Manteca City Council
February 21, 2023

Manteca Downtown Transit
Connectivity & Enhancement Plan
February 2023
Prepared by
ATTACHMENT 2
Project Team:

Fehr & Peers
CivicWell
Mark Thomas
De Novo Planning Group
City of Manteca
Catholic Charities Diocese of Stockton
Thank you to the Stakeholder Advisory Group and the residents, business owners, and students of Manteca for their contributions to this project.

Acknowledgments
ATTACHMENT 2
Table of Contents
1 Chapter 1 - Introduction
9 Chapter 2 - Vision & Goals
13 Chapter 3 - Existing Conditions
25 Chapter 4 - Relationship to Other Plans & Programs
31 Chapter 5 - Community Input & Collaboration
41 Chapter 6 - Project Development
47 Chapter 7 - Recommended Projects
71 Chapter 8 - Moffat Gateway Site Land Use Concepts
81 Chapter 9 - Implementation
ATTACHMENT 2
CHAPTER 1
ATTACHMENT 2

Introduction
ATTACHMENT 2

1.1 Purpose of this Plan
The Manteca Downtown Transit
Connectivity & Enhancement Plan will
serve as a roadmap to enhance safety
and multimodal connections between
the Manteca Transit Center, Downtown
Manteca, and nearby residences and
schools.

This Plan, the first of its kind for Manteca,
presents a major opportunity for the
City to enhance the existing multimodal
transportation network in east Manteca by
integrating bicycle, pedestrian, safe routes
to school, and accessibility improvements
using a Complete Streets approach. The
Plan builds upon many elements that help
make the City an exciting destination for
residents and businesses, as well as the
many visitors to the region.

Just as many factors influence how
travelers behave, numerous factors
influence what actions an agency can take.

While this effort is focused on bicycle,
pedestrian, ADA, and safe routes to school
planning, considerations have been made
related to economic vitality, efficient
movement of goods/people, public
health, and ecological challenges.

Facilitating an increase in walking and
biking can confer a variety of benefits
such as reduced congestion, improved
safety, comfort, health, air quality,
economic vitality, and quality of life.

These benefits are further enhanced
when connected to public transportation.

Increased walking, bicycling, and transit
ridership will also support the City’s
requirements under new regulatory
frameworks, including mandates to reduce
greenhouse gases and vehicle miles
traveled (VMT).

1.2 About Manteca
Manteca is generally suburban and
rural in character. The City has grown
significantly in the past several years, from
a population of 67,749 in 2010 to 83,948 in
2020 (a 24% increase) according to the U.S.

Census Bureau.

The east Manteca neighborhood, generally
the area east of Main Street and north
of the Union Pacific Railroad, is home to
a variety of residences, businesses, and
schools. A demographic assessment of
east Manteca (which for the purposes of
this data summary is Census Tract 51.09)
reveals the following:
• East Manteca is racially diverse:
53% of the population identifies as
Hispanic or Latino, 6% as Asian, and
3% as Black.¹
• East Manteca has high income
inequality: The median income within
east Manteca is $46,900, as opposed
to $69,300 for Manteca as a whole,
highlighting significant income
disparity. Additionally, 83.0% of
Lincoln Elementary School students
and 52.4% of Manteca High School
students are eligible to receive free or
reduced-price meals, an indicator of
student poverty.²
• Many east Manteca residents get
around by car: In east Manteca,
93% of households have access to
an automobile and 92% of workers
use a vehicle to commute to work.

Only 4% of workers use public
transportation, walk, or bike to work.
29% of commuters have a travel time
of less than 15 minutes, indicating
potential latent demand for active
transportation.
¹ U.S. Census 2020 ACS 5-Year Estimates.
² California Department of Education Free or
Reduced-Priced Meal Data:
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/filessp.asp
ATTACHMENT 2

Figure 1
Key Destinations
ATTACHMENT 2

1.3 Key Destinations and
Land Uses
Figure 1 shows key destinations in
downtown Manteca, including schools,
parks, libraries, post offices, City Hall,
retail areas, and medical facilities.

As seen in the figure, two schools are
located just northeast of the Manteca
Transit Center: Manteca High School and
Lincoln Elementary School. Numerous
neighborhood parks liven the study area,
notably Tidewater Park that straddles the
Tidewater multi-use trail.

1.4 Impacted Communities
Service to historically marginalized and
underserved communities is a key factor
in many grant funding programs such as
California’s Active Transportation Program
(ATP). This plan presents three different
indicators of impacted communities,
often referred to as environmental justice
communities, defined as low-income
areas that are disproportionately affected
by environmental pollution and other
hazards that can lead to negative health
effects, exposure, or environmental
degradation.

Household median income – census tracts
with median household income less than
80% of the statewide median of $60,188
(American Community Survey (ACS) 2016-
2020) (Figure 2).

CalEnviroScreen 4.0 score percentile
– a measure of environmental health
by census tract. Inputs include
socioeconomic factors, population
characteristics, pollution factors, and
environmental factors. Tracts with higher
percentiles are more disadvantaged.

The worst scoring 25% are considered
disadvantaged by the ATP guidelines
(Figure 3).

California Healthy Places Index – a
measure of the community conditions
shaping health outcomes. Factors include
economic, education, transportation,
social, neighborhood, housing, clean
environment, and healthcare access.

Census tracts in the worst scoring 25%
are considered disadvantaged by the ATP
guidelines (Figure 4).

ATTACHMENT 2

Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 2015-2019
Figure 2
Household Income
More than 160% of state median income
121%-130% of state median income
111%-120% of state median income
101%-110% of state median income
91%-100% of state median income
81%-170% of state median income
71%-80% of state median income
Less than 70% of state median income
131%-140% of state median income
141%-150% of state median income
151%-160% of state median income
ATTACHMENT 2

0-50th Percentile (Best)
90-100th Percentile (Worst)
80-90th Percentile
70-80th Percentile
60-70th Percentile
50-60th Percentile
Source: California Office of Enviromental Health Hazard Assessment Figure 3
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score Percentile
ATTACHMENT 2

0-25th Percentile (Worst)
75-100th Percentile (Best)
50-75th Percentile
25th-50th Percentile
Source: Public Health Alliance of Southern California
Figure 4
California Healthy Places Index by Census Tract
ATTACHMENT 2
CHAPTER 2
ATTACHMENT 2

Vision & Goals
ATTACHMENT 2

2.1 Vision
Make downtown and east Manteca
safer, more accessible, and more
inviting to residents, employees,
students, and visitors. Increase
opportunities for walking, bicycling,
and transit use in Manteca, especially
as the new ACE station is developed.

With these multimodal connections,
Manteca’s downtown can grow into
a more mixed-use environment with
housing, offices, shops, and schools.

The goals for this plan were developed
in support of this Vision and with
consideration of other local and
state plans and policies, desires
of local residents, and emerging
best practices and opportunities in
transportation and land use planning.

The City’s General Plan and Active
Transportation Plan have goals
supporting increases in bicycling,
walking and transit ridership.

2.2 Goals
This plan was created to help facilitate the following goals.

Improve the experience of walking and biking to the Manteca Transit Center to and from Downtown Manteca, local schools, and the Moffat Boulevard Gateway Opportunity site.

Action 1-1: Pursue improvements via placemaking, enhancing personal safety and comfort, addition of wayfinding, and new sidewalk and bikeway access points
Action 1-2: Support neighborhood retail and local business vitality through projects that connect to and through key destinations Action 1-3: Fill key gaps in the network by providing first/last mile connections to transit and reducing the stress level at crossings Action 1-4: Prioritize active transportation investments based on factors such as systemic risk, location near key destinations, and funding opportunities.
1 ATTACHMENT 2

Plan infrastructure improvements to support the changing nature of Downtown and east Manteca.

Action 2-1: Identify modifications to Moffat Boulevard to shift it from an industrial corridor to a bike, pedestrian, and transitfriendly corridor Action 2-2: Support future infill opportunities in east Manteca and Downtown
Action 2-3: Evaluate opportunities to mitigate impacts on the residential neighborhood and transit center that may arise from new development
Action 2-4: Enable children to walk and bike to local schools by providing safe and accessible routes to school
Action 2-5: Collaborate with key City stakeholders for larger funding efforts to complement infrastructure with non
infrastructure projects.
2 ATTACHMENT 2
CHAPTER 3
ATTACHMENT 2

Existing Conditions
ATTACHMENT 2

The full Existing Conditions reports are
available in Appendix A.

Downtown Manteca has been going
through a period of rapid infrastructure
change. Recent improvements to the study
area include the following:
• Addition of Class II bike lanes on
Moffat Boulevard from Main Street to
Spreckels Avenue
• Expanded footprint of Manteca
High School and a partial closure of
Garfield Avenue, creating two deadend sections of Garfield Avenue from Yosemite Avenue and Moffat
Boulevard
• Replacement or addition of ADAaccessible curb ramps at five intersections and addition of four
high-visibility crosswalks near
Manteca High School
• Class II bike lanes on Yosemite Avenue
from Main Street to Cottage Avenue/
Spreckels Avenue
• Crossing improvements on Yosemite
Avenue
An initiative to offer free transit rides to
high school students has successfully
increased ridership on some routes, with
plans to extend free service to middle
school students.

Manteca High School recently closed
Garfield Avenue to through traffic and
expanded its parking lot. The high school
is planning several major improvements,
including realigning the main entrance
of the high school to be along Moffat
Boulevard rather than Yosemite Avenue,
and reducing the points of entry to the
campus from 14 to 3.

3.1 Pedestrian & Bicycle
Facilities
Sidewalks are present on both sides of
all key arterials and in most residential
neighborhoods in the Downtown and east
Manteca near the Transit Center area, as
seen in Figure 5. Pedestrian connectivity
is generally high, though there are
several noticeable sidewalk gaps, such
as on S. Grand Avenue south of Yosemite
Avenue. Additionally, pedestrian crossing
issues persist on several major corridors
in the project area, including lack of
high-visibility crossings, long crossing
distances, and lack of driver yielding
behavior at existing crossing treatments.

The bicycle network (shown in Figure 6)
in east Manteca has a strong backbone
with the Tidewater Trail, a multi-use path
that runs parallel to Moffat Boulevard
through central and east Manteca. Bicycle
lanes were recently constructed on Moffat
Boulevard from Main Street to Spreckels
Avenue. Bicycle lanes are also present
on segments of Main Street, Yosemite
Avenue, and Powers Avenue, creating
a cohesive connection. However, direct
links between key destinations are still
lacking, and existing bicycle facilities have
high exposure to traffic, making them
unappealing to bicyclists.

ATTACHMENT 2

Figure 5
Existing Pedestrian Facilities Existing Crosswalk
Class I - Multi-Use Path
Existing Sidewalk
Manteca Transit Center
ATTACHMENT 2

Figure 6
Existing Bicycle Facilities
Class I - Multi-Use Path
Class III - Bicycle Route
Class II - Bicycle Lane
Manteca Transit Center
ATTACHMENT 2

3.2 Vehicle Operations
The arterials of Main Street, Yosemite
Avenue, and Moffat Boulevard all
experience traffic heavily reliant on
peak activity. The Yosemite Avenue and
Moffat Boulevard corridors are busiest
before and after classes are in session
at Manteca High School and Lincoln
Elementary School. Staggered school
schedules encourage consistent traffic
flow, but after-school vehicle queues
on Moffat Boulevard can extend from
Main Street to west of Garfield Avenue,
exacerbated by passing freight trains.

3.3 Transit Facilities &
Service
The Manteca Transit Center is the main
hub of public transit in the City, with all
bus routes operating from the Center. The
station currently has five operational bus
bays and over 100 parking spaces. Bus
service from the San Joaquin Regional
Transit District, Stanislaus Regional
Transit Authority, and Altamont Corridor
Express shuttle routes also serve the
Transit Center, as shown in Figure 7. The
upcoming Altamont Corridor Express
(ACE) train platform will be constructed
approximately 650 feet southwest of the
Transit Center.

Manteca Transit runs four main bus routes that connect residences to schools, shopping, and other services:
• Route 1 runs east-west, primarily running along Yosemite Avenue and Airport Way, with deviations onto Wawona Street and Fishback Road in west Manteca and Spreckels Avenue, Pestana Avenue and Vasconcellos Avenue in east Manteca. • Route 2 primarily serves west and south Manteca, running along S. Main Street, E.

Woodward Avenue, Atherton Drive, S Union Road, Daniels Street, and several other residential collector streets.
• Route 3 primarily serves north Manteca, running along N. Main Street, Louise Avenue, Northgate Drive, N Union Road, Yosemite Avenue, and several other residential collector streets.
• Route 4 runs along the perimeter of west Manteca, generally along Main Street, W.

Woodward Avenue, Airport Way, and Northgate Drive.

After-school vehicle queuing on Moffat Boulevard
ATTACHMENT 2

Figure 7
Existing Transit Facilities San Joaquin RTD Route
StanRTA Stockton Commuter
Manteca Transit Route
!
Manteca Transit Center
Park and Ride
Bus Stops
ATTACHMENT 2

3.4 Safety Analysis
Data from the Transportation Injury
Mapping System (TIMS) developed by UC
Berkeley’s Safe Transportation Research
& Education Center (SafeTREC) was
pulled for the area highlighted in Figure

8. Vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian
collisions that occurred between January
2015 through December 2020 were
analyzed. Analysis of collision data of this
six-year period in the study area revealed
the following:
• Over the six-year period, a total of 103
collisions occurred, for an average of
17 collisions per year.
—Of these, four resulted in a victim
being seriously injured and none
resulted in fatality.
• The most common primary collision
factors were:
—Unsafe speed (27%)
—Vehicle right of way violation
(24%)
—Traffic signals and signs (12%)
• The most common types of collision
were:
—Rear end (33%)
—Broadside (34%)
• 9% of collisions involved a pedestrian
• 82% of collisions occurred at an
intersection
• 34% of collisions occurred during the
PM peak period (3 PM to 7 PM)
Almost one third of all collisions studied
were reported to be caused by unsafe
speed, commonly associated with rearend collisions. Another one fourth of collisions were caused by vehicle right
of way violations, commonly associated
with broadside collisions. Engineering
countermeasures can assist with reducing
driver speeds and maintain orderly
operations at intersections, which can
help reduce the frequency and severity of
these collisions.

During the study period, crashes steadily
increased from 2015 to 2019. A sharp
decrease in collisions occurred during
the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic
associated with decreases in vehicle
travel. Provisional data from 2021 showed
a slight uptick in collisions, with increases
in traffic along the study corridors.

Collisions from 2021 generally followed the
same collision factor and type trends as
those from before 2020.

3.5 Infill Opportunities
Assessment
An assessment of land use, development,
and demographics in Downtown and
east Manteca was used to evaluate
opportunities for infill development (see
Appendix A for the full report from De
Novo Planning Group).

The Manteca Draft General Plan envisions
growth with a range of uses in the
Downtown Planning Area. As Figure 9
shows, several vacant and underutilized
opportunity sites exist in the Downtown
Manteca Planning Area, including parcels
along Grant Avenue and Yosemite Avenue.

These sites provide opportunities for
residential, mixed-use, commercial,
and industrial development in the
Planning Area. Approximately 749 new
dwelling units would be accommodated
under the proposed Draft General Plan,
including 41 single family units and 708
multifamily units in residential, mixed use,
commercial and industrial designations.

An increase in housing availability and
new residents would enhance the need to
provide transportation amenities so as to
not worsen congestion.

Notably, the unincorporated “opportunity
zone” bounded by Bessemer Avenue,
Moffat Boulevard, and Industrial Park
Drive has the potential to become a
transit-oriented development through
the creation of a pedestrian-oriented,
mixed-use community to those hoping to
regularly utilize ACE train service.

ATTACHMENT 2

Figure 8
Vehicle, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Collisions,
2015-2020
Pedestrian
Vehicle
Bicycle
Collision Type:

Study Segment
ATTACHMENT 2

Figure 9
Vacant and Underutilized Opportunity Sites
(De Novo) UV120
Unincorporated
San Joaquin County

CENTER ST

YOSEMITE AVE

MAIN ST

NORTH ST

WAWONA ST

PARK AVE

VEACH AVE

ATHERTON DR
COTTA

OREGON ST

LOCUST AVE

LUPTON ST

TAHOE ST

EDYTHE ST

VAN RYN AVE

WILLOW AVE

POWERS AVE

COWELL AVE
SONO
RA AVE

KENT ST

NORMAN DR

INDUSTRIAL PARK

FREMONT ST

SEQUOIA AVE

TRINITY ST

MARIE AVE

MARIN ST

STOCKTON ST

MISSION RIDGE DR

STEWART ST

MICHIGAN AVE

EDWARD AVE

NEVADA ST

MYLNAR AV

MOFFAT BLVD

MARTHA ST

YOLO ST

FLORES AVE
FIR ST

BRISTOW ST
V

DYER AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHAMPAGNE LN ACACIA AVE

PINE ST

LINCOLN AVE
OAK ST

PERIMETER DR

VANDERBILT CIR

SOUTH ST

CHENIN BLANC DR

WALNUT AV

CALIFORNIA AVE

MIKESELL ST

SPRECKELS
AVE

POPLAR AV
CH
ARLES

GRANT AVE
AVE

SHERMAN AVE

MELLONAVE

MAPLE AVE

SYCAMORE AVE

ALMOND AVE

LASSEN AVE

GARFIELD AVE

QUINTAL RD

VIRGINIA ST

MARION ST
CARSON
AVE

CARNEGIE ST

WETMORE ST
LEGEND
UV120

CENTER ST
YOSEMI

MAIN ST

WAWONA ST

PARK AVE

VEACH AVE

OREGON ST

LOCUST AVE

LUPTON ST

TAHOE ST

EDYTHE ST

WILLOW AVE
SONO
RA AVE

KENT ST

SEQUOIA AVE

STOCKTON ST

MISSION RIDGE DR

MICHIGAN AVE

NEVADA ST

MARTHA ST

EL DORADO ST

CHAMPAGNE LN
OAK ST

PERIMETER DR

SOUTH ST

CHENIN BLANC DR
ALM

QUINTAL RD

VIRGINIA ST

MARION ST
CARSON
AVE
WETMO
V
LEGEND
City Limits
Vacant and Underutilized Parcels
City Limits
Vacant and Underutilized Parcels
ATTACHMENT 2

Tidewater Trail crossing Yosemite Avenue
Manteca Transit Center bus bays
Connection to Tidewater Trail at Garfield Avenue
ATTACHMENT 2

Moffat Boulevard & Sherman Avenue Crossing
Vacant lot across from Manteca Transit Center
Moffat Boulevard near S. Lincoln Avenue
ATTACHMENT 2
CHAPTER 4
ATTACHMENT 2

Relationship to Other
Plans & Programs
ATTACHMENT 2

This Plan builds on various existing plans and programs.

