ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 13, 2025 AGENDA CATEGORY: Hearings TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Phillip Burns, Development Services Director
DATE: August 13, 2025
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to consider appeal for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 (Phased)
San Joaquin Engineering, Inc., representing LGI Homes – California, LLC., is proposing to subdivide 83.97 acres into single-family residential lots and various private and public lots for streets, landscaping, and other ancillary uses in the R-1 (Single-Unit Dwelling) zone located at the southwest corner of Morning Drive and Paladino Drive.
Gordon Nipp, representing the Sierra Club, submitted an appeal to the Planning Commission’s approval of the request. (Ward 3)
RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7471.
BACKGROUND:
Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) No. 7471 consists of 363 single -family residential lots, 5 landscape lots, 5 private landscape lots, 1 retention basin, 1 private retention basin and 1 private park on 83.97 acres. Residential lots range in size from 4,836 square feet to 15, 552 square feet with the typical lot size 50 feet wide x 100 feet deep (5,000 square feet). The density is 4.32 units per net acre which is consistent with the LR designation of the project of less than or equal to 7.26 dwelling units per net acre.
Access to this subdivision would be from Paladino Drive (arterial street) on the subdivision’s north boundary and from Morning Drive (arterial street) to the east. All private streets and private landscaping will be maintained b y the Homeowner’s Association (HOA). As such, the applicant has requested 7 deviations from City standards to allow double frontage lots, reverse corner lots, non-radial lot lines, block length to exceed 1,000 feet, maximum landscape wall height to exceed 9 feet, use of storm drain easements and 300’ centerline radius. City Public Works Department has reviewed deviation requests and recommends approval.
The project proposes utilizing previous actions taken prior to the expiration of VTTM 6191. Before VTTM 6191 expired, the subdivider prepared the property by rough grading and preparation of improvement plans. The developer encountered delays stemming from issues concerning the Mojave Pipeline.
Additionally, complications related to the design of the landsc aped paseo necessitated attention to uphold the project's aesthetic and functional objectives. In light of the expiration of VTTM 6191 and these related challenges, the subdivider has introduced design modifications under VTTM 7471 to effectively address outstanding issues and facilitate the continued advancement of the project.
Planning Commission Decision. On May 1, 2025, the Planning Commission considered VTTM No. 7471.
Comments were submitted from Mr. Jeremy Bowman, neighboring property owner, The Sier a Club and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Comments and concerns were addressed in the staff report and a
memorandum was prepared summarizing the comments, followed by staff’s response, for the Commission’s consideration. At the meeting, Brandon Martin representing LGI Homes and Hunter Troxel from San Joaquin Engineering were present in support of the project . Lori Pesante, the Director of the Sierra Club, and Jeremy Bowman, were present in opposition of the project. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the request with Commissioner Neal absent. The Planning Commission’s findings are contained in Resolution No. 22-25 (attached).
Appeal to Planning Commission’s Decision. On May 9, 2025, Sierra Club filed an appeal to the Planning Commission’s decision to approve VTTM No. 7471. The basis for the appeal was set forth in the letter from the Law Offices of Babak Naficy to the Planning Commission on April 30, 2025 which includes:
Require that the developer achieve zero project emissions by entering into a Developer Mitigation Contract with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).
The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for this project is inadequate, as it has failed to calculate or address cumulative emissions from both this and other proposed projects.
Mandate that the project adopt a sufficient number of effective air pollution reduction measures to counteract cumulative impacts.
Prior to projec t approval, conduct comprehensive biological survey and consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
Mitigation strategies for habitat loss and potential species take should incl ude obtaining an Incidental Take Permit and securing replacement habitat.
Provide a detailed analysis of the project's cumulative impact.
The property owner’s biological and air quality consultants provided a detailed response to each of the concerns raised. A copy of the appeal letter and the applicant’s consultant’s response are attached.
Environmental Review. Based upon an initial study, Staff determined the proposed project, with mitigation, would not have a significant effect on the environment. T herefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The MND was circulated for public and agency review from November 21, 2024 to December 23, 2024. The following special studies were submitted: biological resources, cultural resources and air quality analysis.
Public Notification. All required public notices have been given for both the Planning Commission public hearing held May 1, 2025, and the City Counci l public hearing of August 13, 2025. Correspondence received for the Planning Commission is attached with the Planning Commission staff report. No correspondence has been received in response to the City Council noticing.
CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS:
The City Council may sustain, modify, reject, or overrule any ruling of the Planning Commission for this subdivision of land. Two Resolutions have been provided for your Council’s consideration regarding the appeal:
1. Deny the Appeal and Approve VTTM No. 7471. If the City Council were to deny the appeal and uphold Planning Commission's approval, the Vesting Tentative Tract Map would be approved and would facilitate construction of 363 single -family residential lots, 5 landscape lots, 5 private landscape lots, 1 retention basin, 1 private retention basin and 1 private park on 83.97 acres.
2. Approve the Appeal and Deny VTTM No. 7471. If the City Council were to approve the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's approval, the project site could not be d eveloped as proposed and would retain its current condition.
CONCLUSION:
Staff believes the proposed subdivision of land is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; the site is physically suitable for the type of development; the design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; the design of the subdivision will not likely cause serious public health problems; and the design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
Overall Recommendation. Staff finds that the applicable provisions of CEQA have been complied with, and the p roposal is compatible with the surrounding area, land use designation, and zoning ordinance.
Therefore, staff recommends City Council consider the whole of the record, to include the appellant’s concerns and consultant’s responses, and deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7471.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact with the proposed subdivision of land. Development as a result of Vesting Tentative Trac Map No. 7471 will be subject to the appropriate application processing fees that have been determined to be sufficient to cover all operational expenses related to processing projects.
COUNCIL GOAL:
Community Character & Quality of Life
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City Council Resolution to Deny Appeal and Approve VTTM 7471
2. City Council Resolution to Approve Appeal and Deny VTTM 7471
3. Map Set
4. Mitigated Negative Declaration with Attachments
5. Planning Commission Staff Report
6. Planning Commission Memorandum
7. Planning Commission Resolution
8. Appeal Letter of Planning Commission Decision
9. Memorandum Summarizing Responses to Appeal Letter