City of Manteca Planning Commission
AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: April 21, 2022
PROJECT NAME: Lumina at Machado Ranch Annexation Project PROJECT LOCATION: Multiple Parcels
Non-Development Area: Addresses APNs
3825, 3877, 3883, 3915, 3939,
3989, 1353, 4395, 4447, 4475
East Woodward Avenue
241-32-005, -006, -007, -
021, -008, -009, -023, -027,
-028, and -029
2013, 20101, 20077, 20055,
19971 South Airport Way
241-32-015, -014, -013, -
012, and -011
Development Area: 20329 South Airport Way 241-32-018
APPLICATION NUMBERS: ANX20-40, PRZ20-41, GPA20-43, SDJ20-44, PD20-42, DA22-037
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions:
1. Recommend that the City Council certify the Lumina At Machado Ranch Environmental Impact Report and make certain findings concerning significant impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives, and adopt a statement of overriding consideration and mitigation and monitoring and reporting program; and
2. Recommend that the City Council approve the annexation of 16 parcels totaling 183.46 acres and authorize City Staff to make an application to LAFCo for annexation; and
3. Recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving a General Plan Amendment to adjust and expand the Park land use designation for the Lumina at Machado Ranch Subdivision; and
4. Recommend the City Council waive the first reading of the Ordinance approving the Pre-Zoning designations for the parcels to be annexed and the PD Planned Development Overlay for the Lumina at Machado Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map area; and
5. Recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution recommending approval of the Lumina at Machado Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map; and
6. Recommend that the City Council waive the first reading of the Ordinance approving ATTACHMENT 1
a Development Agreement for the Lumina at Machado Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant: Stephen Miller, Signature Homes
Property Owner: Joanne M. Kimbrough Separate Property Trust Existing General Plan
Designation:
Low Density Residential (LDR)
Park (P)
Commercial Mixed Use (CMU)
Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
General Commercial (GC)
Proposed General Plan
Designation:
Low Density Residential (LDR)
Park (P)
Commercial Mixed Use (CMU)
Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
General Commercial (GC)
Existing Zoning: No City Zoning District Designations
County Zoning: AG-40: General Agriculture
Proposed Pre-Zoning: One Family Dwelling (R-1)
General Commercial (CG)
Commercial Mixed Use (CMU)
Planned Development (PD)
Existing Use: Non-Development Area: Single-family Residential Development Area: Agriculture
Proposed Use: Non-Development Area: No Change
Development Area: Single-Family Residential
Parcel Size Total Annexation Area: 183.49 Acres
Non-Development Area: 19.11 Acres
Development Area: 161.19 Acres
Public Right-of-Way: 3.16 Acres
Adjacent Uses: North: Single-Family Residential
South: Agriculture
East: Single-Family Residential
West: Low density residential and Agriculture
CEQA Determination Lumina at Machado Ranch Environmental Impact Report
PROJECT DESCRIPTION & LOCATION
The Lumina at Machado Ranch Project consists of an Annexation application for 183.46 acres of unincorporated land in San Joaquin County into the City of Manteca, the Pre-zoning of all 183.46 acres, and a General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Overlay, a Tentative Subdivision Map, and a Development Agreement for a 161.19 acre portion of the annexation area.
ATTACHMENT 1
The entire 183.46 annexation area is located in the southwest portion of the City of Manteca, immediately south of the City Limit line. The site is bounded by South Airport Way to the east, single family residential uses to the north and west, and agricultural uses to the south.
Woodward Avenue bisects the annexation area. There is also an existing Reclamation District #2094 (RD2094) dry levee to the south of the project site. Figure 1 below identifies the annexation boundary in red hashing as it relates to the current City boundary.
Figure 1: Annexation Boundary
ATTACHMENT 1
The annexation area has three distinct planning areas. The first will be known in this staff report as the Development Area, which consists of 161.19 acres on Assessor Parcel Number 241-32-018. This parcel is the
Development Area because future
development is being considered on this site
only. The General Plan Amendment, Planned
Development Overlay, Tentative Subdivision
Map, and the Development Agreement are
meant to facilitate the future development of an
827-unit subdivision known as the Lumina at
Machado Ranch Subdivision. The remaining
15 parcels in this annexation are being brought
into the City due to the Local Agency Formation
Commission’s (LAFCo) requirements related to
orderly development with regards to
annexation. The majority of this staff report will
focus on this Development Area parcel, but
certain findings are required for the overall
annexation.
The remaining two planning areas, NonDevelopment Area 1 and Non-Development Area 2, collectively are 19.11 acres and consist
of 15 lots that either front Woodward Avenue or
South Airport Way. These lots are being
annexed into the City of Manteca but no
development is proposed on these parcels at
this time. As part of the requirement for
annexation, they are required to be Pre-Zoned, but there will be no change in use for these parcels. Figure 2 identifies the three planning areas. Moving forward, the two NonDevelopment areas will be referred to collectively as the Non-Development area.
Figure 2: Development and Non-Development Areas
PROJECT SITE EXISTING CONDITIONS
The larger Development Area parcel is currently being used for agricultural production and there are two existing homes with ancillary structures on site. The dry levee makes up a portion of the southern property line. The dry levee is not intended to hold floodwaters; rather it is intended to contain flows on RD 2094 and RD 2096 in the event of a breach of the levees along RD 2094, RD 2096, or RD 17.
The Non-Development area contains 15 existing residential homes that either have access off of Woodward Avenue or South Airport Way. The various homes also have ancillary structures related to the residential uses. Figure 3 is an aerial view of the annexation area with the existing uses.
ATTACHMENT 1
Figure 3: Existing Conditions
ANNEXATION
The San Joaquin County LAFCo controls the process of annexation. LAFCo is a regulatory agency with countywide jurisdiction, established by state law (the Cortese-Knox Act) to coordinate logical and timely changes in local city boundaries, and to ensure that services are provided efficiently while agricultural lands are protected. When an applicant requests annexation of the City, it is the applicant asking the City to apply for annexation approval from LAFCo. Before the City is willing to consider applying for annexation on the applicant’s behalf, the City must ensure that the annexation can be supported by the General Plan.
ATTACHMENT 1
General Plan Land Use Policy LU-P-9 states that the City will only consider applications for annexation that meet specific criteria below:
1. Are contiguous with city boundaries and provide for a logical expansion of the city;
Analysis: The proposed annexation area is immediately south and east of existing City limit lines. This annexation will help capture right-of-way and land that should be within the City limits. Based on the annexation map above, this annexation fills in the missing link between the existing city limits to the east and the city limit to the west. Further, the annexation area is currently located within the 10-year Planning Horizon of Manteca’s existing Sphere of Influence, which is a LAFCo-approved boundary. Projects within the 10-year planning horizon are expected to develop between the years of 2015 to 2025, per the Municipal Service Review (MSR) report approved by LAFCo in 2015. This annexation request comes at the later end of this time window, which is important when considering annexation. The pattern of development around this site over the last ten years indicates that annexation of these 183.46 acres is the next logical expansion of city limits.