Key takeaways of these other plans and programs,
including supporting goals, policies, and projects, are included below.

Notably, the Manteca Public Facilities Implementation
Plan (PFIP) and Manteca General Plan do not include any plans to widen Main Street, Yosemite Avenue, and Moffat Boulevard within the study area.

4.1 City of Manteca Active
Transportation Plan
The Manteca Active Transportation Plan (ATP) (2020)
demonstrates the desire for low-stress facilities for
pedestrians and bicyclists in Manteca and identifies
transportation facility improvements throughout the City.

The Plan proposes crossing and intersection
improvements, wayfinding, lighting, and other programs
to encourage active transportation, as well as the
prioritization, costs, and funding of implementation.

A full map of planned facilities from the Manteca ATP is shown in Figure 10. In east and central Manteca, bike
lanes are recommended on segments of Center Street,
Main Street, Yosemite Avenue, and Garfield Street.

Crossing improvements are recommended along Moffat
Boulevard, Yosemite Avenue, and Center Street. New
sidewalks are recommended on segments of Spreckels
Avenue, Grant Avenue, and in the industrial area south of the UPRR tracks. This Plan updates and expands upon
many of the facilities planned in the ATP.

4.2 City of Manteca Traffic Calming
Program
The main goals of the Manteca Traffic Calming Program
(2018) are to define a process for neighborhoods to
sponsor traffic calming plans and identify funding
sources, and provide guidance for the types of traffic
calming measures that may be considered.

Recommended traffic calming measures include lane
striping, speed limit signs, high-visibility crosswalks, speed humps/lumps, raised crosswalks, bulb-outs,
traffic circles, pedestrian islands, chicanes, and street closures. Several roadway segments within the study
area are likely eligible for the Traffic Calming program.

4.3 East Manteca Neighborhood
Improvements Memorandum
The East Manteca Neighborhood Improvements
Memorandum (November 2021) recommends
enhancements to the walking, biking, and rolling
environment in the study area through changes in
intersection geometry, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and traffic calming infrastructure. Intersection crossing recommendations relevant to the study corridors of
Main Street, Yosemite Avenue, and Moffat Boulevard
were as follows:

Upgrade crosswalk markings, install leading pedestrian
interval (LPI), and/or consider right-turn-on-red
restrictions at Main St & Alameda St, Main St & Center St, Main St & Yosemite Ave, and Yosemite Ave & Powers Ave
ATTACHMENT 2

Figure 10
Planned Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Source: Manteca Active Transportation Plan
Planned Class I Bike Path
Planned Class II Buffered Bike Lane
Planned Class II Bike Lane
Manteca Transit Center
Planned Crossing Improvement
Planned Class IV Separated Bikeway
Planned Class III Bike Route
Planned Sidewalk
ATTACHMENT 2

4.4 ACE Extension Projects and the
Manteca ACE Station
The Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) has several current projects under its Valley Rail Program, with the overarching plan of extending ACE service northward to Sacramento and southward to Merced, as well as the expansion of the San Joaquins train service between the San Joaquin Valley and Sacramento. Projects include the ACE Extension Lathrop to Ceres/Merced Project and the Valley Rail Sacramento
Extension Project. A map of the ACE extension to Ceres and Merced is shown in Figure 11.

As of August 2022, a 30% design plan for the Manteca ACE Station has been completed. The station/platform is
scheduled to be constructed in 2023 with one train in each direction stopping at the station daily after opening.

Additional trains will be incrementally added.

The proposed site plan of the Manteca ACE station and
platform includes the following design features:
• The ACE train platform, including a concrete pad between tracks for the southbound train and a landscaped
outcropping with pedestrian paths for the northbound train • Continuation of the Tidewater Trail, diverted for the train platform
• A total of 152 parking stalls, 34 on city property and 118 on San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission property
• Vehicular connection to the Manteca Transit Center parking lot
Upgrade or install pedestrian crosswalk markings and
advanced yield signs at Yosemite Ave & Grant Ave, Yosemite Ave & Sherman Ave, Yosemite Ave & Garfield Ave, Yosemite Ave & Washington Ave, Yosemite Ave & Sheridan Ave,
Moffatt Blvd & Grant Ave, Moffatt Blvd & Lincoln Ave,
Moffatt Blvd & Sherman Ave, Moffatt Blvd & Garfield Ave, Moffatt Blvd & Powers Ave
Install rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) and
advanced stop/yield lines at Moffatt Blvd & Garfield Ave, Moffat Blvd & Powers Ave
Tidewater Bikeway access connections at Moffat Blvd &
Sherman Ave, Moffatt Blvd & Powers Ave
Improve streetscaping – widen sidewalks, add trees and
landscaping to separate pedestrians from vehicle traffic at Moffatt Blvd, on the north side from Main St to Garfield Ave and south side from east of Lincoln Ave to Garfield Ave Road diet (reduce travel lanes from four to three) at Main St from Louise Ave to Wetmore St
Areawide recommendations for the east Manteca
Neighborhood included safe routes to transit, pedestrian scale lighting, ADA improvements, school zone signing and striping, bicycle racks, and shade trees and maintenance.

A variation of most of the intersection improvements and streetscaping recommendations from this memorandum
are incorporated into this Plan.

ATTACHMENT 2

Figure 11
Map of ACE Extension to Ceres and Merced
Source: https://acerail.com/wp-content/uploads/Project-Map-04212021.pdf ATTACHMENT 2
CHAPTER 5
ATTACHMENT 2

Community Input
& Collaboration
ATTACHMENT 2

5.1 Introduction
From March 2022 to December 2022,
the City of Manteca, in partnership with
CivicWell, Catholic Charities Diocese
of Stockton (CCDS), and Fehr & Peers
engaged community members and
leaders, businesses, and decisionmakers from the City, regional, and technical agencies to inform this study.

Together, the Project Team conducted
extensive stakeholder and community
engagement to identify strategies to
improve safety and promote active modes
of transportation, support first/last-mile
connections to transit, and promote infill
development and revitalization in the
area in the vicinity of the Transit Center.

Engagement Activities included the
following:
• Advisory Group Meetings:
— March 30, 2022
— August 10, 2022
— November 9, 2022
• Community Design Charrette: August
9 – 11, 2022
— Community Workshop
— Focus Group Meetings and
Presentations
— Audit of the Manteca High School
Student Drop-off
• Pop-Up Activities:
— Watermelon Fair: June 2022
— Coffee Hour with Manteca
Chamber of Commerce: August
2022
— Pumpkin Festival: October 2022
— Manteca High School and Buffalo
Brigade: November 2022
• Draft Plan Workshop and Planning
Commission Meeting: January 19, 2023
• Council Meeting Approval: TBD

5.2 Advisory Group Meetings
Community engagement kicked off with
the formation of an Advisory Group,
comprised of City of Manteca staff,
Manteca Transit staff, Caltrans, Manteca
Unified School District, Stanislaus
Regional Transit Authority (StanRTA), San
Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG),
San Joaquin Bicycle Coalition, San Joaquin
Regional Transit District (SJRTD), and
Altamont-Corridor Express/San Joaquin
Regional Rail Commission (ACE/SJRRC).

Although community-based organizations
Love Inc. Manteca, the Manteca Mural
Society, the Millennial Advisory
Committee, and Happy Wheelers were
invited to advisory group meetings, they
did not attend. Alternatively, Project Team
staff reached out via email, phone calls,
during the charrette and through pop-up
events to engage and obtain feedback
from community-based organizations.

The information below further describes
community stakeholder meetings and
engagement activities throughout the
project. Advisory group meetings included
the following:
• March 30, 2022: Virtual Meeting:

Reviewed draft existing conditions
findings and the outreach and
engagement strategy for feedback.
• August 10, 2022: In-Person Meeting:

City and regional agency staff
reviewed draft recommendations
coming from community engagement
to-date and day one of the charrette.

The Advisory Group strategized ways
in which ACE station improvements
could be better aligned with the
needs of community members,
particularly adjacent residents and
Manteca High School students.
• November 9, 2022: Hybrid In-Person
and Virtual Meeting: Preliminary
improvements and strategies
for project implementation were
presented for feedback.

ATTACHMENT 2

5.3 Community Design
Charrette
The Project Team hosted a Community
Design Charrette that took place from
August 9 – 11, 2022 at the Manteca Transit
Center. Approximately 50 people attended
the charrette representing local agencies,
business owners, emergency services,
local community-based organizations, and
nearby residents. The charrette focused
on building upon community engagement
to-date to gather feedback that would
shape preliminary recommendations.

Preliminary recommendations would later
be used to gather additional community
feedback through additional pop-up
events and in the third Advisory Group
Meeting. Key community engagement
activities during the Community Design
Charrette included the following:

Day 1 • Focus group meeting with the Chamber of Commerce Board • Observations of Manteca High School student drop-off traffic conditions
• Community Design Workshop
featuring a presentation, activities,
and discussions with the broader
public Presentation to community
members at the Community Design
Workshop
ATTACHMENT 2

Day 2
• Project team working session
to develop preliminary
recommendations
• Focus group meetings with Manteca
Unified School District and City of
Manteca Staff including the Planning,
Engineering, Public Works, Police, and
Fire Departments
Focus group meeting with the
Chamber of Commerce Board
ATTACHMENT 2

Day 3
• Focus group meeting with Manteca
High School Principal and other staff
• Presentation and focus group meeting
with the Manteca Rotary Club
Notes from Focus Group brainstorming
ATTACHMENT 2

5.4 Publicity
All public events were advertised in both English
and Spanish and advertised through the project
website, flyering at public locations, door-to-door
outreach to residents and business owners in the
downtown area, emails to advisory group members,
and outreach to social media.

5.5 Pop-Up Activities
The Project Team led a series of pop-up activities
at key community events that attracted diverse
stakeholders from the local community and those
who live outside Manteca who visit or conduct
business in Downtown Manteca. Generally, two
phases of pop-up activities were conducted—the
first to gather general feedback, the second to
collect feedback on preliminary recommendations
before finalizing recommendations in the Draft Plan.

General Feedback
Watermelon Fair – June 2022
Community members marked-up a large aerial
map and filled out a brief survey. The Project
Team provided further context about the Project,
collected contact information to distribute future
materials, and gave out freebies.

Community Design Workshop Flier
ATTACHMENT 2

Coffee Hour with Manteca Chamber
of Commerce – August 2022
The Project Team brought informational
flyers, talked about the Project, and
received feedback from participants.

Manteca High School and Buffalo
Brigade – November 2022
The Project Team led a presentation
and preference online polling activity
with student leadership. Four students
participated in video interviews, further
described below.

Feedback on Preliminary
Recommendations
Pumpkin Festival – October 2022
The Project Team had posters of major
recommendations in the downtown area
and community members were asked
to provide feedback. Large images of
potential improvements at the Moffatt
Opportunity Site were displayed
including recreational amenities,
gateways, different housing densities and
mix of uses. Community members could
vote on their preferred improvements
using dots.

Manteca High School Buffalo Brigade
students taking an online poll
ATTACHMENT 2

5.6 Videos
CCDS developed a series of videos that documented
existing conditions and community feedback. Videos
included the following:
• A virtual walking audit of the project area,
particularly near Downtown Manteca, the
Manteca Transit Center, and Manteca High School
• Traffic congestion and hazards to students
walking and bicycling near Manteca High School
during student drop-off
• Community engagement activities
• Interviews of high school students during the
Manteca High School Buffalo Brigade pop-up
event
Manteca High School Buffalo Brigade student interviews video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LZZoY-y0iQ
Downtown Manteca walk audit video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POLOek-i46I
ATTACHMENT 2

5.7 Major Themes
As a result of the community engagement process across all events and activities, major themes heard from stakeholders included the following:
• Safety concerns for pedestrians walking along and crossing major corridors such as Grant Avenue, Moffat Boulevard and Yosemite Avenue.
• Lack of amenities in the Downtown area and along the
Tidewater Trail such as art, trees, and lighting.
• Perception of safety issues in the Downtown area and along the Tidewater Trail, particularly as a result of the nearby unhoused population. Desire was expressed for improved
services for the unhoused population at Sycamore Avenue near the Manteca Public Library to discourage camping
closer to Downtown Manteca.
• Desire for more diverse businesses and amenities to attract more visitors to Downtown Manteca. Particularly;
—Encourage diversity in businesses, restaurants, and
entertainment venues to activate the community
and create ‘night life.’ Currently, there are similar
businesses such as tattoo shops, daytime-only
businesses, automotive shops, etc.
—Create a sense of place through improvements to
Downtown. Create a Local Businesses assistance or
"revitalization program" for facade improvements. This
could include activating and beautifying areas currently considered ‘eyesores’ such as alleyways, parking lots,
etc. around Downtown and near Manteca High School.

Improvements should be low maintenance and allow
for passive or active spaces with recreational features, parks, and temporary event space.
—Desire for gateway features to the Downtown area such
as beautification or gateway arches installed at key
entry ways to the Downtown area such as at Yosemite
Avenue and Main Street or along Moffat Boulevard near
the Manteca Transit Center.
—Desire for bicycle amenities such as bicycle lockers in Downtown Manteca and the Manteca Transit Center.
• Concerns regarding traffic congestion and lack of parking impacting Manteca High School and residential areas as a result of the new ACE train station at the Manteca Transit Center.
• Manteca High School students seldom walk or bike to school due to distance from their homes and safety concerns,
particularly at key locations:
—The intersection of Moffat Boulevard and Sherman
Avenue
—The intersection of Moffat Boulevard and Garfield
Avenue
—Spreckels Avenue (between Yosemite Avenue & Norman
Drive) is too wide
—The intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Powers Avenue
—The intersection of Yosemite Avenue and Powers Avenue
ATTACHMENT 2
CHAPTER 6
ATTACHMENT 2

Project Development
ATTACHMENT 2

The plan was developed to implement
the goals outlined in Chapter 2; namely,
to increase connectivity and close gaps in
the network, improve access to schools
and local businesses, enhance safety in a
community disproportionately impacted
by collisions, and foster collaboration
between key stakeholders to create
projects. Projects included in this plan
were developed based on a variety of
factors including the following:
• Recommendations from previous local
efforts identified in plans from the
City of Manteca
• Feedback from key stakeholders and
the community
• Proximity to key destinations such as
the Manteca Transit Center, Manteca
High School, Lincoln Elementary
School, the Tidewater Trail, etc.
• Collision history
• Location within impacted
communities as identified by the
Healthy Places Index, CalEnviroScreen,
American Community Survey data,
and the California Department of
Education
• Ease of constructability of project
Each of these factors were identified by
the project team, key stakeholders, and
the public as criteria needing to be met
when identifying a robust project list that
includes five near-term priority projects.

The planned bicycle and pedestrian
networks and associated projects were
shared for public review during a second
phase of outreach activities (detailed in
Chapter 5) and subsequently updated
based on the community feedback
received.

6.1 Overview of
Improvements
Future walking, bicycling, and transit
trips will depend on a number of
factors such as the availability of wellconnected facilities, location, density, and type of future land development. With
appropriate facilities in place, the number
of people walking, biking, or taking transit
to work, school, or to shop could increase
above its current rate.

Once recommendations are implemented,
the network will provide safer and
more direct travel paths throughout the
City. Improvements are in line with the
following criteria:

Connection to Activity Centers:

Manteca High School, Lincoln Elementary
School, Manteca Transit Center, the
Manteca Public Library, parks, open space,
and neighborhood commercial districts
should be accessible by a combination of
transit, foot, and bicycle. Residents should
be able to walk or bike from home to local
destinations.

Comfort & Access:

The system should provide safe and
equitable access from all areas of the
City to both commute and recreation
destinations and should be designed for
people of all levels of ability.

Purpose:

Each link in the system should serve
one or a combination of these purposes:
encourage bicycling or walking for
recreation, improve facilities for
commuting, and provide a connection
to transit service (Manteca Transit and
ACE train service). On street bicycle
facilities should be continuous and direct,
and off-street facilities should have a
minimal number of arterial crossings and
uncontrolled intersections.

