one date on it, and you'll have the photometric plan, you'll have the, all the different pages, many different pages will have different people who draw them, so the dates might be different, but that's the discrepancy. Very good.

Are there any other questions by any commissioners or staff? No?

Good, okay.

I empathize with the impact of the quantity of children that will be part of this development. I think Manteca Unified has 25,000 plus students right now. That's essentially a quarter of the population of the city goes to one of our schools. It continues to be a challenge. It is absolutely not within the purview of the Planning Commission to consider any of that, unfortunately. I do believe that this project timeline still seems multiple years out as far as further development, and I'm optimistic. Obviously, we can't predict the future, but given the fact that Manteca Unified did not present any concerns, I'm hopeful that they will continue to address the need south of the 120. As someone that lives south of the 120 myself, I understand, with a child in school south of the 120. With that being said, if there's no other comments or deliberation, I think we can call for a vote. Is there a motion and a second to adopt an amended resolution submitted as supplemental item number five, approving a modification to the Site Plan and Design Review, SPA-21-15 for the Union Crossing Apartments Project located at 1308 West Atherton Drive, APN 226-160-44, as amended with amended conditions of approval project expiration date as September 14th, 2028.

And motion to approve. Yori seconds.

All right. We have a motion for approval from Vice Chair Jimenez and a second from Commissioner Fiore. All those who vote in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? All right, motion passes five to zero. Thank you. All right, that takes us on to staff comments tonight.

Good evening, Chair, Commissioners. I just want to thank all of you who were able to attend last evening's recognition dinner. We were all pleased. City staff was all pleased to see many of the various volunteers from various boards be in attendance. We appreciate that. And I just want to update you that we will be meeting on the 17th of this month. That completes my staff reports.

Thank you, sir. All right, Commissioner, comments? Anything from the Commission tonight?

Yes, I do.

Commissioner Fiore.

I'd like to thank everyone that came in attendance here. I appreciate that you show up and you voice your concerns. It's always impactful for us to hear because we don't, and we don't want to get the comments from social media. So thank you for taking the time out of your day to show up.

Thank you. Any other comments? I'd like to thank Commissioner Salk for stepping in tonight. Appreciate you being here. I wanna thank the staff for, again, continuing to be outstanding support for us and answering all of our questions and professional and we appreciate all the hard work that you guys do for the city. And we truly appreciate being a part of the dinner last night. It was a wonderful experience. We'll see you on September 17th in two weeks. We'll adjourn the meeting tonight at 7.03 p.m. Thank you.