2. Create clear and reasonable boundaries;
Analysis: The proposed northern boundary of the annexation will bring the City limit line east across South Airport Way and south along Woodward Avenue, squaring off this block of the City’s limits. Bringing this boundary to this corner is a much clearer and logical boundary than what exists today. The larger portion of the annexation area will align with the Terra Ranch subdivision to the west and will bring the City limit line all the way east to South Airport Way, again, “squaring off” the City limit line. This is a logical and clear boundary for annexation.
3. Ensure the provision of adequate municipal services; Analysis: The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the proposed project indicates that there are adequate municipal services for the proposed annexation area, which includes 15 existing homes and 827 future homes in the Lumina at Machado Ranch Subdivision.
4. Reflect a long-term fiscal balance to the City and its residents, when reviewed cumulatively with other annexations;
Analysis: A fiscal analysis of the subdivision was prepared by DPFG and was peer reviewed by EPS. DPFG analyzed the master tax sharing agreement with San Joaquin County and the City of Manteca, which is ultimately in an 80/20 split agreement for property tax sharing revenue. Under an 80/20 split, the annexation would have a negative impact on the City. As such, DPFG suggested that at a 60/40 split, the project would generate a fiscal surplus to the City’s General Fund. The project is estimated to generate a total of approximately $1.322 million in revenue for ATTACHMENT 1
the City’s General fund at buildout, $1.016 million in expenditures (costs) at buildout, resulting in a combined surplus of $306,100 annually. This surplus would be $370 per residential unit. The City will attempt to negotiate the 60/40 split to ensure that the project is ultimately a fiscal benefit to the City. The fiscal analysis prepared by DPFG is attached to this staff report.
5. Are consistent with State law and San Joaquin LAFCo standards; and Analysis: The proposed annexation is consistent with all State and LAFCo laws in that the annexation is following correct city procedures, it is consistent with the City’s General Plan, and the appropriate actions for annexation will be completed by the Council prior to an annexation application is made to LAFCO by the City.
6. Are consistent with the General Plan.
Analysis: Based on the analysis of the above five items, this annexation is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-P-9. In addition to this policy, this annexation is consistent with the overall intent of growth expressed in the General Plan. The General Plan regulates development to preserve Manteca’s roots as an agricultural center and to ensure balanced growth. The General Plan acknowledges that agriculture plays an important role in Manteca’s economy, but also understands that metered development will ensure economic growth and will allow the city to continue to provide for a quality of life for its current and future residents. Land Use Goal LU-2 discusses the need to provide adequate land in a range of densities to meet the housing needs of income groups expected to reside in Manteca, and to regulate residential growth consistent with the capacities of City facilities and services. This annexation will allow for the construction of 827 units of varying size and housing type, creating more housing opportunities for current and future residents in Manteca.
Without this annexation, these homes would not be constructed in the City. Further, as noted in the FEIR, the City is able to provide the necessary services to accommodate these new housing units, making this annexation a logical expansion for the city.
Based on the analysis of the above findings, staff believes that the Planning Commission can recommend approval of the Annexation to the City Council.
PRE-ZONING
Unincorporated land outside the City’s limits does not have a City Zoning District designation. Rather, the unincorporated land has a San Joaquin County zoning designation. Per section 17.10.180 of the Manteca Municipal Code, unincorporated property adjoining the city, but within the Sphere of Influence, when brought before the City Council for Annexation consistent with California Government Code Section 65859, must be pre-zoned. The procedure, review, and action for pre-zoning are the same as that established for a Zoning Amendment pursuant to Section 17.10190 of the Zoning ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance. The proposed pre-zoning designations for the parcels in the annexation area are show in Figure 4 below:
Figure 4: Proposed Pre-Zoning Map
The below chart identifies the parcels and their proposed pre-zoning designations:
Non-Development Area: APN Zoning Designations
241-32-005 Single-Family Dwelling (R-1)
241-32-006
241-32-007
241-32-021
241-32-008
241-32-009
241-32-023 General Commercial (GC)
241-32-027
241-32-028
241-32-029
241-32-015
241-32-014
241-32-011
ATTACHMENT 1
241-32-013 Commercial Mixed Use (CMU)
241-32-012
Development Area 241-32-018 Planned Development (PD)
In order to recommend approval of the Pre-Zoning to the City Council, the Planning Commission must make the following findings.
1. The proposed Zoning Amendment (text or map) is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs.
Analysis: The Pre-Zoning designations of the 15 Non-Development parcels match the land use designations for the proposed General Plan Update. These districts are consistent with the intent of the General Plan land use designations for Low-Density Residential (LDR), Commercial (C), and Commercial Mixed Use (CMU). The six existing homes in the proposed R-1 zoning district are allowed uses in the LDR land use designation. The remaining nine contain single-family homes, which is not consistent with the proposed zoning designations. As such, these sites would be considered legal non-conforming uses at this time. However, it is anticipated that these sites will eventually redevelop with uses that are consistent with the existing land use designations. By giving the sites corresponding zoning designations to the General Plan Update land use designations, this can facilitate their redevelopment.
2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.
Analysis: The proposed pre-zoning designations will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City, in that any future development of these sites will be required to conform to the zoning district development standards and all performance standards established by the City’s Municipal Code, as well as the goals and policies of the General Plan.
3. The amendment has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Analysis: The proposed Pre-zoning has been analyzed in the Lumina at Machado Ranch FEIR. The FEIR identified one or more significant and unavoidable environmental effects of the project. However, the City Council will be asked to make certain findings regarding these effects and adopt a mitigation and monitoring program and a statement of overriding consideration for any impact that may not be reduced to a less than significant level.
4. If a map amendment, the site is physically suitable (including absence of physical constraints, access, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and ATTACHMENT 1
provisions of utilities) for the requested zoning designations and anticipated land uses/development.
Analysis: The six parcels being pre-zoned R-1 currently have single-family residential uses on them and they are compatible for that zoning designation. The other nine parcels designate for either Commercial or Commercial Mixed Use uses will be compatible for those uses once certain improvements are made to the sites. As they exist, they are still rural in nature and will require site planning to ensure that they can accommodate future development projects.
5. If a text amendment, the amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code.
Analysis: This project does not include a text amendment.
The Pre-Zoning designation for the Development Area to Planned Development Overlay Zoning District will be discussed with the other components of the Project in the sections below.