ATTACHMENT 2

Crossing and Intersection
Improvements
Several crossing improvements are
recommended, either as standalone
spot improvements or as part of broader
projects to increase safety and comfort
for pedestrians, as well as bicyclists at
Tidewater trail crossings. The decision
to install a marked crosswalk at an
uncontrolled location should be based on
engineering judgement, engineering study,
or other considerations as appropriate
for each individual case. Some of these
considerations may include the following:
• Pedestrian travel demand, typically 20
pedestrians per hour or more
• Service of a facility or use that
generates higher pedestrian travel or
serves a vulnerable population (e.g.,
children, elderly, or persons with
disabilities). This may include schools,
recreation/community centers,
libraries, parks, and trails. Service of
such facilities can justify pedestrian
improvements to areas with a demand
of fewer than 20 pedestrians per hour.
• Sight distance requirements, using
appropriate stopping sight distance
guidance from AASHTO’s A Policy on
Geometric Design for Highways and
Streets or Caltrans’ Highway Design
Manual
• Delay to pedestrian movements
• Distance to nearest crossing
• Guidance of the California Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD)
Additional improvements for crossings
at uncontrolled locations, such as the
use of high-visibility markings, median
refuges, and curb extensions, should
be considered as appropriate. Further
design guidance on the determination
of crossing treatments can be found in
the Federal Highway Administration Safe
Transportation for Every Pedestrian (STEP)
Guide³.

Signalized intersections are typically
large with multiple lanes of traffic in each
direction, especially where arterial and/
or collector roadways meet. At these
locations, crosswalks are typically marked,
but have long crossing distances. In some
cases, intersections may have slip lanes,
further lengthening crossing distances
for pedestrians and bicyclists; these slip
lanes are not signalized, allowing vehicles
to make these turns at higher speeds.

At all-way stop controlled intersections,
vehicles stop and give the right-of-way
to pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the
street.

Some all-way stop controlled intersections
do not have marked crosswalks. Vehicles
may encroach into the intersection at
these locations, impeding the pedestrian
travel way and cause sight distance issues
for those crossing.

Recommendations to enhance safety for
pedestrians and bicyclists at controlled
crossings include the following:
• Ensuring pedestrian walk speeds
of 3.5 feet/second at signalized
crossings, and walk speeds as low as

2.5 feet/second at select locations,
such as near schools, parks, and
senior centers
• Installing countdown signals at
signalized intersections, where
missing
• Installing advanced stop bars in
advance of each crosswalk
• Enhance accessibility with directional
curb ramps (two per corner) instead
of diagonal ramps and ensuring that
all are ADA compliant
• Marked crosswalks on all legs of the
intersection that serve a key desire
line
³ Federal Highway Administration. Safe
Transportation for Every Pedestrian (STEP).
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/step/
resources/
ATTACHMENT 2

• Median refuge islands and
thumbnails, as width and path of
turn maneuvers allow
• Unobstructed sightlines
• Far-side bus stops, instead of
locations on the near-side of the
intersection
• Minimized cycle lengths at signalized
intersections
• Protected turn phasing across
marked crosswalks
• Installing pedestrian and traffic preemption
• Installing bike boxes at signalized
intersections, cohesive with
surrounding bicycle facilities
Supportive Infrastructure and
Programs
To ensure comfortable trips for
bicyclists and pedestrians, supporting
infrastructure is needed at intersections
and along roadways to make the trip safe
and comfortable for all users, wayfinding
is needed to help users reach and
identify destinations, and for bicyclists,
secure bicycle parking is needed at
destinations.

Wayfinding
Wayfinding signage can be used on
both bicycle and pedestrian facilities to
guide users to connecting facilities and
destinations. Good wayfinding signs can
also encourage bicyclists and pedestrians
to visit local businesses. These signs
provide the most value when installed
at trail junctions, intersections of key
bicycling and walking routes, and at
navigation decision points. Chapter 9B of
the California MUTCD provides guidance
on sign design and installation.

Wayfinding signage has been installed
along the Tidewater Trail, though much
of it is currently in disrepair. The City
should work to update existing signage or
install additional signage directing users
to transit facilities, businesses districts,
schools, and community facilities. The City
could partner with local businesses or art
groups to sponsor signage. Including the
distance in miles to nearby destinations
on signs can encourage additional walking
and bicycling to those destinations.

Street Amenities
Sidewalk amenities such as benches,
shade structures (man-made or street
trees), parklets, public art, and other
landscaping features make a location
more inviting and comfortable. These
amenities allow pedestrians and Tidewater Trail
ATTACHMENT 2

bicyclists to take breaks throughout their
journey, provide shade throughout the trip,
and create a welcoming space. Potential
locations for these treatments include at the
Yosemite Avenue/Manteca Avenue/Pierce
Avenue intersection, along S. Grant Avenue,
and along Moffat Boulevard, as discussed in
more detail below.

The Manteca Chamber of Commerce could
consider a program to encourage business
façade updates through small grants, which
could also make downtown streets more
inviting and encourage more walking.

Bicycle Parking
Having a secure location to store your
bike once you reach your destination is
an important part of making a bicycle trip
feasible. Bicycle parking is typically installed
by developers as part of residential and
commercial projects. The City’s Municipal
Code outlines bicycle parking requirements
for multi-family, public and civic facilities,
and retail commercial, office, and industrial
land uses. Bicycle parking should be highly
visible and conveniently located. They can
also be considered as an opportunity for
public art.

Near bicycle parking locations at major
hubs (such as the Manteca Transit Center
and Library Park), the installation of “fix-it” Bike corral with mural Source: SFMTA, https://www.sfmta.com/blog/our-newest-bike-corral-work-art stations would allow bicyclists to quickly
repair their bicycle if needed. Repair
stations promote bicycle commuting
and provide cyclists with amenities to
make their experience safer and more
comfortable.

ATTACHMENT 2
CHAPTER 7
ATTACHMENT 2

Recommended Projects
ATTACHMENT 2

Given the scope of projects within this plan,
implementation will take several years to complete.

Implementation of each project is dependent upon the
availability and acquisition of funding.

Projects requiring land acquisition, utility relocation, or substantial drainage modifications may require extra
time to implement. Detailed feasibility and design
studies based on local conditions will also be necessary for the implementation of many projects.

Implementation of the major infrastructural aspects of
this plan is expected to occur
• through active transportation projects and grants
pursued to implement this plan;
• in conjunction with maintenance and improvement
projects, such as pavement reconstruction or
sidewalk rehabilitation projects; and
• in conjunction with adjacent land development
projects.

Lower-cost, non-large infrastructure projects like
façade improvements, street tree plantings, or bike rack installation program could be funded and implemented
via other funding sources in the nearer term.

Future phases of projects in this plan will be reported by staff to the City Council and on the City’s website.

Costs and Funding
This plan includes a wide range of projects with
varying degrees of cost. Planning level estimates
of probable infrastructure costs were developed
to give a general idea of the anticipated
magnitude of funding for each proposed
project. The cost estimates were based solely
on anticipated construction costs and do not
include other typical soft costs associated with
project development, environmental clearance,
and design. See Appendix B for cost estimates.

Multiple federal, state, regional, and local
organizations provide funding for pedestrian
and bicycle projects and programs. A
summary of funding sources is provided in the
Implementation section below.

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

PROJECT
1 Moffat Blvd
Manteca Transit Center
ACE Station
Multimodal Downtown
Connections and
Placemaking

Grant Ave
Main St
Yosemite Ave
Tidewater Trail
ATTACHMENT 2

Project Background
Downtown Manteca serves as the central business district of the City and is home to local business, restaurants, and public facilities. The main arterial through downtown Manteca is Yosemite Avenue. The corridor has two vehicle lanes, street parking, street trees, furniture, and ADA-compatible curb ramps, making it a relatively comfortable place to walk, despite some areas with narrow sidewalks. Many people also access downtown via Main Street, a three- to five-lane northsouth arterial with sidewalks. Despite existing sidewalks, the pedestrian and bicyclist environment can be uncomfortable due to the high volume and speed of vehicle traffic.

Just south of Yosemite Avenue along Main Street, the Manteca Transit Center serves as the main hub for fixed route bus service in Manteca. Grant Avenue, a low-traffic corridor with direct connection to the Manteca Transit Center, is a prime candidate for active transportation improvements. Infill development and placemaking opportunities along Grant
Avenue could also enhance the environment for pedestrians and bicyclists.

This project would update pedestrian crossings, sidewalks, and bicycle access for people walking and biking to and from Downtown using the S. Grant Avenue corridor and the intersection of Manteca Avenue/Pierce Avenue/Yosemite
Avenue.

Key Challenges
• People walking and biking between the Manteca Transit Center, the future Ace Train Station and Downtown
Manteca lack low-stress, direct routes.
• S. Grant Avenue between Yosemite Avenue and Moffat
Avenue, a key corridor for access between the transit
and downtown, features disconnected sidewalks and no
bicycle facilities.
• Existing crosswalks at uncontrolled locations lack safety enhancements and do not correspond with pedestrian
desire lines between Shields-Reid Community Center
and Verde Elementary.
• Existing narrow bike lanes alongside high-speed
traffic are uncomfortable and present safety concerns,
especially for children and less experienced bike riders.

A high level of exposure to vehicle traffic results in a harsh and challenging environment for people walking
and biking to neighborhood destinations.
• Many existing sidewalks are narrow and do not provide a comfortable walking experience for pedestrians.
• At the Tidewater Trail/Yosemite Avenue intersection,
the continuity of the Tidewater Trail is disrupted due to the triangular intersection configuration.

ATTACHMENT 2

Project Features
• On Grant Avenue, transform the road into a bike boulevard with shared-lane markings (“sharrows”). Construct a shared use path on west side of the street. Provide shade trees and landscaping to mitigate summer heat and provide a more pleasant walking environment. Improve lighting to enhance perceived safety. Add a crosswalk and stop sign at the approach from Otis Street to prioritize pedestrians traveling on Grant Street. Consider the addition of a stop sign at the Mikesell Street approach.
• Reconstruct the intersection of Manteca Avenue, Pierce Avenue, Yosemite Avenue, and the Tidewater Trail. Provide a high-visibility multi-use trail crossing on the east and north legs. Transform Pierce Avenue into a pedestrian plaza and realign the Tidewater Trail.
• Provide additional wayfinding signage to direct the public toward the Manteca Transit Center from Downtown Manteca and the new ACE train station.
• Add more street amenities and placemaking elements throughout the area southeast of Downtown such as public art, shade trees, benches, and gateway arches to create a more inviting and attractive atmosphere. • Upgrade or provide new street lighting to improve nighttime visibility.

Along with street and intersection improvements, updates to the surrounding land uses would help connect transit with downtown. For example, in the short-term, the empty parcel across from the Transit Center along Grant could transform into a weekly food truck hub with picnic benches and tents. Long term, the site would be another prime location for a mixed-use, transit-oriented development.

Construction Cost Estimates
Yosemite Ave & Manteca Ave Improvements
Subtotal = $615,000
Contingency = $185,000
Grand Total = $800,000
Construction Cost Estimates
Grant Ave & Moffat Blvd Improvements
Subtotal = $675,000
Contingency = $200,000
Grand Total = $875,000
ATTACHMENT 2

Example food truck ‘pod’ and outdoor seating
Source: Tidbit Food Farm and Garden
https://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/ct-portlands-best-food-carts-travel-0319-20170301-story.html ATTACHMENT 2

Figure 12
Yosemite Avenue & Manteca Avenue Intersection Improvements ATTACHMENT 2

Figure 13
Grant Avenue Roadway Improvements
ATTACHMENT 2

PROJECT
2 Manteca Transit Center
ACE Station
Moffat Blvd
Moffat Boulevard
Enhancements

Main St
Lincoln Ave
Sherman Ave
Garfield Ave
Grant Ave
Powers Ave
ATTACHMENT 2

Project Background
A key corridor in central Manteca, Moffat
Boulevard connects Main Street to State Route
99, providing access to Downtown, the Manteca
Transit Center, multiple schools, the Tidewater
Trail, and industrial uses. Manteca High School
is planning to change its main entry points
from Yosemite Avenue to Moffat Boulevard
which will provide more direct access for
Manteca High School students that ride
Manteca Transit buses. The planned Manteca
ACE Station will be located just southeast of
the existing Transit Center, with a driveway at
Sherman Avenue across from the high school.

Bike lanes were recently added to the two-lane
corridor, but are rarely used due to the high
volume and speed of the traffic.

A road reconfiguration should be implemented
to upgrade existing bike lanes to a lowstress bicycle facility. Pedestrian crossings along the corridor should be improved to
create a comfortable environment to access
transit, schools, residences, businesses, and
recreational opportunities.

Key Challenges
• Long stretches of the street do not have traffic controls, allowing vehicles to pick up speed and do not support a comfortable walking and biking environment.
• Due to the skewed intersections along the corridor, visibility for turning vehicles can be poor.
• There are a high number of existing driveways along the corridor. • Students, parents, and administrators have indicated traffic safety concerns. This has been reinforced by several bicycle and pedestrian collisions in the past decade, with hot spots at intersections and uncontrolled crosswalk locations.
• Narrow bike lanes near high-speed traffic are stressful for bicycling and may not be appropriate for children or new bike riders. Students who bike report feeling unsafe on the designated lanes and prefer to use sidewalks or the Tidewater Trail.
• Truck traffic from neighboring industrial land uses creates a high stress environment for walking and bicycling.
• At the Moffat Boulevard/Main Street intersection, long crossing distances and significant conflicts with turning vehicles exist at signalized crosswalks, presenting safety concerns.
• Poor sight distances at intersections, as well as the mix, volume, and speed of traffic create unsafe crossing conditions, such as for students utilizing the Transit Center to get to Manteca High School. • The driveway for the new ACE Station will be located at the Moffat Boulevard/Sherman Avenue intersection. The heightened level of traffic may create more stressful and unsafe conditions for all road users.

ATTACHMENT 2

Project Features
• In the near-term, reconfigure Moffat Boulevard between Main Street and Spreckels Avenue to provide buffered
bikeways by removing the underutilized street parking.

Long-term, consider adding a two-way left turn lane to
reduce left-turn conflicts between drivers and those using bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
• Provide traffic calming measures along the corridor for speed reduction, such as speed feedback signs or chicanes at mid-block locations between Grant Avenue and Powers
Avenue.
• On both sides of the street, add street trees, landscaping, and other public amenities to enhance the walking and
biking environment.
• At the Moffat Boulevard/Main Street intersection, square the westbound approach, shorten crossing distances and
upgrade the signal to include leading pedestrian intervals.

Consider the addition of protected intersection elements on the south leg for the Tidewater Trail crossing.
• Enhance existing uncontrolled marked crosswalk locations at Lincoln Avenue, Garfield Avenue, and Powers Avenue
by constructing curb extensions to decrease crossing
distances. Add high visibility crosswalks, clear sightlines, and restrict parking near intersections to increase
pedestrian visibility. Consider the addition of Rapid
Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFB).

S. Sherman Avenue & Moffat Boulevard Intersection
• Convene with San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission
(SJRRC) to select appropriate intersection control and
design at the Sherman Avenue intersection. Ensure
pedestrian and bicyclist access and crossing needs are
met.
• Because Garfield Avenue was closed to through traffic, there may be a future need for a bike facility and
pedestrian access improvements on Sherman Avenue.

This should be addressed as Manteca High School
continues planned updates to its campus.

Construction Cost Estimates
Main St & Moffat Blvd Improvements
Subtotal = $580,000
Contingency = $175,000
Grand Total = $755,000
ATTACHMENT 2

Figure 14
Moffat Boulevard & Main Street Intersection Improvements ATTACHMENT 2
Yosemite Avenue
Safety Improvements

PROJECT
3

Manteca Transit Center
ACE Station
Yosemite Ave
Sherman Ave
Garfield Ave
ATTACHMENT 2

Project Background
Yosemite Avenue is a main east-west arterial spanning the entire City of Manteca. It is the main transit and commercial corridor in Manteca. East of downtown Manteca, Yosemite Avenue serves Manteca High School and Lincoln Elementary School. Near these schools, Yosemite Avenue is a highly traveled corridor with two vehicle travel lanes, a two-way left-turn lane, on-street parking, bike lanes, sidewalks, and curb ramps. It is a high-injury corridor for both pedestrians and bicyclists, with a history of severe injury collisions.

Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) are installed at Sherman Avenue and Garfield Avenue, but driver yielding has decreased since their original installation.

The project would include multimodal intersection
improvements to increase safety and comfort at
intersections near Manteca High School for people walking, biking, taking the bus, and driving. Upgrade existing bike lanes on Yosemite Avenue to a low stress bicycle facility and provide improved pedestrian crossings.

Key Challenges
• Yielding behavior is low for the existing RRFBs in
front of Manteca High School.
• There are a high number of existing driveways
along the corridor.
• Existing bike lanes on Yosemite Avenue alongside
high-speed traffic are uncomfortable and present
safety concerns, especially for students and less
experienced bike riders.
• Long crossing distances across Yosemite Avenue
impede access to and from school.

ATTACHMENT 2

Project Features
• At the S. Sherman Avenue
intersection, construct curb
extensions onto Yosemite
Avenue to decrease pedestrian
crossing distance. If volumes on
Sherman Avenue grow, a traffic
signal should be evaluated to
decrease delay and improve
yielding behavior to pedestrians.
• East of Sherman Avenue, move
the Manteca Transit bus stop
closer to the intersection and
extend the no-parking red curb
to 120 feet in length to create an
easier pull-in for buses.
• At the S. Garfield Avenue
intersection, construct curb
extensions onto Yosemite
Avenue to decrease pedestrian
crossing distance. Make
southbound Garfield Avenue
right-turn only.

Example curb extension
Source: https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/ street-design-elements/curb-extensions/
ATTACHMENT 2

Move the Manteca Transit
bus stop closer
to the intersection
Consider adding a
traffic signal after
the construction
of the Manteca
ACE Station
Yosemite Ave
Sherman Ave
Gareld Ave
Figure 15
Yosemite Avenue & Sherman Avenue and Yosemite Avenue & Garfield Avenue Intersection Improvements
ATTACHMENT 2

PROJECT
4 Powers Avenue Safety
Improvements

Manteca Transit Center
ACE Station
Powers Ave
Yosemite Ave
Marin St
Hutchings St
ATTACHMENT 2

Project Background
Powers Avenue is a major collector street in East Manteca, providing access to multiple schools, residences,
community amenities, emergency services, and the
Tidewater Trail. South of Yosemite Avenue, Lincoln
Elementary School is on the west side of Powers Avenue.

