Manteca planners outline zoning-code rewrite, favor flexible objective design standards

The City of Manteca Planning Commission on Aug. 21 heard a detailed staff workshop on a comprehensive zoning‑code update and the city’s proposed framework for objective design standards for multifamily and mixed‑use housing.

Deputy Director Jesus Orozco and Senior Planner Dave Ruby led the presentation outlining drivers for the update — including the city’s 2043 general plan, the recently adopted sixth‑cycle housing element and state housing law — and proposed changes to Title 17 (the zoning code) and related development standards. Ruby said the objective design standards are intended to create clear, measurable rules to streamline review of qualifying housing projects and provide predictable, repeatable expectations for developers.

Ruby told the commission he recommended adopting the objective design standards as a standalone planning policy and “codifying [them] by reference” in the municipal code so they are easy to update while remaining enforceable. “I personally would recommend the latter of the two approaches,” Ruby said during the workshop.

Why it matters: the zoning code implements the general plan and the housing element, so the update will change how land uses, densities, parking, landscaping, architectural standards and other development requirements are applied citywide. Commission discussion focused on how the standards should be structured, how they should reflect local character, and how to keep the rules durable but amendable over time.

Major elements described by staff included: - Administrative and procedural updates (changes in titles and entitlement procedures; transition to electronic submittals). - Article‑level restructuring: Article 2 (zoning districts, allowed uses and densities) and Article 3 (site planning standards) updates, including a proposed new Chapter 17.62 establishing architectural design standards. - Updates to residential standards to align zoning district densities with the general plan and state housing requirements. - Creation of an accessory commercial use to allow limited, service‑oriented uses (for example, a small convenience store or personal‑care services) in higher‑density mixed‑use areas. - Revisions to land‑use definitions, including modernized service‑station definitions and clearer home‑occupation rules.

Ruby and staff presented three adoption options for the objective design standards: (1) fully codify the standards into Title 17 (ordinance), (2) adopt them as a standalone planning policy (resolution), or (3) adopt as a standalone planning policy and codify that adoption by reference in the municipal code. Commissioners and staff expressed a clear preference for option 3 — a policy document memorialized by reference — as a balance between enforceability and the ability to update the standards more quickly.

Commission discussion and public input Vice Chair Coleman and other commissioners emphasized broad, multi‑channel public outreach and the importance of ensuring standards remain adaptable. “The public outreach component of this is going to be really, really critical,” Vice Chair Coleman said, urging social‑media and website outreach during the public‑review period.

Members of the public offered comments during the workshop. A commenter who identified themself as Sudhakar urged new zone types for family and children’s recreation uses and asked that learning centers be treated like day‑care or youth centers in proximity restrictions (for example, when considering cannabis retail locations). Sudhakar also raised concerns about school‑district approvals tied to tentative maps and the availability of neighborhood schools for new subdivisions.

Format and context consensus Commissioners generally favored a hybrid, user‑friendly format for the objective design standards: a set of core mandatory items (checklist) combined with a menu of optional design features that allow variety and local adaptation. Commissioners cited the need to avoid homogenous, repetitive facades while maintaining baseline quality. One suggested approach discussed was a mandatory checklist of basic requirements plus optional enhancements from which a developer chooses a subset (the “menu” approach).

Commissioners also recommended the standards be consistent with the general plan’s place‑type framework (historic core / suburban / rural) and to treat the downtown core as a distinct context in future, more detailed planning (staff noted a separate downtown specific plan RFQ is currently on the street).

Next steps and timeline Staff said the next steps are to post red‑line and clean draft zoning‑code text for a public review period (staff discussed a proposed 30‑day review), solicit community and developer comments, retain a planning consultant via RFQ/RFP to draft the objective design standards, and return refined drafts for commission and council hearings. Staff suggested a target for a comprehensive zoning code update public‑review draft in the coming months and possible ordinance adoption later in the year, although staff cautioned that timing could shift.

No formal action was taken on the zoning code text or the design standards at the meeting; commissioners provided consensus direction to staff to proceed with the approach described above.