Based on the analysis of the above findings, staff believes that the Planning Commission can recommend approval of the Non-Development Pre-zoning designations to the City Council.
LUMINA AT MACHADO RANCH SUBDIVISION ANALYSIS
The remaining components of this application, the General Plan Amendment, the Planned Development Overlay Rezoning, the Planned Development, Tentative Subdivision Map, and the Development Agreement are all specific to the largest parcel in annexation, Development Area on the parcel with APN 241-32-018, and are associated with the Lumina at Machado Ranch Subdivision. As such, these items are grouped together and are analyzed with respect to conformance with:
1. Manteca General Plan
2. Manteca Zoning Ordinance
3. Manteca Climate Action Plan
The Environmental Analysis for the annexation and the above listed entitlements will be discussed together in the Environmental Clearance section below.
GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed subdivision has a General Plan Land use Designation of P Park and LDR Low Density Residential (Figure 5). The proposed General Plan designations are still LDR and P (Figure 6). However, on the proposed project land use plan, the exact location and size of the park is different from the existing land use designation map.
ATTACHMENT 1
Figure 5: Existing Land Use Designation Figure 6: Proposed Land Use Designation Under the current General Plan, this size and location difference requires a General Plan Amendment. At the time of application, it was uncertain if the current General Plan Update would be complete. If the General Plan Update was adopted by the City Council before this project went to hearing, a General Plan Amendment would not be required. The General Plan Update contains a new land use policy, policy LU-1.5, that allows flexibility when relocating land uses within a single development area as long as the acres of each land use designation is maintained and if it does not result in incompatibilities with adjacent or nearby land uses or designation. In this instance, the location of the park is shifted slightly and the size of the park is larger. However, the desired density of the proposed subdivision would still be compatible with the LDR land use designation and the additional park area will only enhance the subdivision, making the site more compatible with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. Without the adoption of the Updated General Plan however, this flexibility unfortunately does not exist and a General Plan Amendment is necessary.
When a General Plan Amendment is requested by a property owner, the applicant shall demonstrate that there is a substantial benefit to be derived from such amendment. The City Council must find that the proposed amendment meets the letter and intent of the General Plan goals and policies.
The LDR land use designation requires a density range of 2.1 to 8.0 dwelling units per acre.
The project meets these density and land use requirements as the 827 units creates a density of 5.13 dwelling units per acre. Per the General Plan, the LDR land use designation ATTACHMENT 1
allows substantial flexibility in selecting dwelling unit types and parcel configurations to suit particular site conditions and housing needs. The types of development anticipated in LDR includes small and clustered residential lots, as well as conventional large lot detached homes. The Lumina at Machado Ranch Subdivision has a variety of housing types on a variety of different size lots, making the subdivision consistent with the intent of the LDR land use designation.
The Park (P) land use designation provides for neighborhood, community, and regional parks, golf courses, and other outdoor recreational facilities within urban development. The specific uses within the park can vary, but can include items like ball fields, tot lots, play apparatus, community centers, meeting facilities, trails, benches, interpretive markers, picnic areas, and other amenities typically found in a park. The Central Park in the Lumina at Machado Ranch Subdivision project will be 10.87 acres and will include a variety of amenities for the public. The Central Park is intended to be the center gathering point of the Lumina at Machado Ranch Subdivision. The park will have recreational areas, flexible use space, sports courts, active play areas, and the key attraction will be a Center Plaza where neighbors and groups can come together to have events. This center area of the park will allow for maintenance vehicle access, and other event vehicles, but the intent is to keep the street a pedestrian plaza free of vehicle use so that the park can be a true community amenity.
In addition to the community park, there will also be a 1.28 acre levee park that will provide a tot lot, seating areas, and orchard-style planting, making it a real oasis in the southern portion of the subdivision. These two parks clearly meet the intent of the Park land use designation and as defined in the General Plan.
In addition to complying with the LDR and P land use designations regarding density and use, the proposed project complies with the following General Plan goals and policies:
1. Community Design Policy CD-P-7: The City shall implement neighborhood design standards in the Residential districts that contribute to the overall character of the neighborhood by emphasizing traditional residential features that enhance the sense of community, ensure a safe pedestrian orientation, and minimize the visual prominence of garages.
Community Design Implementation CD-I-3: Approve and apply neighborhood design standards.
Analysis: The Lumina at Machado Ranch Subdivision project has detailed Planned Development Guidelines that have clear neighborhood design standards for the overall development of this project. The Planned Development Guidelines provide the framework for a high-quality development that focuses on traditional neighborhood elements like enhanced visible edges, enhanced project entries, ample community open space, and well-planned circulation for both pedestrians and vehicles. The entire Lumina at Machado Ranch subdivision is planned around the Central Park, with connections into the subdivision to bring people together from all ATTACHMENT 1
over the various villages within the subdivision. The ample sidewalks, the pedestrian trail in the park, the lighting guidelines, and the enhanced corners make for a safe and enjoyable pedestrian experience.
The Lumina at Machado Ranch Design Guidelines offer six architectural styles:
American Traditional, California Bungalow, Farmhouse, Monterey, Prairie, and Spanish. There is a whole chapter in the Design Guidelines dedicated to ensuring appropriate architectural elements are included for each architectural style so that the homes truly reflect a point of view. The Product chapter expertly details out the development standards for each housing type, ensuring the homes are placed on site in the most appropriate manner. The Neighborhood Design Chapter identifies appropriate garage treatment to de-emphasize the visual prominence of the garage through setbacks, side-entry options, and articulated garage doors with windows or paneling. These Guidelines will ensure that the Lumina at Machado Ranch Subdivision sets the standard for neighborhood development in the future.
2. Community Design Goal CD-3: Establish distinct, attractive identities for neighborhoods, gateways, and commercial areas.
Analysis: The Lumina at Machado Ranch Subdivision is a unique Planned Development that embodies Manteca’s “Family City” identity. With a Central Park at the heart of the 827-unit development, there is a distinct feeling of community and togetherness in this development. Homes will face the park and neighborhood streets, encouraging the “eyes on the street” concept that is so important in neighborhood planning. The green connections that connect the four quadrants of the subdivision encourage the community to come together in the Central Park Plaza to play and relax.
To ensure the overall subdivision is cohesive, unique, and visually pleasing, the Guidelines focus on first establishing detailed visual edges through varied roof design and rear elevation architecture. This guarantees that the community will not look monotonous or under designed to surrounding neighborhoods. Moving into the project, the project entries will have enhanced landscaping and defined entry features like trellis and pilasters to clearly indicate when individuals have entered the community. Primary Corners have been designated throughout the project to identify significant intersections. These corners will be larger and enhanced with greenery or alternative materials. The homes on these corners will also have some unique feature like a wrap-around porch or entry door to signify the importance of these corners. As noted, the Celebration Plaza will be a place dedicated for community events like food trucks, art fairs, farmer’s markets or block parties. Finally, the most unique community-defining element is the Wellness Walks that are intended to encourage walking and other forms of recreation and community interaction along the community’s streets. Features such as small markers will be installed to identify particular walking loops or other respite areas that can be incorporated into the community.