With two lanes, narrow bike lanes, and long stretches with no crosswalks, Powers Avenue can be an uncomfortable
place for children to walk and bike.

The Powers Avenue Complete Streets project would
upgrade pedestrian crossings to improve access between
Lincoln Elementary School and surrounding residential
neighborhoods.

Key Challenges
• Existing crosswalks at uncontrolled locations lack safety enhancements and do not correspond with pedestrian
desire lines between Lincoln Elementary, Lincoln Pool,
and residences.
• Children biking to Lincoln Elementary School lack a
low-stress bicycle facility.
• Congestion and erratic driving behavior during school pick-up and drop-off times creates unsafe conditions
for pedestrians and bicyclists.

ATTACHMENT 2

Project Features
• Enhance existing uncontrolled marked crosswalk
locations, including Hutchings Street and Marin Street, by constructing curb extensions to decrease crossing
distances. Add high-visibility crosswalks, advanced
stop bars, clear sightlines, and restrict parking near
intersections to increase pedestrian visibility.
• At the Hutchings Street intersection, extend the curb on the west side of Powers Avenue to the school parking lot exit driveway. Add a painted median on the south leg to delineate vehicle traffic.
• Consider the installation of rapid rectangular flashing beacons at marked crossings based on speed and
yielding conditions.
• At the Powers Avenue/Yosemite Avenue intersection,
construct curb extensions on the northeast, southwest,
and southeast corners to shorten crossing distances
for pedestrians and bicyclists. Reconfigure the vehicle lanes for the northbound and westbound approaches to
combine the through and right lanes. Paint red curbs on the west side of Powers Avenue between driveways to
reinforce that no parking is allowed.
• Utilize dashed green paint in bike-vehicle conflict areas, such as at driveways and intersections, to increase
bicyclist visibility.

Construction Cost Estimates
Yosemite Ave & Powers Ave Improvements
Subtotal = $225,000
Contingency = $65,000
Grand Total = $290,000
Construction Cost Estimates
Hutchings St & Powers Ave Improvements
Subtotal = $225,000
Contingency = $70,000
Grand Total = $295,000
Construction Cost Estimates
Marin St & Powers Ave Improvements
Subtotal = $180,000
Contingency = $55,000
Grand Total = $235,000
ATTACHMENT 2

Figure 16
Yosemite Avenue & Powers Avenue Intersection Improvements ATTACHMENT 2

Figure 17
Hutchings St & Powers Ave Intersection Improvements
ATTACHMENT 2

Figure 18
Marin Street & Powers Ave Intersection Improvements
ATTACHMENT 2

Manteca Transit Center
ACE Station
Moffat Blvd
CHAPTER 8
ATTACHMENT 2

Moffat Gateway Site
Land Use Concepts
ATTACHMENT 2

The purpose of this chapter is to examine different
approaches to accommodate future development, including a range of housing opportunities, that encourage economic and employment growth and fiscal sustainability for the Moffat Gateway site. The Moffat Gateway site is located southwest of the intersection of Moffat Boulevard and Industrial Park Drive and is bounded by the Union Pacific Railroad along the north/ northeastern portion of the site, Industrial Park Drive to the south, and industrial uses to the west.

Three different land use concepts for the Moffat Gateway site are presented with analysis of the land use and growth in terms of residential and non-residential development.

This information is intended to be used as a tool to facilitate discussion regarding land use scenarios and is the first step in developing a more detailed site-specific development plan.

LAND USE CONCEPTS
Land Use Districts
Land use districts describe what uses may develop, and
at what density and/or intensity of development, on the Moffat Gateway site. Collectively, the three land use concepts incorporate seven land use districts. One residential district and one mixed use district provide for a range of housing types and densities, accompanied by neighborhood-serving commercial uses. Two commercial and industrial districts provide for a range of income- and employment-generating businesses. Three other designations support publicly owned facilities, parks and recreation, and infrastructure.

A description of the devlopment characteristics of each land use district, such as density and intensity of uses, can be found in Appendix C, Table 1.

Land Use Concepts
The three land use concepts envision varied approaches to the development of the Moffat Gateway site. Each concept is described below.

Land Use Concept A: Urban Village
The Urban Village concept introduces a mixed use character, with a mix of urban uses extending from the Moffatt Gateway along the railroad, residential uses along the eastern and central portions of Industrial Park Drive with public/quasipublic uses along the eastern portion of Industrial Park Drive, and employment-generating uses in the northwest
area of the site. Concept A accommodates the most, and
broadest range of, residential uses, with a master-planned community envisioned with access to services, transit, and/or employment opportunities. Residential uses are anticipated at 35 units/acre in the Urban Core and 18 units per acre in the Residential Village.

Residential uses are buffered from the railroad by park/ greenbelt and commercial uses. The residential uses and densities support an urban village environment, while also increasing households in the proximity of Downtown. This concept supports the intent of enlivening the Downtown and provide additional residents to support shopping, dining, and businesses, continuing the revitalization and enhancement of the City’s historic center.

Concept A provides for an Urban Village with communityserving retail, service, and office uses as well as employment uses to provide jobs and revenues. This concept would allow for a continuation of industrial uses, through the Employment designation while transitioning to an urban mixed use
environment in the central and western portion of the site ATTACHMENT 2

VAN RYN
COWELL

AINROFILAC
DRAWDE
MOFFAT

POWE R S

INDUSTRIAL PARK
STATE ROUTE 120
YOLO
± 0 100 200
Feet
Project Boundary
Conceptual Land Use Designation
Residential Village
Commercial
Employment Center
Public/Quasi-Public
Urban Core
Park/Greenbelt
ROW
Sources: San Joaquin County GIS. Map date: December 21, 2022.

Figure 19
Concept A: Urban Village Land Use Plan
*
*
ATTACHMENT 2

Land Use Concept B: Employment-Focused Growth
The Employment-Focused Growth concept identifies
potential changes in land use and development intensity to accommodate a significant amount of new employmentgenerating development, with a continued emphasis on industrial development as well as a mix of urban uses,
including high density residential, retail, restaurants, and services.

Concept B broadly applies the Employment Center district to encourage jobs- and revenue-generating growth and high quality employment opportunities, including research and technology, office, manufacturing, warehousing, and similar employment-generating uses. This concept would provide
for a continuation of industrial uses from the eastern edge through the central portion of the site, with a mix of uses located at the Moffat Ave/Industrial Park gateway portion of the site.

Under this scenario, a residential density of 30 units/acre anticipated for Urban Core. The residential density is reduced in comparison to Concepts A and C in order to provide
for more of a transition between the more intensive nonresidential uses accommodated under this concept.

This concept provides for greenways along Industrial Park Drive, as well as a bicycle/pedestrian connection to the Tidewater Trail and to Moffatt Boulevard. This concept also provides for a park in the central section of the site to provide a buffer between residential and community-serving uses and more intensive employment-generating and potential
industrial uses.

Figure 20 shows the Concept B Land Use Plan with an aerial view of surrounding uses.
to provide for residential growth to support the viability of on-site commercial and the retail, restaurant, and transitoriented uses envisioned for the greater Downtown area.

This land use concept provides for a greenway and
neighborhood park along the northeastern portion of
the site and greenways along Industrial Park Drive. The greenways buffer the residential uses from adjoining railroad and roadways, while also providing bicycle/pedestrian
opportunities. This concept includes two bicycle/pedestrian connections from the site to the neighborhood north of
the site in order to connect the site to the Tidewater Trail adjacent Moffat Boulevard and sidewalks along Moffat
Boulevard to improve connectivity to the Downtown area and Transit Center.

Figure 19 shows the Concept A Land Use Plan with an aerial view of surrounding uses.

ATTACHMENT 2

VAN RYN
COWELL

AINROFILAC
DRAWDE
MOFFAT
POWERS

INDUSTRIAL PARK
STATE ROUTE 120
YOLO
Project Boundary
Conceptual Land Use
Urban Core
Employment
Park/Greenbelt
ROW
Sources: San Joaquin County GIS. Map date: December 21, 2022. ± 0 100 200
Feet
Figure 20
Concept B: Employment Focused Growth
Land Use Plan
ATTACHMENT 2

Land Use Concept C: Moderate Residential and
Employment Growth
The Moderate Residential and Employment Growth concept
provides for a range of employment-generating uses, while accommodating residential and mixed uses. This concept
includes opportunities to increase industrial, technology, commercial, and service uses, along with accommodating a range of residential densities and types. A residential density of 35 units per acre is proposed for the Urban Core and 18 units per acre for the Residential Village district.

Similar to Concepts A and B, this concept strengthens the community’s economic and employment-generating uses,
with increased commercial, industrial, office, and other nonresidential uses and increased flexibility in siting a variety of employment- and economic-supporting uses, providing for more extensive growth of local employment opportunities with the intent of providing residents increased opportunities to live and work in their community. The inclusion of residential uses in the Urban Core and Residential Village districts provides for residential uses adjacent to the Downtown area with the intent to enliven the Downtown and provide residents to support shopping, dining, and businesses.

A focal point of this concept is a community park located at the Moffat Ave/Industrial Park gateway portion of the site. Concept C provides for two pedestrian/bicycle connections to the Tidewater Trail and Moffat Boulevard, increasing connectivity to the greater Downtown area and providing access to the Manteca Transit Center.

Figure 21 shows the Concept C Land Use Plan with an aerial view of surrounding uses.

ATTACHMENT 2

VAN R YN
COWELL

AINROFILAC
DRAWDE
MOFFAT

POWE R S

INDUSTRIAL PARK
STATE ROUTE 120
YOLO
Project Boundary
Conceptual Land Use
Residential Village
Urban Core
Employment Center
Public/Quasi-Public
Park/Greenbelt
ROW
± 0 100 200
Feet
Figure 21
Concept C: Moderate Residential and
Economic Growth Land Use Plan
*
*
Sources: San Joaquin County GIS. Map date: December 21, 2022.

ATTACHMENT 2

LAND USE CONCEPTS COMPARISON
Land Use Designations by Acreage Comparison
Table 1 provides a comparison between the three land use concepts’ acreage allocations by land use designation and overlay.

Table 1: Land Use Acreage Allocations
Land Use District
Concept A Concept B Concept C
Acres % Acres % Acres %
Urban Core 9.1 23% 10.0 25% 6.4 16%
Residential Village 8.8 22% 0.0 0% 5.3 14%
Employment 9.7 25% 23.3 59% 14.7 37%
Commercial 1.0 3% 0.0 0% 0.0 0%
Parks/Greenbelt 3.4 9% 1.8 5% 6.4 16%
Public/Quasi-Public 3.0 8% 0.0 0% 2.4 6%
ROW 4.3 11% 4.3 11% 4.2 11%
Total 39.4 100% 39.4 100% 39.5 100%
Source: De Novo Planning Group, 2022
ATTACHMENT 2

Table 2: Growth Projections by Concept
Concept Dwelling Units
Non-Residential
S.F. Jobs
Jobs /
Housing
Ratio
Concept A: Urban Village 475 431,242 370 0.78
Concept B: Employment - Focused Growth 300 1,093,355 903 3.01 Concept C: ModerateResidential and
Economic Growth 318 566,932 472 1.48
Sources: De Novo Planning Group, 2022; jobs estimates based on US Department of Energy Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey, 2016 Housing, Non-Residential
Development, and Jobs
Capacity Comparison
As outlined in Table 2 below, each land
use concept envisions a substantial
increase in residential and non-residential
development potential. It is anticipated
that this development would occur as a
result of a master plan or specific plan
effort.

Concept A would accommodate
approximately 475 dwelling units,
431,242 s.f. of non-residential uses, and
370 jobs. Non-residential uses include
approximately 30,000 s.f. of retail, 30,000
s.f. of services, 17,000 s.f. of office, 322,000
s.f. of industrial, and 33,000 s.f. of public/
quasi-public. Concept A has the highest
residential development of the three
concepts and the lowest ratio of jobs per
housing unit.

Concept B would accommodate
approximately 300 dwelling units,
1,093,355 s.f. of non-residential uses, and
903 jobs. Non-residential uses include
approximately 39,000 s.f. of retail, 39,000
s.f. of services, 51,000 s.f. of office, and
964,000 s.f. of industrial uses. Concept
B has the highest jobs-creating uses of
the three concepts, with the most nonresidential development and the least residential development. Concept B has
the highest jobs per housing unit ratio.

Concept C would accommodate
approximately 318 dwelling units,
566,932 s.f. of non-residential uses, and
472 jobs. Non-residential uses include
approximately 14,000 s.f. of retail, 14,000
s.f. of services, 26,000 s.f. of office, 488,000
s.f. of industrial, and 26,000 s.f. of public/
quasi-public uses. Concept C would result
in slightly more residential units than
Concept B but less than Concept A and
would result in mid-range jobs creation,
with 1.48 jobs per housing unit. Concept
C would result in the highest amount of
parks/greenbelt (6.4 acres), followed by
Concept A at 3.4 acres.

ATTACHMENT 2
CHAPTER 9
ATTACHMENT 2

Implementation
ATTACHMENT 2

Next Steps
To maintain momentum from this project, and bring the recommendations in this document from planned to constructed, several near term next steps are recommended:

Communication: Convene regular meetings of executive-level departmental representatives to coordinate efforts in the Transit Center area.

Quick Build Projects: Install low-cost safety improvements at project locations, including new road markings, signs, and minor signal modifications over the next two years.

Transit Fare Program: Explore opportunities to expand free or subsidized transit fares for students, the elderly, during holidays, and for special events.

The projects in this plan have been developed with the goal of applying for implementation funding in upcoming statewide and local calls for projects.

Project Phasing & Timing
2023 2024 2025
2023 – 2025: Install quick-build projects in the plan area 2023 - 2024: Apply for micro-grants, research needs for larger grants Summer 2024:

Submit ATP
application
Summer 2023 - Spring 2024:

Package unaddressed projects from
this plan into an application for
Active Transportation Program Cycle 7
ATTACHMENT 2

Example of quick-build curb extension
Source: Ulupono Initiative, City and County of Honolulu, https://ulupono.com/project-list/quick-build-projects/ ATTACHMENT 2

Funding Sources
Several statewide and regional funding
sources may be utilized for varying
aspects of the projects proposed in this
plan.

Active Transportation Program
The Active Transportation Program (ATP)
was created by SB 99 / Assembly Bill 101
to encourage increased use of active
modes of transportation such as walking
and biking. It provides a comprehensive
program that improves program planning
and flexibility, with funds able to be
directed to multi-year projects to make
greater long-term improvements to active
transportation.

The ATP is funded from a combination
of federal and state funds from
appropriations in the annual state
budget act. Forty percent of the funding
goes toward metropolitan planning
organizations in urban areas with
populations greater than 200,000. Ten
percent of the funds go to small urban
and rural regions. The remaining funds
will go to the California Transportation
Commission for statewide projects.

The ATP ensures that disadvantaged
communities fully share in the benefits
of the program by requiring that a
minimum of 25% of funds be distributed
to disadvantaged communities. All
successful applications in 2022 were in
disadvantaged communities.

In order to maximize the effectiveness
of program funds and to encourage the
aggregation of small projects into a
comprehensive bundle of projects, the
minimum request for statewide Active
Transportation Program funds is $250,000.

This minimum does not apply to Safe
Routes to Schools projects.

Project types allowed under the
ATP include bikeways serving major
transportation corridors, bikeways to
improve bicycle commuting options,
bicycle parking at transit and employment
centers, traffic control devices to improve
pedestrian and bicycle safety, improving
and maintaining safety on existing
bikeways, recreational facilities, Safe
Routes to School projects, Safe Routes to
Transit projects, and other improvements
to bicycle-transit connections and urban
environments.

For a project to contribute toward the Safe
Routes to School funding requirement, the
project must directly increase safety and
convenience for public school students to
walk and/or bike to school. Safe Routes
to Schools infrastructure projects must
be located within two miles of a public
school or within the vicinity of a public
school bus stop.

The call for projects for Cycle 7 of the
ATP is expected in March 2024, with the
grant application deadline in June 2024.

ATP grants are highly competitive, with
the number of requests far exceeding
the amount of available funding.

Demonstrating the project’s ability to
reduce crashes, close a gap, or create new
routes for biking and walking, showing
clear community support and outreach
in development of the project, and
providing direct benefits to disadvantaged
communities are critical factors for a
successful application. This Plan has been
developed to align with ATP guidance and
criteria.

The Safe Route Partnership has a Guide
to the Application Process available
at https://www.saferoutespartnership.
org/sites/default/files/resource_files/
californias_active_transportation_
program_-_a_step-by-step_guide_to_the_
application_2022.pdf
More information on the Active
Transportation Program is available
at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/localassistance/fed-and-state-programs/ active-transportation-program
ATTACHMENT 2

San Joaquin Council of
Governments Measure K
The SJCOG Measure K Renewal Ordinance
and Expenditure Plan was passed by
the voters of San Joaquin County in
2006. The Measure K Expenditure Plan
includes a Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Safe
Routes to School Funding Program and
specifies that 60% of the funds will be
allocated according to a competitive
process. Other funds are available for
infrastructure improvements that will
assist local agencies in better integrating
transportation and land use, such as
street calming, walkable community
projects, transit amenities, and alternative
modes of transportation.