ATTACHMENT 1
3. Parks and Recreation Policy PF-P-46: The City shall expand the community and neighborhood park system with the goal of providing neighborhood park facilities within reasonable walking distance of all city residential areas.
Parks and Recreation Policy PF-P-47: The City shall use joint development of park and drainage detention basins in the development of neighborhood parks.
Parks and Recreation Policy PF-P-49: City park acquisition and development efforts shall be based on a goal of 5 acres of developed neighborhood and community parkland per 1,000 residents within the city limits.
Analysis: Parks space and enhanced landscape design are the cornerstone of the Lumina development. The Central Park is intended to be the heart of the community, where everyone can gather and recreate together. There will be 10.87 acres of centralized parkland plus 1.28 acres of levee access and pocket park for a total of
12.15 acres of park area in the subdivision. In addition to these open areas, there is open space provided in the form of frontage landscaping strips and a well site. The subdivision is required to provide one acre of upland area, but there is close to five acres of upland in the project area. The overall 12.15 acres of park area also exceeds the three acres of required parkland per 1,000 people requirement. The joint development of park and drainage detention basin will provide the practical and required use to handle storm water, but in the dry season will serves as another green space for community recreation.
4. Street System Policy C-P-15: The City shall promote infill development that completes gaps in the circulation system.
Analysis: This subdivision will complete the roadway and sidewalk improvements that are currently missing along Woodward Avenue and South Airport way.
5. Community Design Policy CD-P-44: Provide minimal levels of street, parking, building, site and public area lighting to meet safety standards and provide direction.
Analysis: This subdivision is required to provide minimum levels of site lighting in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. The improvement plans showing lighting information will also be compliant with the regulations regarding nearby sensitive users and will avoid light-spillover onto the neighboring homes to the west. The lighting plan for the project will provide directional shielding for all exterior lighting to minimize the annoyance of direct or indirect glare, which will be an added benefit for the neighboring residences.
Based on the above goals and policies, it is clear that the General Plan Amendment is a benefit to the City of Manteca. The increased unit count and larger park areas are important benefits to the City and its residents.
ATTACHMENT 1
ZONING ORIDNANCE CONFORMANCE
Pre-Zoning Designation
The applicant requested that the Development Area parcel be given the Pre-Zoning designation of Planned Development (PD) Overlay Zone. The purpose of the PD Overlay Zone is to establish a process for the consideration and regulation of areas suitable for proposed comprehensive development with detailed development plans, and those areas that require special planning to provide for appropriate planned development in harmony with their natural features and other environmental considerations. In this instance, the Lumina at Machado Ranch Subdivision offers unique housings types that can only be possible with deviation from the standard zoning district development standards. While the majority of the development within the subdivision will conform to the R-1 development standards, the motorcourt housing typology does not fit into the standard development parameters. This motorcourt home style arranges homes in a unique way that is not typically found in Manteca, but is common throughout the rest of California. The architecture of these homes will be of the same level of quality as the more traditional products, and will include full driveways, front doors that face the streets, and private yards. The benefit of the motorcourt homes is that they are more affordable by design and offer a unique housing type to the Manteca community.
Other reasons that the PD Overlay Zone is needed is due to the deviation in garage setback from the standard R-1 district. Rather than a 20-foot setback, the setback of the garages will be in a range of 18-20 feet to further encourage movement and variation along the streetscape. Smaller driveways minimize front yard paving, which minimizes construction materials, costs and unnecessary impervious surfaces.
As with the other Pre-Zoned parcels in the annexation, the Planning Commission must make the following findings to recommend approval to City Council for the Planned Development Overlay Zone:
1. The proposed Zoning Amendment (text or map) is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs.
Analysis: As discussed, the Zoning Map Amendment is consistent with the intent of the General Plan for the Low-Density Residential and Park land use designations. The above listed policies speak to the PD’s compatibility with the General Plan’s goals.
2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.
Analysis: As approved and conditioned, this project will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City, in that it is required to follow all City codes, including performance standards. If at any time this project is deemed to be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare ATTACHMENT 1
of the City, the Police, and Code Enforcement Departments will be notified for review and possible citation.
3. The amendment has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Analysis: The proposed Pre-zoning has been analyzed in the Lumina at Machado Ranch FEIR. The FEIR identified one or more significant and unavoidable environmental effects of the project. However, the Council will be asked to make certain findings regarding these effects and adopt a mitigation and monitoring program and a statement of overriding consideration for any impact that may not be reduced to a less than significant level.
4. If a map amendment, the site is physically suitable (including absence of physical constraints, access, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and provisions of utilities) for the requested zoning designations and anticipated land uses/development.
Analysis: The site is relatively flat and has no physical obstructions. Some roadway improvements already exist along the property’s frontages. The site is surrounded by residential developments to the north and west, making it a compatible use for the area. The project meets the required density calculation, and conforms to the type of development expected within a standard R-1 development.
5. If a text amendment, the amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code.
Analysis: This project does not include a text amendment.
Planned Development
The purpose of the Planned Development is to provide a process to allow diversity in the relationship between buildings and open space, to create interesting physical environments, and to maximize the development potential of underutilized or problematic land areas. This land use entitlement is intended to demonstrate that the development plan with any proposed deviations is consistent with the General Plan and will result in a quality project that is compatible with surroundings, preserves site resources, minimizes hazards, and provides a public benefit. A Planned Development is required in conjunction with any rezone request for a PD Overlay Zone designation.
The Planning Commission must make the following findings in order to recommend approval of the Planned Development to the City Council:
1. The proposed project does not exceed the total density allowed under the base Zoning District or the General Plan land use designation.
ATTACHMENT 1
Analysis: The density range for LDR/R-1 is 2.1 to 8.0 dwelling units per acre. The project’s proposed density is 5.13 dwelling units per acre, which complies with the land use designation and zoning density requirements. As discussed above, the majority of the development, with the exception of the motorcourts and driveway lengths implement the standard Small-Lot single-family development standards from Municipal code section 17.26.040. This entire neighborhood will look and feel like a standard R-1 neighborhood in the City of Manteca to the average person. It will be the enhanced features required of the Planned Development that will set the motorcourt design apart from a traditional neighborhood, not the requested deviations from the R-1 development standards. Figures 7 and 8 below identify the location of the motorcourt lots in the subdivision and identify the typical site layout for the four-unit motorcourt product. What is significant in this layout is that the front doors and porches of the front two units face the street but the garages are tucked behind the units. This already makes for a better streetscape by eliminating the presence of garages on the street frontage. Also, when looking down the center aisle of the motorcourt product, the pedestrian will see the front door and porches of the back units, not the garage faces. This is the ultimate layout for this type of home products.