As part of the adoption of the 2017
Measure K Strategic Plan, the SJCOG Board
conducted a Call for Projects for the
Measure K Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Safe
Routes to School Competitive Program
and the Smart Growth Incentive Program,
with over $11 million made available for
the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Safe Routes
to School Competitive Program and Smart
Growth Incentive Program.

The most recent Measure K Strategic Plan
released in 2019 maintains that 30% of
the net sales tax revenues generated in
the Measure K Renewal program is to be
allocated for passenger rail transit, bus
transit, and pedestrian/bicycle projects.

SJCOG frequently augments local ATP
funds from the state with Measure K
funding.

Other Funding Programs
While the Active Transportation Program
and Measure K should be two key sources
of funding, additional sources may be
used to augment certain parts of the
project.

Urban Greening Program
Signed into law on September 2016,
Senate Bill 859 created the California
Natural Resources Agency’s Urban
Greening Program, funded by the
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. In 2021,
SB 170 allocated $50 million from the
General Fund to the CRNA for its Urban
Greening Program, specifically for urban
greening and urban forestry projects that
reduce GHG emissions.

Calls for proposals are anticipated to take
place in early Spring of each year.

More information on the Urban Greening
Program is available at https://resources.
ca.gov/grants/urban-greening/
Community Development Block Grant
The US Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) administers
the Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Program, which provides
annual grants to develop viable urban
communities by expanding economic
opportunities, principally for low- and
moderate-income persons.

Under the State CDBG Program, states
award grants to counties, cities, or
other units of general local government.

Annually, each State develops funding
priorities and criteria for selecting
projects. Eligible activities for grant
funding in California include housing,
homeowner assistance, public
improvements, community facilities,
public services, direct assistance to
businesses, and the creation or retention
of jobs for low-income workers.

Applications are typically available each
year in the late summer and due in the
fall. More information is available at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-andfunding/programs-active/communitydevelopment-block-grant ATTACHMENT 2

Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities (AHSC) Program
The Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006 (AB 32) directed the California
Air Resources Board (ARB) to institute
programs to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. The Cap-and-Trade Program, a
key element of the ARB’s plan to reduce
emissions, funds several programs that
support the goals of AB 32 and specifically
relate to transportation and mode shift.

One of these programs, the Affordable
Housing and Sustainable Communities
Program (AHSC) provides funding for
affordable housing developments
(new construction or renovation) and
transportation infrastructure, such as new
transit vehicles, sidewalks, and bike lanes;
transportation-related amenities, such as
bus shelters, benches, or shade trees; and
other programs that encourage residents
to walk, bike, and use public transit.

The AHSC Program includes three eligible
Project Area Types: Transit-Oriented
Development, Integrated Connectivity,
and Rural Innovation. All projects,
regardless of Project Area Type, must
demonstrate VMT reduction through
fewer or shorter vehicle trips or through
mode shift to transit use, bicycling or
walking within transit areas, with an
emphasis on integrating or developing
affordable housing, and with an emphasis
on providing benefits to Disadvantaged
Communities or Low-Income
Communities. In Round6 of funding
(Fiscal Year 2019-2020), over $303 million
dollars was provided for transit oriented
developments.

AHSC Program resources are available
at https://sgc.ca.gov/programs/ahsc/
resources/
Highway Safety Improvement Program
Caltrans administers the Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP) specified
as part of the Fixing America’s Surface
Transportation Act.

This program uses cost-benefit ratios
as a primary factor in the awarding
of applications. Because the program
focuses on roadway safety, projects with
documented collision history – through
frequency of collision but particularly
collision severity – are typically ranked
higher. Roadways with documented
bicycle and pedestrian collision
history may be well qualified for HSIP
applications, particularly since many of
the proposed projects would improve
bicyclist and pedestrian safety at a lower
cost than many of the highway projects
also eligible under this funding source.

While this funding source is often used
for major roadway improvement projects,
installation of traffic signals, and most
other cost-intensive projects, funding has
routinely been awarded to bicycle and
pedestrian projects. Successful projects
have included:
• Median refuges and curb extensions
• Curb, gutter, and sidewalk
• Upgraded traffic signals with
pedestrian countdown signals and
pedestrian-scale lighting
• Bicycle lane striping
• Crosswalk striping
• In-pavement flashers and rectangular
rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) at
crossings
Many of these projects were applied for
as stand-alone bicycle and pedestrian
improvement projects; some bicycle and
pedestrian improvements were included
with a broader package of roadway
improvement projects.

More information is available at https://
dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/
fed-and-state-programs/highway-safetyimprovement-program ATTACHMENT 2

Other SB 1 Programs
Local Partnership Program (LPP): The
purpose of the Local Partnership
Program is to provide local and regional
transportation agencies that have passed
sales tax measures, developer fees, or
other imposed transportation fees, with
a funding of $200 million annually from
the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Account to fund aging infrastructure,
road conditions, active transportation,
and health and safety benefits projects.

LPP funds are distributed through a 50%
statewide competitive component and a
50% formulaic component. Both programs
are eligible to jurisdictions with voter
approved taxes, tolls, and fees dedicated
solely to transportation, as is the case of
Measure K in San Joaquin County.

The next application cycle is expected in
Fall 2024.

Local Streets and Roads Program (LSRP):

California has dedicated approximately
$1.5 billion per year to cities and counties
for basic road maintenance, rehabilitation,
and critical safety projects on local streets
and roads. Cities and counties must
submit a proposed projects list adopted
at a regular meeting by their board or
council that is then submitted to the
California Transportation Commission
(CTC). Once reviewed and adopted by the
CTC, eligible cities and counties receive
funding from the State Controller and an
Annual Project Expenditure Report is sent
to the Commission to be transparent with
program funding received and expended.

Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Funding:

Safe Routes to School (SRTS) is a program
promoting walking and bicycling to school
through infrastructure improvements,
tools, safety education, and incentives
to encourage these modes of travel.

Nationally, 10% to 14% of car trips during
the morning rush hour are for school
travel. SRTS can be implemented at the
state, community, or local school district
level. Competitive federal funding is
available through the Fixing America’s
Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act).

Depending on the existing infrastructure,
SRTS may require that education,
transportation, public safety, and city
planning agencies coordinate their effort.

Transportation Development Act (TDA) /
Local Transportation Fund (LTF)
The Transportation Development Act (TDA)
is perhaps the most readily available
source of local funding for bicycle
projects. TDA funds are derived from a
statewide quarter-cent retail sales tax.

This tax is returned to the county of
origin and distributed to the cities and
county on a population basis. In San
Joaquin County, SJCOG administers the
Local Transportation Fund (LTF) pursuant
to the Transportation Development Act
(TDA). In February of each fiscal year, the
SJCOG board must adopt an LTF revenue
estimate and apportionment schedule
for the following fiscal year. Under TDA
Article 3, two percent of each entity’s TDA
allocation is set aside for pedestrian and
bicycle projects. Eligible projects include
the design and construction of walkways,
bicycle paths and bicycle lanes, and safety
education programs.

California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS)
Grant Programs
OTS administers traffic safety grants for
public entities in the following priority
program areas: alcohol impaired driving,
distracted driving, drug-impaired driving,
emergency medical services, motorcycle
safety, occupant protection, pedestrian
and bicycle safety, police traffic services,
public relations, advertising, and roadway
safety and traffic records. The application
should be supported by local crash data
that demonstrates a need for funding.

Grant applications are due at the end of
each January.

ATTACHMENT 2

Safe Streets and Roads for All Grant Program
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) established the new Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) discretionary program with $5 billion in appropriated funds over the next 5 years.

The SS4A program funds regional, local, and Tribal initiatives through grants to prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries.

There are two types of SS4A grants:
• Action Plan Grants, to develop or update a comprehensive safety action plan
• Implementation Grants to conduct planning, design, and development activities in support of an Action Plan or carry out projects and strategies identified in an Action Plan.

Manteca’s Local Road Safety Plan qualifies as an Action Plan and would allow the City to apply for Implementation Grants.

The 2023 Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) is expected to open in spring for the second round of SS4A grants.

More information on the SS4A Grant Program is available at https://www.transportation.gov/grants/SS4A
Clean California Local Grant Program
The Clean California Local Grant Program (CCLGP) is a
competitive statewide program created to beautify and clean up local streets and roads, tribal lands, parks, pathways, transit centers, and other public spaces. Assembly Bill 149 created the CCLGP of 2021 and was codified under Streets and Highway Code §91.41 et al. The Program is one part of the nearly $1.1 billion Clean California initiative that takes direct aim at the continuous trash generation that has overwhelmed Caltrans and its partners. Other parts of the Clean California initiative include state beautification and safety projects and public education campaigns. Significant investments in time and resources are needed to collect, recycle, and dispose of litter and hazardous waste. Approximately $100 million was added to the CCLGP to be made available in the FY 2023-2024 State budget. This funding will be used to implement a second cycle of funding for the program. These guidelines describe the policies, criteria, and procedures for the development, adoption, and management of the CCLGP. The guidelines were developed in consultation with representatives from Caltrans and through stakeholder workshops that included participation from local government agencies, transit agencies, and tribal governments, among other stakeholders.

ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2

APPENDIX A
Existing
Conditions
Reports
ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Downtown
Transit Center –
Existing Conditions
Prepared for:

The City of Manteca
September 2022
RS21-4123
ATTACHMENT 2
Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................... 4

1. Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................................. 6

1.1 City of Manteca Draft General Plan – Circulation Element................................................................................... 6

1.2 City of Manteca General Plan Housing Element ...................................................................................................... 7

1.3 SJCOG Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Community Strategy............................................... 7

1.4 City of Manteca Active Transportation Plan............................................................................................................... 8

1.5 Active Transportation Plans in Priority Neighborhoods: East Manteca Neighborhood Improvements Memorandum................................................................................................................................................. 8

1.6 City of Manteca Traffic Calming Program................................................................................................................... 9

1.7 City of Manteca Streets Standard Plan......................................................................................................................... 9

1.8 City of Manteca Municipal Code .................................................................................................................................... 9

2. Existing Setting ....................................................................................................................... 10

2.1 Key Destinations..................................................................................................................................................................10

2.2 Roadway System.................................................................................................................................................................10

2.2.1 Recent Changes.......................................................................................................................................................10

2.2.2 Truck Routes .............................................................................................................................................................12

2.2.3 At-Grade Railroad Crossings ..............................................................................................................................12

2.2.4 Vehicle Operations .................................................................................................................................................12

2.3 Transit Routes & Facilities ...............................................................................................................................................12

2.3.1 Manteca Transit Service & Facilities ................................................................................................................12

2.3.2 Regional Transit Service .......................................................................................................................................15

2.4 Pedestrian Facilities............................................................................................................................................................15

2.5 Bicycle Facilities ...................................................................................................................................................................17

2.6 Safety.......................................................................................................................................................................................19

3. Planned Facilities & Infill Opportunities ............................................................................... 22

3.1 Planned Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities..................................................................................................................22

3.2 Planned Transit Service & Facilities .............................................................................................................................24

3.2.1 Manteca Transit Routes........................................................................................................................................24

3.2.2 ACE Extension Projects and Manteca Station..............................................................................................24

3.3 Planned Roadway Improvements & Projected Traffic Volumes ......................................................................26

3.4 Infill Opportunities Assessment....................................................................................................................................26 ATTACHMENT 2
List of Figures
Figure 1. Study Area............................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 2. Key Destinations ............................................................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 3. Existing Transit Facilities & Routes .......................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 4. Existing Pedestrian Network ...................................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 5. Existing Bicycle Network.............................................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 6. Vehicular, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Collisions (2015-2020) ............................................................................. 21 Figure 7. Manteca Active Transportation Plan Planned Bicycle & Pedestrian Network........................................ 23 Figure 8. Manteca ACE Train Platform Design....................................................................................................................... 25 Appendices
Appendix A: Existing Land Use, Development, and Demographics Report............................................................... 27 ATTACHMENT 2
Introduction
The following report describes the existing regulatory and physical characteristics affecting the City of Manteca’s transportation system surrounding the Manteca Transit Center and the planned Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) passenger rail station. The study area is shown in Figure 1. Understanding existing conditions is a key step in the process of improving connectivity and accessibility between Downtown Manteca and the Transit Center and upcoming ACE Rail Station to help transform the area into a highquality walkable and transit-oriented district.

ATTACHMENT 2
Main St
North St
Moffat Blvd
Yosemite Ave
Powers Ave
Pine St
Grant Ave
Center St
Lincoln Ave
Spreckels Ave
Fir St
Fremont St
Sherman Ave
Park Ave
Mylnar Ave
Cottage Ave
Poplar Ave
Maple Ave
Oak St
Wetmore St
Sutter St
Acacia Ave
Cowell Ave
Sycamore Ave
Lupton St
Marin St
Yolo St
Willow Ave
Trinity St
Norman Dr
Wawona St
Sheridan Ave
Sierra St
Tidewater Path
Garfield Ave
Mission Ridge Dr
Mellon Ave
Martha St
Vanderbilt Cir
Carnegie St
South St
Edward Ave
California Ave
Oregon St
Dyer Ave
Raylow Ave
Industrial Park Dr
Charles Ave
Bristow St
Stockton St
Kent St
Flores Ave
Jessie Ave
Vine St
Bernt Ave
Bessemer Ave
Tahoe St
Champagne Ln
Harding Ave
Van Ryn Ave
Roosevelt Ave Washington Ave
Lassen Ave
Lambdin St
Stewart St
Crockett St
Schadeck St
Chablis Way
Shepard Way
Vin Rose Way
Manteca Ave
Bordeaux Ln
Whelan Way
Willow Ave
Alameda St
Maple Ave
Jessie Ave
N:\2021 Projects\4123.00_Manteca_Downtown_Transit_Center\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Fig01_StudyArea.mxd Study Area
Study Corridor
Study Area
Manteca Transit Center
Opportunity Zone
Parks
Figure 1
120
ATTACHMENT 2

1. Regulatory Framework

1.1 City of Manteca Draft General Plan – Circulation Element The currently adopted City of Manteca General Plan is the 2023 General Plan, however the City is currently undergoing an update. The existing Circulation Element has several goals related to complete streets design, the bicycle system, and pedestrian circulation (Goals C-2, C-9, C-10).

The “Downtown” zoning designation proposed
General Plan Update covers much of the main
study area. The updated Circulation Element in
the Draft General Plan (a public review draft
released in March 2021) has similar LOS
policies to those from the previous General
Plan, though more consideration is given to
balancing the service of all modes (vehicle,
transit, bicycle, and pedestrian). The updated
policy still strives for an LOS of D or better
during the weekday AM and PM peak hours at
streets and intersections outside the
Downtown Area shown to the right.

The updated policy also clarifies that traffic studies should still “disclose whether any proposed transportation or land use action will substantially increase traffic at intersections and roadways within this area of the City and identify measures to maintain high quality access and mobility in the area with a priority toward active transportation modes” (C-1.4).

The Major Streets Circulation Plan (Figure C-1) within the updated Circulation Element shows that Yosemite Avenue from Locust Avenue to Powers Avenue will remain as two lanes, Spreckels Avenue to Pestana Avenue will be widened to five lanes, and most of the remaining major streets will be four lanes.

This section also mentions the pursuit of funding for grade separation of existing at-grade railroad crossings.

Policies in the “Bikeway and Pedestrian Systems” section enforce pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, safety, and comfort through improving the bicycle and pedestrian environment (e.g. providing shade trees, traffic calming, landscape-separated sidewalks on arterials, etc.). A key component of this effort is the expansion of the existing off street bicycle network to accommodate cyclists who prefer to travel on dedicated trails. Policy C-4.6 also states that on-street Class II bike lanes, Class IV protected bike lanes, or off-street Class I bike paths should be provided along major collector and arterial streets “whenever feasible.” It also seeks to provide a sidewalk and bicycle facilities that meets the latest guidelines related to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

ATTACHMENT 2

1.2 City of Manteca General Plan Housing Element
The City’s General Plan Housing Element was last updated in 2016. Goals and policies identified in the Housing Element relevant to the implementation of more housing in downtown Manteca are shown below:

1.1.1.1 Goals
• Goal H-2. To promote mixed-use, infill, and downtown development in the city of Manteca. • Goal H-3. To provide a range of housing types, densities, and designs, and meet existing and projected housing needs for all economic segments of the community. • Goal H-5. To provide adequate housing opportunities for persons with special needs, including seniors, persons with disabilities, single parents, large families, persons lacking permanent shelter, and residents with extremely low incomes.

1.1.1.2 Policies
• H-P-15: The City shall provide incentives and other inducements as may be available to encourage the development of infill parcels for residential use in mixed-use developments. The City shall consider the modification of setbacks, height limitations, coverage ratios, parking requirements, and other development regulations to facilitate and encourage the use of infill sites for residential and commercial mixed use, or multi-family residential use. • H-P-16: The City shall encourage mixed use development opportunities within appropriate zoning designations in the downtown.
• H-P-22: The City shall encourage higher densities near the ACE Train Station, Downtown Intermodal Station, and other existing and future public transportation opportunities. • H-P-47: The City shall encourage the development of new housing units designed for the elderly persons and persons with disabilities to be in close proximity to public transportation and community services.

1.3 SJCOG Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Community Strategy
The San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) is a long-range planning document for identifying and programming transportation facility improvements throughout the County. The current RTP/SCS produced by SJCOG was adopted in 2018. The RTP/SCS considers regional issues, such as housing, public health, the environment, and economic growth, and provides guidance on making transportation investments in the County over a twenty-year horizon. It also includes discussion of civic engagement, lays out policies and strategies, financing the transportation system, and performance measures. Projects in the plan are eligible to receive local, state, and federal funding. Projects relevant to Downtown Manteca are explored in more depth in Section 3.3. SJCOG is in the process of preparing the 2022 RTP/SCS, referring to the project as “Envision 2050.”
ATTACHMENT 2

1.4 City of Manteca Active Transportation Plan
The City of Manteca Active Transportation Plan (2020) is a long-range planning document for identifying and programming transportation facility improvements throughout the City. The plan makes the City eligible for funding to create new sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and other bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements. The Plan proposes crossing and intersection improvements, wayfinding, lighting, and other programs to encourage active transportation, as well as the prioritization, costs, and funding of implementation. Planned facilities relevant to the downtown area are discussed in greater detail in Section

3.1. 1.5 Active Transportation Plans in Priority Neighborhoods: East Manteca Neighborhood Improvements Memorandum
The East Manteca Neighborhood Improvements memorandum recommends enhancements to the walking, biking, and rolling environment in the study area through changes in intersection geometry, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and traffic calming infrastructure. Intersection crossing recommendations relevant to the study corridors of Main Street, Yosemite Avenue, and Moffat Boulevard were as follows:

Upgrade crosswalk markings, install leading pedestrian interval (LPI), and/or consider right-turn-on-red restrictions at: Main St & Alameda St, Main St & Center St, Main St & North St, Main St & Yosemite Ave, and Yosemite Ave & Powers Ave
Upgrade or install pedestrian crosswalk markings and advanced yield signs at: Main St & Sutter St, Yosemite Ave & Grant Ave, Yosemite Ave & Sherman Ave, Yosemite Ave & Garfield Ave, Yosemite Ave & Washington Ave, Yosemite Ave & Sheridan Ave, Moffatt Blvd & Grant Ave, Moffatt Blvd & Lincoln Ave, Moffatt Blvd & Sherman Ave, Moffatt Blvd & Garfield Ave, Moffatt Blvd & Powers Ave Install rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) and advanced stop/yield lines: Main St & Edison St, Moffatt Blvd & Garfield Ave, Moffat Blvd & Powers Ave
Tidewater Bikeway access connections: Moffatt Blvd & Sherman Ave, Moffatt Blvd & Powers Ave Improve streetscaping – widen sidewalks, add trees and landscaping to separate pedestrians from vehicle traffic: Moffatt Blvd (north side from Main St to Garfield Ave and south side from east of Lincoln Ave to Garfield Ave)
Road diet (reduce travel lanes from 4 to 3): Main St from Louise Ave to Wetmore St Areawide recommendations for the East Manteca Neighborhood included safe routes to transit, pedestrian scale lighting, ADA improvements, school zone signing and striping, bicycle racks, and shade trees and maintenance. Both specific and areawide recommendations from this plan will be incorporated into the upcoming Implementation Plan.

ATTACHMENT 2

1.6 City of Manteca Traffic Calming Program
The main goals of the Manteca Traffic Calming Program (2018) are to: (1) define a process for neighborhoods to sponsor traffic calming plans and identify funding sources for specific streets, areas or neighborhoods; (2) provide guidance for the types of traffic calming measures that may be considered, both as part of the neighborhood process and during the City’s review of new development applications.

Recommended traffic calming measures include lane striping, speed limit signs, high-visibility crosswalks, speed humps/lumps, raised crosswalks, bulb-outs, traffic circles, pedestrian islands, chicanes, and street closures. Several roadway segments within the study area are likely eligible for the Traffic Calming program.

1.7 City of Manteca Streets Standard Plan
The City of Manteca has utilized the same standard street cross sections since 2004. The cross-sections detail specifications for collector streets, residential streets, curb radii, sidewalks, and driveways.

Several standards no longer align with best practices for bicyclist and pedestrian circulation. For example, the curb radius for new construction (30’) is larger than the old radii (15’-27’) which increases pedestrian and bicyclist crossing distance, lowers visibility, and may cause an increase in vehicle turning speeds.

Additionally, wheelchair ramps are placed at a diagonal to the intersection rather than aligned with the pedestrian path of travel perpendicular to the curb.

1.8 City of Manteca Municipal Code

1.8.1.1 Development Standards
The City of Manteca Development Standards regulate the lot area, lot coverage, minimum and maximum density, building setbacks, and height for the City’s zoning districts. Building heights, setbacks, and density can influence the quality of pedestrian environments and the speeds of travel through neighborhoods, so development standards are an important factor in the potential for convenient and safe travel through downtown Manteca.

1.8.1.2 Vehicles and Traffic
Beyond general codes for the definition and obedience of traffic control devices and signs, there are several noteworthy regulations regarding speed limits (10.12.020), crosswalks (10.24.010A), and sidewalk bicycle riding (10.68.030).

Notably, the Municipal Code states, “Crosswalks shall be established and maintained at all intersections within the central traffic district...” (10.24.010A). Additionally, the Code states “No person shall ride a bicycle upon a sidewalk within a business district” and “No person twelve or more years of age shall ride a bicycle upon any sidewalk in any district (10.68.030 A & C).

ATTACHMENT 2

2. Existing Setting

2.1 Key Destinations
Figure 2 shows key destinations in downtown Manteca, including schools, parks, libraries, post offices, city hall, county offices, retail areas, and medical facilities. As seen in the figure, two schools are located just northeast of the Manteca Transit Center: Manteca High School and Lincoln Elementary School. Numerous neighborhood parks are in the study area, notably Tidewater Park that straddles the Tidewater multi-use trail, the Manteca BMX Park, and Lincoln Pool.

Nearby municipal services include the Manteca Branch of the San Joaquin County Superior Court, Manteca Public Library, Manteca Fire Station No. 241, and the Manteca Animal Shelter. Medical facilities near the Manteca Transit Center or within bus stops nearby include private practice offices, general medical centers, and the Doctors Hospital of Manteca.

2.2 Roadway System
The key study roadways are:
• Main Street begins at Lathrop Road and continues south through Manteca, into rural San Joaquin County. Within the City, Main Street is primarily a four-lane street with sections of twolane street near Lathrop Road, Downtown, and SR 120. North of SR 120, Main Street carried approximately 26,600 vehicles per day (as of 2017).
• Yosemite Avenue begins near SR 120 in Lathrop, continuing to east Manteca where it shares alignment with SR 120. It is primarily a four-lane street, with some sections of two lanes near Downtown and five lanes (three westbound and two eastbound) near SR 99. West of Union Road, Yosemite Avenue carried approximately 20,000 vehicles per day (as of 2017). • Moffat Boulevard begins at South Main Street and continues southeast, parallel to the UPPR tracks until merging onto SR 99. It is primarily a two-lane street, with some sections of three lanes throughout.

2.2.1 Recent Changes
Downtown Manteca has been going through a period of rapid change regarding vehicular, bicyclist, and pedestrian infrastructure. Recent improvements to the area near the Manteca Transit Center include:
• Addition of Class II bike lanes on Moffat Boulevard from Main Street to Spreckels Avenue • Expanded footprint of Manteca High School and a partial closure of Garfield Avenue, creating two dead-end sections of Garfield Avenue from Yosemite Avenue and Moffat Boulevard. • Replacement or addition of ADA-accessible curb ramps at five intersections and addition of four high-visibility crosswalks near Manteca High School.

ATTACHMENT 2
Main St
North St
Moffat Blvd
Yosemite Ave
Powers Ave
Pine St
Grant Ave
Center St
Lincoln Ave
Spreckels Ave
Fir St
Fremont St
Sherman Ave
Park Ave
Mylnar Ave
Cottage Ave
Poplar Ave
Maple Ave
Oak St
Wetmore St
Sutter St
Acacia Ave
Cowell Ave
Sycamore Ave
Lupton St
Marin St
Yolo St
Willow Ave
Trinity St
Norman Dr
Wawona St
Sheridan Ave
Sierra St
Tidewater Path
Garfield Ave
Mission Ridge Dr
Mellon Ave
Martha St
Vanderbilt Cir
Carnegie St
South St
Edward Ave
California Ave
Oregon St
Dyer Ave
Raylow Ave
Industrial Park Dr
Charles Ave
Bristow St
Stockton St
Kent St
Flores Ave
Jessie Ave
Vine St
Bernt Ave
Bessemer Ave
Tahoe St
Champagne Ln
Harding Ave
Van Ryn Ave
Roosevelt Ave Washington Ave
Lassen Ave
Lambdin St
Stewart St
Crockett St
Schadeck St
Chablis Way
Shepard Way
Vin Rose Way
Manteca Ave
Bordeaux Ln
Whelan Way
Willow Ave
Alameda St
Maple Ave
Jessie Ave
N:\2021 Projects\4123.00_Manteca_Downtown_Transit_Center\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Fig03_KeyDestinations.mxd Key Destinations
Figure 2
120
Manteca Transit Center
Government/City Service
Fire Department
Hosptial/Medical Office
Library
Park/Community Center
Police Department
Post Office
School
School
Retail
Parks
ATTACHMENT 2

2.2.2 Truck Routes
Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) routes have specific signage, street widths, curb return radii, and other features to accommodate large STAA trucks. One STAA truck route exists within Manteca, starting on Main Street at SR 120, continuing east onto Industrial Park Drive then north on Spreckels Avenue, before heading east on Yosemite Avenue and rejoining SR 120 at the SR 99 interchange.

2.2.3 At-Grade Railroad Crossings
At-grade railroad crossings exist on the following streets in the study area. All these crossings include advanced signage, flashing signals, and crossing arms.

1. Walnut Avenue south of Jackolyn Drive

2. Center Street west of Elm Avenue

3. Yosemite Avenue at Manteca Avenue

4. Main Street south of Moffat Boulevard

5. Spreckels Avenue south of Moffat Boulevard

6. Moffat Boulevard east of Spreckels Avenue

7. Woodward Avenue west of Moffat Boulevard

2.2.4 Vehicle Operations
Based on field observations, the Yosemite Avenue and Moffat Boulevard corridors are busiest before and after classes are in session at Manteca High School and Lincoln Elementary School. The regular class schedule at the high school is from 8:40 AM to 3:32 PM. The elementary school starts and ends earlier, from 8:10 AM to 2:30 PM. The staggered school schedules help to maintain more consistent traffic flow.

Still, in the after-school period, a queue extending on Moffat Boulevard from Main Street to west of Garfield Avenue was observed, exasperated by a freight train passing through town.

The community reports experiencing high levels of delay due to freight trains passing through the city, especially in conjunction with school pick-up and drop-off periods. In an effort to improve congestion at the Main Street/Yosemite Avenue intersection, the City has recently included signal synchronization and extended the left turn pocket to reducing queueing issues.

2.3 Transit Routes & Facilities
Figure 3 displays the transit facilities and routes located in the study area, including bus routes operated by Manteca Transit and San Joaquin Regional Transit District.

2.3.1 Manteca Transit Service & Facilities
All Manteca Transit fixed-route bus service (Routes 1, 2, 3, 4) begin and end at the Manteca Transit Center, operating with one-hour headways from 6 AM to 7 PM on weekdays and 9 AM to 4 PM on Saturdays, with the exception of Route 4 which only operates on weekdays. Manteca Transit also operates a shuttle to the Lathrop ACE Train station twice in the morning and three times in the afternoon. Manteca Transit also operates a Dial-a-Ride bus service with stops throughout Manteca. Each bus is equipped with a ATTACHMENT 2
bicycle rack. Due to the on-going COVID-19 pandemic and its associated effects on commute travel demand, some of these services are either temporarily suspended or operating with reduced service levels (as of August 2022).

2.3.1.1 Bus Ridership
The City of Manteca’s Short Range Transit Plan includes an evaluation of Manteca Transit system performance. Analysis of the ridership and productivity was conducted based on data collected in early 2019 before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Average ridership for weekdays and Saturdays is shown in Table 1 for Routes 1, 2, and 3.

Table 1. Manteca Transit Average Ridership
Weekday Saturday
Route Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings
1 26 25 11 12
2 20 21 7 7
3 10 10 NA NA
Source: Manteca Transit Short Range Transit Plan, Page 3-3. (https://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/CommunityDevelopment/MantecaTransit/Documents/SRTP.pdf) According to the analysis performed at the time of observations in 2019, the City’s fixed-route service achieved 96 percent overall on-time performance. The most “productive” stops (in terms of boarding and alightings) in Downtown were consistently the Manteca Transit Center and at shopping centers on Yosemite Avenue.

As of early 2022, Manteca Transit was still only observing roughly 70% of its 2019, pre-COVID ridership.

However, a recent initiative to offer free transit rides to high school students doubled ridership on some routes, with over 600 free trips given monthly (meeting with Juan Portillo, Feb 23, 2022).

2.3.1.2 Manteca Transit Center
The Manteca Transit Center is the main hub of public transit in the City. The station currently has five operational bus bays and over 00 parking spaces. Manteca Transit, San Joaquin Regional Transit District, and Altamont Corridor Express shuttle routes serve the Transit Center. The upcoming Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) train platform will be constructed approximately 650 feet southwest of the Transit Center.

ATTACHMENT 2
!!
Main St
North St
Moffat Blvd
Yosemite Ave
Powers Ave
Pine St
Grant Ave
Center St Lincoln Ave
Spreckels Ave
Fir St
Fremont St
Sherman Ave
Mylnar Ave
Cottage Ave
Poplar Ave
Maple Ave
Oak St
Wetmore St
Sutter St
Acacia Ave
Cowell Ave
Sycamore Ave
Lupton St
Marin St
Yolo St
Willow Ave
Norman Dr
Wawona St
Sheridan Ave
Sierra St
Tidewater Path
Garfield Ave
Mission Ridge Dr
Mellon Ave
Martha St
Vanderbilt Cir
Carnegie St
South St
Edward Ave
California Ave
Oregon St
Industrial Park Dr
Stockton St
Bernt Ave
Bessemer Ave
Tahoe St
Harding Ave
Van Ryn Ave
Roosevelt Ave Washington Ave
Lassen Ave
Stewart St Manteca Ave
Alameda St
Jessie Ave
She mr an Ave
N:\2021 Projects\4123.00_Manteca_Downtown_Transit_Center\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Fig04_ExTransit.mxd Existing Transit Facilities
!! Manteca Transit Center
Park and Ride
@! Bus Stops
San Joaquin RTD Route
Manteca Transit Route
StanRTA Stockton Commuter
Railroad
Parks
Figure 3
}120
!91
!95
!95
!91
!91
!1 !2
!3 !4
!1 !3 !1
!3
!4
!2
!4
!X
!X
ATTACHMENT 2

2.3.2 Regional Transit Service
Regional transit service generally connects Manteca to Stockton and Modesto with weekday fixed-route buses. The ACE train service currently only stops in Lathrop.

2.3.2.1 San Joaquin Regional Transit District
The San Joaquin Regional Transit District (RTD) provides limited service to Manteca, with connections to the nearby communities of Stockton, Ripon and Escalon. As of August 2022, Bus Routes 91 and 95 serve Manteca:
• Route 91 provides interregional service between downtown Stockton, Manteca, and Ripon. Three northbound and two southbound trips are provided every weekday between 6 AM and 2 PM. In Manteca, Route 91 travels along Main Street between SR 99 and SR 120, stopping at the Manteca Transit Center.
• Route 95 provides interregional service between downtown Stockton, Manteca, and Escalon. Two northbound and two southbound trips are provided every weekday, one round trip the morning (7:15 - 9:30 AM) and one in the late afternoon (3:15 PM - 5:30 PM). In Manteca, Route 95 travels along Main Street between SR 99 and Moffat Boulevard and stops at the Manteca Transit Center before continuing to Yosemite Avenue (via Moffat Boulevard) all the way to Escalon.

Route 97, which connected Stockton, Manteca, and Lathrop, is currently suspended.

2.3.2.2 Stanislaus Regional Transit Authority
The Stanislaus Regional Transit Authority (StanRTA), previously called MAX, also provides limited service to Manteca via the Stockton Commuter bus service. The Stockton Commuter starts in Modesto, stops at the Manteca Transit Center (via Main Street, departing on Yosemite Avenue), and routes to Stockton Transit Center.

2.4 Pedestrian Facilities
Figure 4 displays the pedestrian facilities located in the project area. This data is derived from aerial imagery and field observations. Sidewalks are present on both sides of all streets within the immediate project site vicinity. The network of sidewalks in central Manteca is relatively consistent, though there are several noticeable gaps, such as South Grand Ave south of Yosemite Ave, as seen in Figure 4.

ATTACHMENT 2
Main St
North St
Moffat Blvd
Yosemite Ave
Powers Ave
Pine St
Grant Ave
Center St
Lincoln Ave
Spreckels Ave
Fir St
Fremont St
Sherman Ave
Park Ave
Mylnar Ave
Cottage Ave
Poplar Ave
Maple Ave
Oak St
Wetmore St
Sutter St
Acacia Ave
Cowell Ave
Sycamore Ave
Lupton St
Marin St
Yolo St
Willow Ave
Trinity St
Norman Dr
Wawona St
Sheridan Ave
Sierra St
Tidewater Path
Garfield Ave
Mission Ridge Dr
Mellon Ave
Martha St
Vanderbilt Cir
Carnegie St
South St
Edward Ave
California Ave
Oregon St
Dyer Ave
Raylow Ave
Industrial Park Dr
Charles Ave
Bristow St
Stockton St
Kent St
Flores Ave
Jessie Ave
Vine St
Bernt Ave
Bessemer Ave
Tahoe St
Champagne Ln
Harding Ave
Van Ryn Ave
Roosevelt Ave Washington Ave
Lassen Ave
Lambdin St
Stewart St
Crockett St
Schadeck St
Chablis Way
Shepard Way
Vin Rose Way
Manteca Ave
Bordeaux Ln
Whelan Way
Willow Ave
Alameda St
Maple Ave
Jessie Ave
N:\2021 Projects\4123.00_Manteca_Downtown_Transit_Center\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Fig05_ExPedNetwork.mxd Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Manteca Transit Center
Parks
Existing Crosswalk
Existing Sidewalk
Class I - Multi-Use Path
Railroad
Figure 4
120
ATTACHMENT 2

2.5 Bicycle Facilities
Manteca currently offers a few bicycle facility options in downtown, as shown in Figure 5. The Manteca Active Transportation Plan (2020) outlined a number of proposed improvements to the bicycle and pedestrian network.