Figure 7: Proposed Motorcourt locations Figure 8: Proposed Motorcourt site plan
2. The proposed project is superior to development that could occur under the development standards of the base district in the following ways:
a. Greater open space and common areas than required;
Analysis: The City requires one acre of upland park area for new neighborhoods, but as discussed, the proposed subdivision will provide close to five acres of upland area and more than three acres per 1,000 people in total park space. The Central Park is the heart of the Lumina at ATTACHMENT 1
Machado Ranch project and will serve as an example of a desired Neighborhood Park for the next community to be constructed in Manteca.
The Central Park is oversized, providing more than five acres of upland for public enjoyment. The park has a
variety of passive and active uses such as recreational fields, exercise areas, activity plan areas, horseshoes, and an outer trail that links up with the Wellness Walk concept.
The Central Park also has a Central Plaza area that can be used for a variety of public and private events. The area is drivable so vendors with food trucks or farmer’s market vendors can drive in and set up tents, but the majority of the time the plaza will remain closed to through traffic so that the play and use of the park is not interrupted by vehicles. This center plaza is a modern take on a
community center, offering the gathering space needed by the community, but in an outside setting so that in the event a pandemic takes siege again, there is an open-air space that is conducive to safe gathering.
The Levee Pocket Park is a second park addition that
provides access to the existing levee path. This park will feature a tot lot, searing area with orchard-style planting, and an oak grove, harkening back to Manteca’s agricultural and rural roots. The project will be required to construct a portion of the RD17 Levee along with a berm that runs the majority of the project’s southern boundary. These
improvements will create a natural barrier to the adjacent farmland. While some development could see this levee
area as a hindrance to development, the Lumina project
has gracefully integrated it into a place where both nature and the public can coexist.
The Wellness Walk connections have very
specific starts at different points in the park
and then radiate out into the community.
These Wellness Walks streets are in
prominent areas throughout the
neighborhood and have specific markers
and features along the route to encourage
outdoor activity. As shown in the images
below in Figure 11, the Wellness Walks will
be along wider sidewalks and will have
ample landscape borders. The markers and
seating areas shows are for illustrative
purposes, but the intent is to show that these
Figure 9: Central Park
Figure 10: Levee Park
ATTACHMENT 1
walks will be clearly identified and are an enhanced amenity for the community.
Figure 11: Wellness Walk illustrations.
b. Greater landscaping than required that enhances the public street appearance (including street trees, benches, lights, special paving, water fountains, etc.) or increases in landscape buffers with adjacent properties;
Analysis: The landscaping provided in the Lumina Subdivision meets and exceeds the expectations of landscaping in a new subdivision. The overall ATTACHMENT 1
planned landscape features soften the built
environment and provide a needed respite from the
day-to-day grind of indoor work and life tasks.
As with all subdivisions, there will be a community
entry designed to have a special statement that
reflects the project’s character. There will likely be a monument sign with some sort of landscape feature
like a trellis and pilasters. There will be flowering trees, lighting, and signage that will be included for nighttime wayfinding.
Figures 12 and 13: Project Entry landscaping
The landscaping chapter also discusses the importance of planting trees throughout the subdivision. The developers will be required to plant a tree in every front yard, and multiple trees on corner lots if necessary. Street trees will come in a variety of species and will contribute to the urban forest.
All trees will come from the City’s approved plant palette. c. Superior subdivision design. Utilization of the applicable residential design standards to achieve a superior subdivision design; Analysis: The Design Guidelines have over 100 pages of detailed design requirements for the subdivision. Throughout the document, there is discussion on varied lot sizes, streetscape enhancements, and purposeful architecture. Chapter 3 provides the proposed development standards for each housing product type, ensuing that each home is placed on each lot appropriately. Chapter 6 provides architectural guidance to builders with a “Menu of Common Features”, which ensures appropriate application of detailing and architectural elements. Chapter 6 provides architectural style information inclusive of common design features, colors, and material palettes.
ATTACHMENT 1
The design on the Central Park, levee park, and Wellness Walks showcase the extra attention to detail for this community, as noted above. d. Greater connectivity to surrounding public streets, bike paths, pedestrian walkways, and public open spaces than required by zoning or subdivision regulations;
Analysis: The Lumina at Machado Ranch subdivision is intended to be cohesive with the existing community fabric, providing a circulation design that connects to adjacent neighborhoods and street networks. Access to Lumina will occur from Woodward Avenue and Airport Way as well as from the adjacent Terra Ranch neighborhood. The roundabout on Airport Way will linking future developments east of the site. The Community Access Diagram is below in Figure 14.
Figure 14: Community Access
Internally, the street network of Lumina is intended to contribute to the aesthetic of the community, with residents’ experiencing varied streetscapes and thoughtful street design. There is a road in every section of the subdivision that leads to the Central Park, emphasizing the central ATTACHMENT 1
role the park and outdoor activity plays in the development of this community. The Wellness Walk has dedicated eight foot wide sidewalks and landscape parkways. Shade trees line the Wellness Walks to create pleasing streetscapes and greater comfort in the warmer months. The wider sidewalks facilitate strollers, scooters, dogs, and any toy people want to use to get outside and be active. Figure 15 below highlights the extensive internal network envisioned for the subdivision.
Figure 15: Wellness Walks and Connections
e. Reduced impacts on surrounding properties, in terms of privacy, access to sunlight, shadow, views, building bulk, noise, or other types of negative impacts, beyond what would be achieved under existing requirements.
Analysis: The homes face inward on both Woodward Avenue and Airport Way, and there is an enhanced landscape buffer along both streets, increasing the setbacks of the new homes from existing homes. All of the heights are consistent with the R-1 Zoning designation, so no homes will be towering over neighboring communities, preserving existing privacy. The noise has been analyzed through the CEQA process, and there is no significant impact on the environmental related to noise. Along with no impact related to noise, no impact was identified related to sunlight. While there is a permanent change in the existing views, development of this site ATTACHMENT 1
was always intended, so it should not be a shock to existing neighbors.
Finally, as discussed below, the building bulk will be minimized through design and architectural elements.
3. The proposed project incorporates best site planning practices for quality design and compatibility with surroundings.
Analysis: The aerial in Figure 3 shows that this subdivision is consistent with surrounding development to the west and north of the site. An R-1 subdivision completes this last block of Woodward Avenue and is the logical location for a subdivision.
Chapter 1 of the Design
Guidelines focuses on the
community framework for the
subdivision, highlighting the
features of the subdivision that
have been created to ensure
that the design of the
community is cohesive, unique,
visually pleasing, and
incorporates best site planning
practices. The framework of the
community provides for visible
edges, so that the community is
pleasing to the outside viewers
of the subdivision, and does not
look monotonous or drab from
the outside. The project entries
are intended to be robust with
landscaping with an entry detail
to establish a strong impression
of the neighborhood. The
Primary Corner concept is a
design element that will provide
visual interest to major intersections in the community. The Central park and other open space areas pay deference to the importance of public space and encourage a walkable community. The Celebration Plaza provides a place for gathering and encourages community socialization. Finally, the Wellness Walks concept is a unique design element that emphasizes outdoor exercise opportunities which became so important, both physically and mentally, during the pandemic.
Chapter 2 of the Guidelines identifies the land plan, which highlights the variety of lot sizes within the subdivision. A larger variety in lot sizes provides more options for a larger pool of homeowners. The lots range in size from 45’ x75’ to 80’ x100’. The variety in size allows the developer to maximize housing and open space Figure 16: Community Framework
ATTACHMENT 1
opportunities. Further, the six product types for these will allow for a variety in architectural design. While the overall subdivision is under a single development umbrella, the mix of lots in designated areas throughout the subdivision essentially creates micro subdivisions or villages, allowing each to grow and develop an identity of its own over time. The figure below highlights all of the housing products and their placement in the subdivision.
Figure 18: Land Plan and lot mix
4. The proposed project incorporates high quality architectural design and durable materials.
Analysis: Lumina at Machado Ranch Subdivision consists of a well thought-out and high quality design aesthetic based on six distinct architectural styles. Chapter 5 of ATTACHMENT 1
the Design Guidelines sets the expectation of neighborhood design for any home builder wishing to construct homes within the subdivision. This chapter encourages innovation, character, and superior design techniques by providing guidance on color, type of material, and how to use low-maintenance material that still reflects a quality home. This chapter also requires unique concept ideas like “Primary Corner,” which will require that on the specific corner lots shown below, the homes will have onestory elements that enhance the appearance of that particular intersection. From wrap-around porches to enhanced landscaping, a primary corner will not only be a benefit to the homeowner, but the community at large.
Figure 19: Enhanced Primary Corner
The detailed requirements for the motorcourt homes will ensure that these homes are designed to fit seamlessly into a traditional R-1 neighborhood. From stepped massing, enhanced garage features, and a required front door presence, the motorcourts will require a level of design that creates a pleasing streetscape.
The variety in floor plans and elevations will inherently provide a variation in massing and will provide visual interest to the streetscape. The Guidelines restrict some plans and elevation styles from being adjacent to each other, the same color scheme will not be allowed on two adjacent homes or the three lots directly across from it, and the garage orientation shall be varied in each home. In order to ensure architectural diversity, like elevations will not be allowed to be plotted adjacent to or immediately across the street from one another.
Chapter 5 also regulates building form and massing by requiring a variety of architectural techniques and treatments such as varied roof forms, pitches and heights, one-story elements, changes in materials and color, and clearly defined entry features. These types of regulations will also impact garage design, by requiring reverse plans when possible, and deemphasizing the visual prominence of the ATTACHMENT 1
garages by setting them back, creating side entries, and creating articulation with garage doors and windows.
Figure 20: Example of staggered front yards and varied garages
Chapter 5 continues to regulate the desired durable materials by providing guidance on stucco detailing, material wrapping, roof material, ornamental detailing, gutter and downspout design, window treatment, shutter placement, and residential lighting requirements. The Design Guidelines provide far more direction to future builders on materials than the current municipal code does. As portions of this subdivision are brought in to staff for building review, staff will review each mater plan for conformance with these standards.
Chapter 6 of the Guidelines discusses the different architectural styles that the builders of any portion of this project must adhere to. The suggested style shave been thoughtfully selected to be compatible with each other, but offer enough variety to avoid the monotony of a traditional track subdivision. The chosen styles have unique characteristics that will naturally create an interesting streetscape and roofline. The Guidelines discuss “authentic adaptations” of each style, meaning that builders must focus on traditional form and detailing, but infuse modern materials, colors, and interpretation to the style to create a contemporary, yet recognizable expression of each architectural style.
The Guidelines offer a “Menu of Common Features” that identifies roof pitch and styles, roof and structure material, key style-identifying components, trim and detailing suggestions, window treatment suggestions, and a color and materials palette. These Guidelines make it clear to anyone reviewing the plans that there is an expectation of authenticity for each style. The Guidelines do not leave room for loose interpretation of each style for the sake of cost savings. The Guidelines make it clear that distinctive design elements and materials must be present in both material and form in order to be compliant with the Guidelines.
ATTACHMENT 1
Figure 21: Menu of Common Features
5. The proposed project shall not be substantially detrimental to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of this Title or the public interest.
Analysis: The Lumina at Machado Ranch Subdivision has been reviewed by internal departments and external agencies, and it has been determined that the project will not materially impair the purposes of this Title or the public interest. The project is governed by a set of conditions that will ensure compatibility with adjacent properties.
The Engineering conditions of approval will benefit the public interest by requiring the installation of public improvements beyond the project boundaries of the site. From completed right of ways in missing sections, to signal installations at several major intersection in this part of the City, the proposed project will help facilitate better circulation for the south west area of the City. The General Plan designated the Project site for low density residential since 2003, signaling a general understanding to local residents that a future neighborhood would be located here. A neighborhood that conforms to the land use and density requirements of this designation is thus inherently compatible with the surrounding single-family residential uses. The Planned Development Overlay rules and guidelines ultimately hold this neighborhood ATTACHMENT 1
to a higher standard than most R-1 developments, ensuring that the public interest is preserved and this Title intact.
Based on the extensive detailed found in the Planned Development Guidelines, staff feels that the Planning Commission is able to recommend approval of the Planned Development to the City Council.
Tentative Subdivision Map
The subdivision of land is governed by the Subdivision Map Act and Title 16 of the Manteca Municipal Code. The Planning Commission may recommend approval for a Tentative Subdivision Map if the Subdivision Map Act findings from Section 66474 of the Map Act can’t be made. In addition to the Title 16 findings, four more findings found in Chapter 16.09.040 of the Municipal Code must be made. The Subdivision Map Act findings and the additional findings in Chapter 16.09.040 of the Municipal Code are discussed below:
Subdivision Map Act (66474)
A legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval of a tentative map, if it makes any of the following findings:
a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451.