Bicycle facility classifications, descriptions, and existing facilities in the study area are provided below.

Class I Shared Use Paths provide a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles, pedestrians, and other non-motorized modes. The Tidewater Trail that runs parallel to Moffat Boulevard and the separated facility along Spreckels Avenue are classified as shared use paths.

Class II Bike Lanes are dedicated on-street lanes for bicyclists. Some may have painted buffers to provide space between bicyclists and moving traffic or parking cars. There are currently bicycle lanes on Moffat Boulevard between S. Main Street and Spreckels Avenue, on Yosemite Avenue between Grant Avenue and Cottage Avenue-Spreckels Avenue, on Powers Avenue between North Street and Moffat Boulevard, and segments of Center Street, Norman Street, and Industrial Park Drive.

Class III Bike Routes are routes where the travel lane is shared by drivers and bicyclists. They are most suited for roadways with low traffic speeds and volumes, such as quiet residential streets.

Some routes, called bicycle boulevards, may be enhanced with curb extensions, neighborhood traffic circles, or other traffic calming treatments to improve comfort for bicycling. Many segments in downtown Manteca have been designated as bike routes, including Alameda Street, Center Street, North Street, Lincoln Avenue, Fremont Street, Park Avenue, and Cottage Avenue.

Class IV Separated Bikeways are on-street bicycle facilities that include physical protection from vehicle traffic. This separation might include a curb, on-street parking, flexible bollards, or concrete planters. Class IV bikeways may provide for one-way or two-way travel on each side of the roadway. There are currently no Class IV bikeways in Manteca, though some are planned.

ATTACHMENT 2
!Ã!
Main St
North St
Moffat Blvd
Yosemite Ave
Powers Ave
Pine St
Center St
ncoln Ave
Spreckels Ave
Fir St
Fremont St
rman Ave
Park Ave
Mylnar Ave
Cottage Ave
Oak St
Wetmore St
Cowell Ave
Lupton St
Marin St
Yolo St
Willow Ave
Trinity St
Norman Dr
Wawona St
Sheridan Ave
Tidewater Path
Garfield Ave
Mission Ridge Dr
Mellon Ave
Martha St
Carnegie St
South St
Edward Ave
California Ave
Oregon St
Dyer Ave
Raylow Ave
Charles Ave
Stockton St
Kent St
Flores Ave
Jessie Ave
Vine St
Bernt Ave
Bessemer Ave
Tahoe St
Champagne Ln
rding Ave
osevelt Ave Washington Ave
Lassen Ave
Lambdin St
Stewart St
Crockett St
Chablis Way
Vin Rose Way
Manteca Ave
aux Ln
Whelan Way
Willow Ave
Maple Ave
Jessie Ave
N:\2021 Projects\4123.00_Manteca_Downtown_Transit_Center\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Fig06_ExBicycleNetwork_08.05.22.mxd Existing Bicycle Facilities
Figure 5
!Ã! Manteca Transit Center
Railroad
Parks
Class I - Multi-Use Path
Class II - Bicycle Lane
Class III - Bicycle Route
ATTACHMENT 2

2.6 Safety
To better understand how travel behaviors and roadway characteristics may be affecting overall Downtown roadway safety, data from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) developed by the University of California Berkeley’s Safe Transportation Research & Education Center (SafeTREC) was obtained. This data can be used to map California crash data from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS).

TIMS data was pulled for the following study corridors for the six-year period inclusive of 2015 through 2020:
• Yosemite Avenue between Manteca Avenue and Spreckels Avenue (55 collisions, including at intersections)
• Main Street between Yosemite Avenue and Moffat Boulevard (27 collisions, including at intersections)
• Moffat Boulevard between Main Street and Spreckels Avenue (24 collisions, including at intersections)
• North-south streets between Yosemite Avenue and Moffat Boulevard: Grant Avenue (one collision), Sherman Avenue (one collision), Garfield Avenue (one collision) Vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian collisions from 2015 through 2020 are shown in Figure 6.

Analysis of that data revealed the following:
• On the study segments, 103 total collisions were reported over the six-year period, for an average of 17 collisions per year. Of these, 4 of the collisions resulted in a victim being seriously injured and none resulted in fatality.
• The most common primary collision factors were unsafe speed (28 crashes, 27% of total), vehicle right of way violation (25 crashes, 24%), and traffic signals and signs (12 crashes, 12%). • The most common types of collision were rear end (34 crashes, 33%) and broadside collisions (35 crashes, 34%). There were 9 vehicle/pedestrian collisions (9% of total). • 85 collisions (82% of total) occurred at an intersection. • 35 collisions (34% of total) occurred during the PM peak period (3PM to 7PM) • 62 collisions (60%) occurred between Tuesday and Thursday, typical days of attendance for school and office work.
• 15 to 64 year olds made up 80% of victims despite being 64% of the Manteca population.

ATTACHMENT 2
During the study period, crashes steadily increased from 2015 to 2019, as shown below. A sharp decrease in collisions occurred during the beginning of the COVID-19 Pandemic associated with sharp decreases in vehicle travel.

Note: 2021 TIMS data is provisional and subject to change.

Provisional data from 2021 showed a slight uptick in collisions, with increases in traffic along the study corridors. Collisions from 2021 generally followed the same trends in collision factors and type as those from before 2020.
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Collisions
ATTACHMENT 2
!
Main St
Yosemite Ave
Moffat Blvd
Spreckels Ave
Park Ave
Powers Ave
Oak St
Cowell Ave
Marin St
Yolo St
Lupton St
Willow Ave
Norman Dr
Wawona St
Mellon Ave
Dupont Ct
Tidewater Path
Carnegie St
South St
Industrial Park Dr
Edward Ave
California Ave
Oregon St
Fremont St
Phoenix Dr
Stockton St
Mission Ridge Dr Champagne Ln
Commerce Ave
Washington Ave
Lassen Ave
Lambdin St
Garfield Ave
Vanderbilt Cir
Whelan Way
Merlot Ct Jessie Ave \\fpgisdevApp01\DevGISLibrary\ServiceMXDs\RS\RS214123_Manteca_Downtown_Transit_Center\RS214123_Mateca_Downtown_Transit_Center_22.aprx Vehicle, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Collisions, 2015-2020
Collision Type:

Pedestrian
Bicycle
Vehicle
Study Corridor
Manteca Transit Center
Parks
Figure 6
ATTACHMENT 2

3. Planned Facilities & Infill
Opportunities

3.1 Planned Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The following are stated projects in the 2018 SJCOG Regional Transportation Plan:
• Construction of a platform for passenger rail service and additional parking at the Manteca Transit Center
• Class II Bike Lanes Yosemite Avenue from Main Street to Cottage Avenue/Spreckels Avenue (complete)
• Crossing improvements on Yosemite Avenue (complete)
• Class II Bike Lanes and Pedestrian Improvements on Main Street from Yosemite Avenue to Atherton Drive
• Reconstruction of Main Street interchange of State Route 120 The Manteca Draft General Plan Circulation Element states that the City will strive to develop:

1. A “city-loop” Class I bike path for use by both bicyclists and pedestrians that links Austin Road, Atherton Drive, Airport Way, and a route along or near Lathrop Road to the Tidewater Bike Path and its existing and planned extensions.

2. An off-street bicycle trail extension between the Tidewater Bike Trail near the intersection of Moffat Boulevard and Industrial Park Drive to the proposed regional route between Manteca and Ripon.

The Manteca Active Transportation Plan includes the following planned facilities (shown in Figure 7):
• Class II Buffered Bike Lane on Main Street from Yosemite Avenue to Wawona Street • Class IV Separated Bikeway on Main Street from Wawona Street to the Westbound State Route 120 Ramps, continuing south of the SR 120 interchange with a Class I Bike Path • Class II Bike Lane on Garfield Street from North Street (Needs adjustment given the recently completed partial street closure on Garfield Avenue)
• Class II Bike Lane on Center Street from Acacia Avenue to Fremont Street • Class II Bike Lane on Yosemite Avenue from Walnut Avenue to Main Street and from Spreckels Avenue to Austin Road to complete the Yosemite Avenue Bike Lanes • Crossing Improvements along Moffat Boulevard, Yosemite Avenue, and Center Street • New sidewalks on the southern side of Spreckels Ave from Phoenix Drive to Moffat Avenue • New sidewalks on Grant Avenue connecting Yosemite Avenue and the Transit Center • New sidewalks on the streets bounded by Main Street, the railroad tracks, and State Route 120, including portions of Wetmore Street and Industrial Park Drive.

ATTACHMENT 2
Main St
North St
Moffat Blvd
Yosemite Ave
Powers Ave
Pine St
Grant Ave
Center St
Lincoln Ave
Spreckels Ave
Fir St
Fremont St
Sherman Ave
Park Ave
Mylnar Ave
Cottage Ave
Poplar Ave
Maple Ave
Oak St
Wetmore St
Sutter St
Acacia Ave
Cowell Ave
Sycamore Ave
Lupton St
Marin St
Yolo St
Willow Ave
Trinity St
Norman Dr
Wawona St
Sheridan Ave
Sierra St
Tidewater Path
Garfield Ave
Mission Ridge Dr
Mellon Ave
Martha St
Vanderbilt Cir
Carnegie St
South St
Edward Ave
California Ave
Oregon St
Dyer Ave
Raylow Ave
Industrial Park Dr
Charles Ave
Bristow St
Stockton St
Kent St
Flores Ave
Jessie Ave
Vine St
Bernt Ave
Bessemer Ave
Tahoe St
Champagne Ln
Harding Ave
Van Ryn Ave
Roosevelt Ave Washington Ave
Lassen Ave
Lambdin St
Stewart St
Crockett St
Schadeck St
Chablis Way
Shepard Way
Vin Rose Way
Manteca Ave
Bordeaux Ln
Whelan Way
Willow Ave
Alameda St
Maple Ave
Jessie Ave
N:\2021 Projects\4123.00_Manteca_Downtown_Transit_Center\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Fig09_PlannedBicyclePedNetwork.mxd Planned Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Manteca Transit Center
Planned Crossing Improvement
Planned Class I Bike Path
Planned Class II Bike Lane
Planned Class II Buffered Bike Lane
Planned Class III Bike Route
Planned Class IV Separated Bikeway
Planned Sidewalk
Railroad
Parks
Figure 7
120
ATTACHMENT 2

3.2 Planned Transit Service & Facilities

3.2.1 Manteca Transit Routes
As Manteca Transit is observing roughly 70% of its 2019 pre-COVID ridership, no additional routes or deviations from current routes are planned in the near future. The recent initiative to offer free transit rides to high school students has successfully increased ridership on some routes, with plans to extend to free service to middle school students (meeting with Juan Portillo, February 23, 2022).

3.2.2 ACE Extension Projects and Manteca Station
The Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) has several current projects under its Valley Rail Program, with the overarching plan of extending ACE service northward to Sacramento and southward to Merced, as well as the expansion of the San Joaquins train service between the San Joaquin Valley and Sacramento. Projects include the ACE Extension Lathrop to Ceres/Merced Project and the Valley Rail Sacramento Extension Project. A map of the ACE extension to Ceres and Merced is shown below.

Source: https://acerail.com/wp-content/uploads/Project-Map-04212021.pdf As of August 2022, a 30% design plan for the Manteca ACE Station has been completed (shown in Figure 8). The station/platform is scheduled to be constructed in 2023 with one train in each direction daily after opening, before adding more trains to the schedule.

ATTACHMENT 2
The proposed site plan of the Manteca ACE station and platform includes the following design features:
• The ACE train platform, including a concrete pad between tracks for the southbound train and a landscaped outcropping with pedestrian paths for the northbound train • Continuation of the Tidewater Bike Trail, diverted for the train platform • A total of 152 parking stalls, 34 on city property and 118 on San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission property
• Vehicular connection to the Manteca Transit Center Parking Lot Figure 8. Manteca ACE Train Platform Design
ATTACHMENT 2

3.3 Planned Roadway Improvements & Projected Traffic Volumes The Manteca PFIP and Manteca General Plan do not include any road widening of Main Street, Yosemite Avenue, and Moffat Boulevard within the study area. To perform a preliminary check of if the existing roadway capacity could lead to congestion issues in the future, projected traffic volumes were pulled from the 2040 City of Manteca, Lathrop, and Ripon Travel Forecasting Model.

The Interim Year 2040 Travel Forecasting Model was developed based on expected future land use and transportation network for the City of Manteca and adjacent areas in 2040. Similar to other cities in the Central Valley region, the City of Manteca is projecting large amount of growth for both housing and employment in the General Plan Buildout scenarios. The Interim Year 2040 model scenario was developed in coordination with Manteca to ensure that the TFM represents market-based demand for future growth in both housing and employment, therefore not under or over estimating traffic demand volumes. The City of Manteca 2040 land use inputs were developed based on the City of Manteca’s approved and anticipated projects that will be constructed and occupied by year 2040. Traffic volumes pulled directly from the model are purely meant to give a cursory glance at future traffic volumes.

Table 2 shows daily volume projections from the Manteca Interim Year 2040 travel forecasting model and corresponding segment level of service (LOS) estimates. All segments are projected to have a segment LOS of C or better. It should be noted that segment LOS is distinct from intersection LOS.

Table 2. Projected 2040 Roadway Level of Service
Road Segment Daily Volume Lanes Segment LOS
S Main Street between Yosemite Avenue and Moffat Boulevard 19,800 4 C Moffat Boulevard between S Main Street and Grant Avenue 4,200 2 C Yosemite Avenue between Sherman and Garfield 15,900 2 C Source: Fehr & Peers. 2022.

3.4 Infill Opportunities Assessment
De Novo Planning Group performed a preliminary assessment of land use, development, and demographics in the Manteca Transit Center study area. This analysis provides the information necessary to evaluate opportunities for infill development. In terms of demographic information, in 2022, 28.9% of the population in the area is 19 years and younger and over half of the persons in the area are of Hispanic origin.

As the De Novo report shows, several vacant and underutilized opportunity sites exist in central Manteca, including parcels along Grant Avenue and Yosemite Avenue. Notably, the unincorporated “opportunity zone” bounded by Bessemer Avenue, Moffat Boulevard, and Industrial Park Drive has the potential to become a “transit-oriented development” through the creation of a walkable/bikeable, pedestrianoriented, mixed-use community to those hoping to regularly utilize ACE train service.

ATTACHMENT 2
Appendix A: Existing Land Use,
Development, and Demographics
Report
ATTACHMENT 2
Existing Conditions Report
Manteca Downtown Transit Planning Area | 1
This report examines the land use and development patterns, demographic and socioeconomic trends, and housing characteristics of the Manteca Downtown Transit Planning Area. The information and analysis is intended to inform the Downtown Transit planning effort process by providing context and a baseline of existing land use, demographic, and housing development information.

The information in this report is specific to the Downtown Transit Planning Area, which is an 859-acre area centered around Manteca’s Downtown.

As shown in Figure 1, the Downtown Transit Planning Area extends from Alameda Street to the north to Walnut and Locust Avenues to the west, and Wawona Street down to Industrial Park along the southern border. The eastern border goes from Fremont Street in the northern portion of the area, to South Powers Street and extending further east to include the single family residential neighborhood ending just east of Cowell Avenue to Spreckels Ave.

The Downtown Transit Planning Area includes Manteca’s core downtown along Yosemite Avenue from approximately Powers Ave to Pierce Ave and extends one to two blocks to the north and south along this corridor. Residential neighborhoods are located throughout the area, with the majority of residential development in the western and northern portions of the Planning Area, generally outside of the Downtown core area.

The Tidewater Parkway extends diagonally throughout the Planning Area from the northwest to the southeast, generally following the railroad tracks.

Building footprints in the Downtown Planning Area are shown in Figure 2. Public features in the Downtown Transit Planning Area include:
• Manteca Transit Center
• Manteca High School
• Lincoln School
• Sequoia Elementary School
• Baccilerri Park
• Hildebrand Park
• Lincoln Park and Lincoln Pool
• Manteca BMX Park
• Manteca Skateboard Park
• McGinnish Park
• Southside Park
ATTACHMENT 2
Existing Conditions Report
Manteca Downtown Transit Planning Area | 2

LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
This section describes land use and development patterns in the Downtown Transit planning area, including General Plan land use designations and assessed uses.

Land Use Designations
Land use designations for the City’s adopted General Plan and proposed Draft General Plan are shown in Figures 3 and 4, respectively, and summarized in Table 1. The City is in the process of updating its General Plan and anticipates adopting the General Plan Update in 2022.

As shown in Table 1, lands designated for residential use under the proposed Draft General Plan represent the largest proportion (39%), followed by mixed use designations (27%), and public and quasi-public designation (23%).