Analysis: This project is consistent with the General Plan land use designations of LDR and Park in that the entire density of the site is 5.13 du/a, which is between the minimum density of 2.1 and maximum density of 8.0 du/a. The applicant is also providing more park acreage than is required in the General Plan. The design guidelines identified in the PD also ensure that future homes will comply with the LDR land use regulations. This project is not a part of a Specific Plan. b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
Analysis: The project’s subdivision design complies with the intent of the General Plan to allow a variety of housing types in the LDR land use designation. The range in lot size, and the variety of housing product are exactly what the General Plan encourages in the LDR land use category. This project is not part of a Specific Plan. c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
Analysis: The site is physically suitable for this type of development. It is relatively flat with no physical impediments or restrictive easements. Road infrastructure and services are already available at this site, making it suitable for this type of development.
d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
ATTACHMENT 1
Analysis: The required density for this parcel is 2.1 to 8.0 dwelling units per acre.
This project meets the density requirements at 5.13 dwelling units per acre.
Therefore, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
Analysis: As the lead agency for the Lumina at Machado Ranch Annexation project, the City prepared a Project-level EIR pursuant to and in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). While some significant and unavoidable impacts were identified by the FEIR, the substantial economic and social benefits of the Project outweigh and override the significant unavoidable environmental effects that would result from the Project. There will be no injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat.
f) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.
Analysis: As approved and conditioned, the design of this project will not cause serious health problems. This development will be required to comply with all standards, including performance standards, and regulations pertaining to health and safety found in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
Analysis: This site has been found to have no conflicting easements on site.
Manteca Municipal Code Section 16.09.040
In addition to the requirements governing approval of the tentative map set forth in the Subdivision Map Act, the following considerations and findings shall be made:
A) Subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council shall review and consider any applicable environmental documents.
Analysis: As the lead agency for the Lumina at Machado Ranch Annexation project, the City prepared a Project-level EIR pursuant to and in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). While some significant and ATTACHMENT 1
unavoidable impacts were identified by the FEIR, the substantial economic and social benefits of the project outweigh and override the significant unavoidable environmental effects that would result from the Project.
B) In reaching a decision upon the tentative subdivision map, the City Council shall consider the effect of that decision on the housing needs of the region and balance these needs against the public service needs of its residences and available fiscal and environmental resources.
Analysis: The project will provide the opportunity to create a significant amount of new housing in the City of Manteca. The 827 homes will provide a variety of lot sizes and housing types to ensure full access to housing to the public. While the site is technically outside of City limits until the annexation is approved, City services are near the project site and can be easily accessed for the new community. The project is estimated to generate a total of approximately $1.322 million in revenue for the City’s General fund at buildout, again $1.016 million in expenditures (costs) at buildout, resulting in a combined surplus of $306,100 annually. This is a fiscal benefit to the City. While there are some significant an unavoidable impacts, the economic and social benefits of the Project outweigh and override the significant unavoidable environmental effects that would result from the Project.
C) In reaching a decision upon the tentative subdivision map, the City Council shall consider the design of the subdivision as it provides for future passive and natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, as required by Government Code Section 66473.1.
Analysis: All floor plans have windows on all facades on both stories, to optimize the potential for passive cooling. This project will also be required to comply with any applicable California Building Code requirements that may promote passive and natural heating or cooling.
D) The tentative subdivision map may be approved or conditionally approved by the City Council if it finds that the proposed land division, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and all applicable provisions of this code.
Analysis: As discussed in this staff report, the project is consistent with the General Plan land use designations of LDR and P, and supports many General Plan goals and policies. It is also mostly consistent with the Zoning Code Requirements for One-Family Dwelling zoning but has a Planned Development Overlay to provide for the creativity to build a unique project.
Based on the above findings, Staff believes that the Planning Commission is able to recommend approval of the Tentative Map to the City Council.
Development Agreement
The applicant seeks a Development Agreement with the City. The applicant wishes to preserve the map life for ten years with the option to renew the agreement every year for up ATTACHMENT 1
to five years. In addition to the map life extension, the applicant is also seeking the right to sewer allocations for the years 2022-2026. In exchange for these two terms of the Agreement, the applicant has agreed to provide $8,000 per unit for the 827 homes in the subdivision. The $8,000 will be allocated in the following way:
1. $2,500 per home for the Phase IV Sewer Expansion Fee a. The $2,500 fee will be the required fee until the formal Phase IV Sewer Expansion Fee is established by the City. If the established fee is less than $2,500, the Developer shall pay the lower amount. If the fee exceeds $2,500, the Developer shall be required to pay the $2,500, plus the difference between the established fee and $2,500.
2. $2,500 per unit for an Infrastructure Supplemental Fee a. This fee will be collected at this rate for every home subject to this Development Agreement.
3. $598.54 per home for additional CNG waste management vehicles needed to service the new development.
4. The remaining $2,401.46 will be allocated by the City Council at its discretion.
The City will collect this Development Fee at the time of building permit issuance. However, in order to recommend approval of the Development Agreement to the City Council, the Planning Commission must make the following findings:
1. Is consistent with the objectives, policies, and general land uses specified in the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan.
Analysis: As discussed above, the proposed Subdivision is consistent with the land use and goals and policies of the General Plan, and the terms of the Development Agreement do not alter these findings of conformance. The Development Agreement Fees of $8,000 per unit is consistent with the expectation of a City benefit for entering into a Development Agreement. The proposed project area is not subject to a Specific Plan.
2. Is compatible and in conformity with public convenience, general welfare, and good land uses and zoning practice.
Analysis: The development as a whole essentially mimics the R-1 neighborhood development standards, and meets all necessary code and General Plan requirements of the LDR and P land use designations. The Development Agreement does not change any of these development standards. The purpose of the Development Agreement is to ensure a longer map life and to secure future sewer connections for the project. These two items do not create an impact on public convenience, and the Development Agreement fee promised per unit will only be an added benefit for the general welfare of the community.
3. Will not be detrimental to health, safety, and general welfare of the City.
Analysis: The Development Agreement requires the developer to pay $8,000 per home which will be allocated toward future sewer upgrades, the public infrastructure ATTACHMENT 1
improvements, a solid waste vehicle, and the remaining funds will be distributed per the discretion of Council. These fees will only improve the health, safety and general welfare of the City.
4. Will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values.
Analysis: This Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values in that this agreement only pertains to the Lumina at Machado Ranch, and no terms of the agreement are meant to thwart surrounding development in any way. By entering into a Development Agreement, the developer will be able to extend the map life of his project, thus ensuring there is ample time for the project to develop and install all necessary green space and public right of way improvements which will aid in the preservation of property values.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONFORMANCE
On October 15, 2013, the Manteca City Council approved and adopted the Air Quality Element Update and Climate Action Plan in response to the passing of Assembly Bill AB32.
The intent of this plan is to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in both private and public sector development.
The project complies with the following Climate Action Plan strategies:
1. CAP Strategy: Compact Development CD-1: The City shall encourage projects consistent with the development densities allowed by the General Plan and are contiguous to existing development meet compact development criteria.
Analysis: This project is consistent with the development density allowed in the LDR land use designation, and it is contiguous to existing residential development to the west and north. It is a thoughtfully laid out project
2. CAP Strategy: Pedestrian Oriented Development POD-2: The City shall require sidewalks and/or pedestrian paths in all residential projects. The sidewalks should be wide enough to allow side-by-side walking and room for passing to increase comfort and convenience for walkers (5 to 6 feet).
Analysis: As part of the amenities of this project, the Wellness walks throughout the community have enhanced landscaping and wider sidewalks. These walks are intended to encourage walking and other forms of recreation and community interaction. These walks will have small markers to identify particular walking loop distances, and will ultimately terminate at the Central Park. The Central Park will have a walking path around the entire loop of the park that blurs the lines between open space and walking for a more “trail-like” feel. The sidewalks throughout the remainder of the subdivision vary between five feet and eight feet, which is conducive ATTACHMENT 1
for side-by-side walking activity. The project will also be providing public improvements on Woodward and Airport where there are currently gaps in the network.
3. CAP Strategy: Water Conservation (WC) WC-1: The City shall continue to implement water conservation measures to comply with the Model Water Efficient Landscape requirements that implement the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 1881, Laird).
Analysis: The front yards of the homes will utilize low-water-use planting. This project is required to comply with the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, per Assembly Bill 1881.
4. Municipal Strategies - Urban Forestry (UF) UF-2: The City of Manteca will consider the following goals and actions when revising its urban forestry program:
• Increase public and private tree plantings citywide
• Use canopy trees along new major roadways and in new developments Analysis: This project will increase the amount of both public and private tree plantings and will use flowering trees along Woodward Avenue and Airport Way. The project will require all front yards to have landscaping, including a tree, which will significantly cut down on the heat-island effect.
ENVIRONEMNTAL CLEARANCE
As the lead agency for the Lumina at Machado Ranch Annexation project, the City prepared a Project-level EIR pursuant to and in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Project EIR is an EIR which examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project. This type of EIR focuses primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the project. A Project EIR examines all phases of a project including planning, construction, and operation. The Project EIR allows for comprehensive consideration of the reasonably anticipated scope of the Project, including development and operation of the Project. The EIR is available for review on the City’s website here:
https://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/CommunityDevelopment/Planning%20Division/Pages/Planni ng-Division-Documents.aspx
The EIR determined that there were several significant and unavoidable environmental impacts produced by the project. CEQA Guidelines § 15091 states that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects. As such, along with the certification of the EIR, the Council is being asked to make specific findings of overriding considerations. The statement of overriding considerations attached to the EIR resolution identifies the economic, social, technical, and other benefits of the Project that the City ATTACHMENT 1
Council can consider if they choose to override these significant environmental impacts that would result from the Project.
The significant and unavoidable impacts for the project are identified below:
1. Impact 3.1-1: Project implementation may result in substantial adverse effects on scenic vistas and resources or substantial degradation of visual character;
2. Impact 3.2-1: The proposed Project has the potential to result in the conversion of Farmlands, including Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural uses;
3. Impact 3.3-1: Project operation would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in non-attainment, or conflict or obstruct implementation of the District’s air quality plan;
4. Impact 3.7-1: Project implementation would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment to conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases;
5. Impact 4.2: Cumulative Degradation of the Existing Visual Character of the Region;
6. Impact 4.4: Cumulative Impact on Agricultural Resources;
7. Impact 4.5: Cumulative Impact on the Region's Air Quality; and,
8. Impact 4.9: Cumulative Impact on Climate Change from Increased Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
The adverse effects listed above are substantive issues of concern to the City. However, the Manteca General Plan provides for an array of land uses throughout the City that are intended to accommodate the City’s needs for growth over the foreseeable future. In addition, the identified impacts above are typical of all new suburban development. The CEQA EIR process allows the City to examine these impacts against the benefits the Project provides to the City and determine if the benefits outweigh the impacts.
Rewards of the Project include, but are not necessarily limited to, additional tax revenue for the City, while providing recreational facilities and housing opportunities for current and future Manteca residents. Implementation of the Project would increase and diversify the housing supply in the City, which could spur development, economic growth, and property tax generation within the area. Moreover, the increased housing supply helps meet the evergrowing demand of housing within California. The Project also helps the City meet mandated housing production by the State of California.
Based on the entire record and the FEIR, the Planning Commission and City Council should determine that the economic and social benefits of the Project outweigh and override the significant unavoidable environmental effects that would result from the Project. Any environmental detriment caused by the proposed Project has been minimized to the extent feasible through the mitigation measures identified in the EIR and, where mitigation is not feasible, the impact can be outweighed and counterbalanced by the significant social, environmental, and land use benefits to be generated within the region.
ATTACHMENT 1
A Notice of Preparation for the EIR was circulated on January 22, 2021, to the State Clearinghouse, State Responsible Agencies, State Trustee Agencies, other public agencies, and interested parties around the project site. A public scoping meeting was held on February 10, 2021, to present the project description and to receive comments from the public and interested groups regarding the scope of the environmental analysis to be included in the Draft EIR. Concerns raised during the NOP were related to traffic on Woodward Avenue, the ultimate design of Woodward Avenue, flooding, and the impacts of the project on the RD17 levee, hazardous waste disposal, and the amount of units being proposed. The comments provided are presented in Appendix A.
The City provided a public notice of availability for the Draft EIR and invited comment on the completed document from October 8, 2021 to November 22, 2021. The City received two comment letters regarding the Draft EIR, one from a public agency and one from a member of the public. These comment letters are identified in Table 2.0-1 of the Final EIR and are addressed within the FEIR. The comments provided on the Draft EIR did not warrant revisions to the text of the document.
Based on the facts and finding presented in this staff report, staff believes that the Planning Commission can make the necessary recommendation to the City Council to certify the FEIR and make the necessary findings of overriding consideration, and approve the Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Pre-Zoning, Planned Development, Tentative Subdivision Map, and the Development Agreement.
Report prepared by: Lea C. Simvoulakis, Planning Manager Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1591 and Exhibits A-H
2. Draft City Council Resolutions and Ordinances
3. Planned Development Design Guidelines
4. EIR Comments
Reviewed and Approved by:
Chris Erias, Development Services Director Date
ATTACHMENT 1