Table 1: Proposed Land Use Designations
Land Use Designation Adopted General Plan Proposed General Plan Acres Percent Acres Percent
Residential
Low Density Residential (LDR) 223.3 32% 191.0 28%
Medium Density Residential (MDR) 63.5 9% 57.0 8%
High Density Residential (HDR) 31.8 5% 23.3 3%
Subtotal 318.6 46% 271.3 39%
Mixed Use
Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) 74.1 11% 46.1 7%
Downtown (DW) - 0% 137.1 20%
Subtotal 74.1 11% 183.2 27%
Commercial
Commercial (C) - 0% 17.9 3%
General Commercial (GC) 26.0 4% - 0%
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) 14.2 2% - 0%
Subtotal 40.2 6% 17.9 3%
Industrial
Heavy Industrial (HI) 8.8 1% - 0%
Light Industrial (LI) 97.8 14% - 0%
Industrial (I) - 0% 58.4 8%
Subtotal 106.6 15% 58.4 8%
Public and Quasi-Public
Park (P) 26.9 4% 40.3 6%
Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) 123.3 18% 118.6 17%
Right-of-Way - % 0.1 <1%
Subtotal 150.2 22% 159 23%
Grand Total 689.7 100% 689.7 100%
SOURCE: CITY OF MANTECA GIS, 2022; DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP, 2022.

NOTE: TOTALS MAY NOT ADD TO 100% DUE TO ROUNDING
ATTACHMENT 2
Existing Conditions Report
Manteca Downtown Transit Planning Area | 3
Assessed Uses
The San Joaquin County Office of the Assessor reviews and identifies existing land uses for all parcels within the County. Figure 5 identifies the current assessed land uses within the Downtown Transit Planning Area. Table 2 summarizes the assessed land uses by category and specific use type. As shown in Table 2, the majority of parcels (1,869 parcels) and the largest proportion of existing assessed uses in the Downtown Transit Planning Area is residential (47%), followed by government (23%), and commercial uses (12%). Only a limited amount of sites are identified as vacant (29.7 acres or 4%).

Table 2: Assessed Uses
Assessed Use Acres Percent of Total Number of Parcels
Agriculture
Irrigated 35.9 5% 2
Subtotal 35.9 5% 2
Commercial
Automotive 20.2 3% 28
Church 8.6 1% 15
Food Service 4.0 1% 15
Medical 4.8 1% 16
Office 7.7 1% 31
Other 8.6 1% 34
Recreation 3.1 0% 6
Retail 20.6 3% 79
Retail/Office 3.6 1% 12
Subtotal 81.2 12% 236
Government
City 36.1 5% 36
County 0.6 0% 3
Federal 0.4 0% 1
School 70.3 10% 13
Utility 48.4 7% 30
Subtotal 155.8 23% 83
Industrial
Light 13.2 2% 8
Other 1.3 0% 3
Warehouse/Storage 41.1 6% 25
Subtotal 55.6 8% 36
Not Assigned
Not Assigned 7.0 1% 48
Residential
Common Area 2.0 0% 1
Mobile Home 5.2 1% 5
Multi-Family 71.6 10% 308
ATTACHMENT 2
Existing Conditions Report
Manteca Downtown Transit Planning Area | 4
Table 2: Assessed Uses
Assessed Use Acres Percent of Total Number of Parcels
Single Family 245.6 36% 1,555
Subtotal 324.4 47% 1,869
Vacant
Commercial 7.8 1% 28
Government 17.4 3% 5
Industrial 3.1 0% 6
Residential 1.5 0% 4
Subtotal 29.7 4% 43
Total 689.6 100% 2,317
SOURCE: SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY ASSESSOR DATA, 2022; CITY OF MANTECA GIS, 2022; DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP, 2022.

Pending and Proposed Projects
Pending and proposed projects in the Downtown Transit Planning Area are primarily commercial and industrial in nature. Figure 6 identifies the location of pending and proposed projects in the Downtown Transit Planning Area as well as projects in the vicinity. As shown in Table 3, there are no residential developments pending or proposed in the Downtown Transit Planning Area. Proposed projects include commercial projects (offices and services) involving 49,310 square feet of development, 39,265 square feet of industrial (warehouse and associated uses), and 22,500 square feet of public/quasi-public (religious/institutional uses).

Table 3: Pending and Proposed Projects
Project Square Feet
Residential
No pending/proposed projects 0
Non-residential
Commercial
BBVA Bank - ATM Install 18,410
Deaf Puppy Comedy Club 8,400
Raymus Development Office Building 9,280
Industrial
E. Wetmore Office and Warehouse 25,921
Warehouse Remodel and Conversion 13,344
Public/Quasi-Public
St Anthony Church Parking Expansion 22,500
SOURCE: CITY OF MANTECA GIS, 2022; DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP, 2022.

ATTACHMENT 2
Existing Conditions Report
Manteca Downtown Transit Planning Area | 5
Growth Projection by Proposed Land Use
The Draft General Plan envisions growth with a range of uses in the Downtown Transit Planning Area. Figure 4 identifies the proposed Draft General Plan land use designations for the area and Figure 7 highlights the vacant and underutilized parcels with infill development opportunities. These sites provide opportunities for residential, mixed use, commercial, and industrial development in the Planning Area.

As summarized in Table 4, approximately 749 new dwelling units would be accommodated under the proposed Draft General Plan. This includes 53 single family units and 71 multifamily units in residential designations, 628 multifamily units in mixed use designations, and 9 multifamily units in commercial and industrial designations and a net removal of 12 single family units in the mixed use designations. New non-residential development would total approximately 511,000 square feet. This would include 353,704 commercial square feet and 114,112 office square feet in mixed use designations and 27,486 square feet in commercial designations, and 24,532 square feet in industrial designations. A modest amount of agricultural development and other types of development would be removed.

Table 4: Growth Projections by Proposed Land Use Designation Proposed General Plan
Land Use Designation
Dwelling Units Non-Residential Square Feet
Single
Family Multifamily Total Agricultural Commercial Industrial Office Other Total Residential
Low Density Residential 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0
Medium Density Residential 46 67 113 0 0 0 0 -907 -907
High Density Residential -1 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal 53 71 124 0 0 0 0 -907 -907
Mixed Use
Downtown -11 196 185 0 126,660 0 51,056 0 177,716
Commercial Mixed Use -1 432 431 -1,456 227,044 -5,404 63,066 -1,568 281,682 Subtotal -12 628 616 -1,456 353,704 -5,404 114,122 -1,568 459,398 Commercial and Industrial
Commercial 0 11 11 0 31,101 0 0 0 31,101
Industrial 0 -2 -2 0 -3,615 24,532 0 0 20,917
Subtotal 0 9 9 0 27,486 24,532 0 0 52,018
Total 41 708 749 -1,456 381,190 19,128 114,122 -2,475 510,509 SOURCE: CITY OF MANTECA GIS, 2022; DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP, 2022.

ATTACHMENT 2
UV120
Unincorporated
San Joaquin County
UV99
!©
Tidewater Bike Path

CENTER ST

YOSEMITE AVE

MAIN ST

ALPINE AVE

NORTH ST

ALAMEDA ST

ELM AVE

WAWONA ST

PARK AVE

VEACH AVE

ATHERTON DR

COTTAGE AVE

OREGON ST

LOCUST AVE

LUPTON ST

TAHOE ST

HACIENDA AVE

EDYTHE ST

VAN RYN AVE

WILLOW AVE

POWERS AVE

COWELL AVE

SONORA AVE

KENT ST

NORMAN DR

INDUSTRIAL PARK

FREMONT ST

SEQUOIA AVE

TRINITY ST

MARIE AVE

MARIN ST

SIERRA ST

STOCKTON ST

MISSION RIDGE DR

ARGONAUT ST

STEWART ST

MICHIGAN AVE

PALOMINO ST EDWARD AVE

NEVADA ST

EDISON ST

MYLNAR AVE

MOFFAT BLVD

MARTHA ST

YOLO ST

SUTTER ST

FLORES AVE
FIR ST

BRISTOW ST

VICTORY AVE

DYER AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHAMPAGNE LN ACACIA AVE

PINE ST

LINCOLN AVE
OAK ST

PERIMETER DR

VANDERBILT CIR

SOUTH ST

CHENIN BLANC DR

WALNUT AVE

ORCHARD WAY

CALIFORNIA AVE

MIKESELL ST

SPRECKELS AVE

POPLAR AVE

CHARLES AVE

RAYLOW AVE

GRANT AVE

SHERMAN AVE

MELLON AVE

MAPLE AVE

SYCAMORE AVE

ALMOND AVE

HAWES ST

SHASTA ST

LASSEN AVE

GARFIELD AVE

QUINTAL RD

PLUMAS WAY
TAPPAN
PL

FERN DELL LN

LAKESIDE AVE

VIRGINIA ST

MARION ST

CARSON AVE

CARNEGIE ST

WETMORE ST
Lincoln
Elementary
School
Walnut
Place
Park
Skate
Park Mini
Park
Southside Park
Bay
Meadows
Park
Manteca High School
Spreckels
Recreation Park
Manteca
Community
Day School
Lincoln
Park &
Pool
Sequoia
Elementary
School
Baccilieri
Park
Library
& Park
Tennis
Courts
Hildebrand
Park
Animal
Shelter
Station
#241
Superior
Court Post
Office
Figure 1
Aerial View

MANTECA DOWNTOWN PLAN
LEGEND
Manteca Downtown Plan Area
City Limits
Z 0 500 1,000
Feet
Sources: Sources: San Joaquin County GIS; ArcGIS Online World Imagery Map Service 4/29/2021, Google Maps. Map date: August 11, 2022.

ATTACHMENT 2
UV120
Unincorporated
San Joaquin County
UV99

CENTER ST

YOSEMITE AVE

MAIN ST

ALPINE AVE

NORTH ST

ALAMEDA ST

ELM AVE

WAWONA ST

PARK AVE

VEACH AVE

ATHERTON DR

COTTAGE AVE

OREGON ST

LOCUST AVE

LUPTON ST

TAHOE ST

HACIENDA AVE

EDYTHE ST

VAN RYN AVE

WILLOW AVE

POWERS AVE

COWELL AVE

SONORA AVE

KENT ST

NORMAN DR

INDUSTRIAL PARK

FREMONT ST

SEQUOIA AVE

TRINITY ST

MARIE AVE

MARIN ST

SIERRA ST

STOCKTON ST

MISSION RIDGE DR

ARGONAUT ST

STEWART ST

MICHIGAN AVE

PALOMINO ST EDWARD AVE

NEVADA ST

EDISON ST

MYLNAR AVE

MOFFAT BLVD

MARTHA ST

YOLO ST

SUTTER ST

FLORES AVE
FIR ST

BRISTOW ST

VICTORY AVE

DYER AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHAMPAGNE LN ACACIA AVE

PINE ST

LINCOLN AVE
OAK ST

PERIMETER DR

VANDERBILT CIR

SOUTH ST

CHENIN BLANC DR

WALNUT AVE

ORCHARD WAY

CALIFORNIA AVE

MIKESELL ST

SPRECKELS AVE

POPLAR AVE

CHARLES AVE

RAYLOW AVE

GRANT AVE

SHERMAN AVE

MELLON AVE

MAPLE AVE

SYCAMORE AVE

ALMOND AVE

HAWES ST

SHASTA ST

LASSEN AVE

GARFIELD AVE

QUINTAL RD

PLUMAS WAY
TAPPAN
PL

FERN DELL LN

LAKESIDE AVE

VIRGINIA ST

MARION ST

CARSON AVE

CARNEGIE ST

WETMORE ST
Figure 2
Building Footprints

MANTECA DOWNTOWN PLAN
LEGEND
Manteca Downtown Plan Area
City Limits
Building Footprint Z 0 500 1,000
Feet
Sources: San Joaquin County GIS; Microsoft Building Footprints, ESRI map service, 3/29/20212019. Map date: July 12, 2022.

ATTACHMENT 2
UV120
Unincorporated
San Joaquin County
UV99

CENTER ST

YOSEMITE AVE

MAIN ST

ALPINE AVE

NORTH ST

ALAMEDA ST

ELM AVE

WAWONA ST

PARK AVE

VEACH AVE

ATHERTON DR

COTTAGE AVE

OREGON ST

LOCUST AVE

LUPTON ST

TAHOE ST

HACIENDA AVE

EDYTHE ST

VAN RYN AVE

WILLOW AVE

POWERS AVE

COWELL AVE

SONORA AVE

KENT ST

NORMAN DR

INDUSTRIAL PARK

FREMONT ST

SEQUOIA AVE

TRINITY ST

MARIE AVE

MARIN ST

SIERRA ST

STOCKTON ST

MISSION RIDGE DR

ARGONAUT ST

STEWART ST

MICHIGAN AVE

PALOMINO ST EDWARD AVE

NEVADA ST

EDISON ST

MYLNAR AVE

MOFFAT BLVD

MARTHA ST

YOLO ST

SUTTER ST

FLORES AVE
FIR ST

BRISTOW ST

VICTORY AVE

DYER AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHAMPAGNE LN ACACIA AVE

PINE ST

LINCOLN AVE
OAK ST

PERIMETER DR

VANDERBILT CIR

SOUTH ST

CHENIN BLANC DR

WALNUT AVE

ORCHARD WAY

CALIFORNIA AVE

MIKESELL ST

SPRECKELS AVE

POPLAR AVE

CHARLES AVE

RAYLOW AVE

GRANT AVE

SHERMAN AVE

MELLON AVE

MAPLE AVE

SYCAMORE AVE

ALMOND AVE

HAWES ST

SHASTA ST

LASSEN AVE

GARFIELD AVE

QUINTAL RD

PLUMAS WAY
TAPPAN
PL

FERN DELL LN

LAKESIDE AVE

VIRGINIA ST

MARION ST

CARSON AVE

CARNEGIE ST

WETMORE ST
Figure 3
Adopted General Plan Map

LEGEND MANTECA DOWNTOWN PLAN
Manteca Downtown Plan Area
City Limits
NC - Neighborhood Commercial
CMU - Commercial Mixed Use
GC - General Commercial
LDR - Low Density Residential
MDR - Medium Density Residential
HDR - High Density Residential
LI - Light Industrial
HI - Heavy Industrial
P - Park
PQP - Public/Quasi-Public
Z 0 500 1,000
Feet
Sources: San Joaquin County GIS; City of Manteca. Map date: July 11, 2022.

ATTACHMENT 2
UV120
Unincorporated
San Joaquin County
UV99

CENTER ST

YOSEMITE AVE

MAIN ST

ALPINE AVE

NORTH ST

ALAMEDA ST

ELM AVE

WAWONA ST

PARK AVE

VEACH AVE

ATHERTON DR

COTTAGE AVE

OREGON ST

LOCUST AVE

LUPTON ST

TAHOE ST

HACIENDA AVE

EDYTHE ST

VAN RYN AVE

WILLOW AVE

POWERS AVE

COWELL AVE

SONORA AVE

KENT ST

NORMAN DR

INDUSTRIAL PARK

FREMONT ST

SEQUOIA AVE

TRINITY ST

MARIE AVE

MARIN ST

SIERRA ST

STOCKTON ST

MISSION RIDGE DR

ARGONAUT ST

STEWART ST

MICHIGAN AVE

PALOMINO ST EDWARD AVE

NEVADA ST

EDISON ST

MYLNAR AVE

MOFFAT BLVD

MARTHA ST

YOLO ST

SUTTER ST

FLORES AVE
FIR ST

BRISTOW ST

VICTORY AVE

DYER AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHAMPAGNE LN ACACIA AVE

PINE ST

LINCOLN AVE
OAK ST

PERIMETER DR

VANDERBILT CIR

SOUTH ST

CHENIN BLANC DR

WALNUT AVE

ORCHARD WAY

CALIFORNIA AVE

MIKESELL ST

SPRECKELS AVE

POPLAR AVE

CHARLES AVE

RAYLOW AVE

GRANT AVE

SHERMAN AVE

MELLON AVE

MAPLE AVE

SYCAMORE AVE

ALMOND AVE

HAWES ST

SHASTA ST

LASSEN AVE

GARFIELD AVE

QUINTAL RD

PLUMAS WAY
TAPPAN
PL

FERN DELL LN

LAKESIDE AVE

VIRGINIA ST

MARION ST

CARSON AVE

CARNEGIE ST

WETMORE ST
Figure 4
Proposed General Plan Map

LEGEND MANTECA DOWNTOWN PLAN
Manteca Downtown Plan Area
City Limits
LDR - Low Density Residential
MDR - Medium Density Residential
HDR - High Density Residential
C - Commercial
CMU - Commercial Mixed Use
DW - Downtown
BP - Business Professional
PQP - Public/Quasi-Public
P - Park
OS - Open Space
I - Industrial
Z 0 500 1,000
Feet
Sources: San Joaquin County GIS; City of Manteca. Map date: July 11, 2022.

ATTACHMENT 2
UV120
Unincorporated
San Joaquin County
UV99
©
Tidewater Bike Path

CENTER ST

YOSEMITE AVE

MAIN ST

ALPINE AVE

NORTH ST

ALAMEDA ST

ELM AVE

WAWONA ST

PARK AVE

VEACH AVE

ATHERTON DR

COTTAGE AVE

OREGON ST

LOCUST AVE

LUPTON ST

TAHOE ST

HACIENDA AVE

EDYTHE ST

VAN RYN AVE

WILLOW AVE

POWERS AVE

COWELL AVE

SONORA AVE

KENT ST

NORMAN DR

INDUSTRIAL PARK

FREMONT ST

SEQUOIA AVE

TRINITY ST

MARIE AVE

MARIN ST

SIERRA ST

STOCKTON ST

MISSION RIDGE DR

ARGONAUT ST

STEWART ST

MICHIGAN AVE

PALOMINO ST EDWARD AVE

NEVADA ST

EDISON ST

MYLNAR AVE

MOFFAT BLVD

MARTHA ST

YOLO ST

SUTTER ST

FLORES AVE
FIR ST

BRISTOW ST

VICTORY AVE

DYER AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHAMPAGNE LN ACACIA AVE

PINE ST

LINCOLN AVE
OAK ST

PERIMETER DR

VANDERBILT CIR

SOUTH ST

CHENIN BLANC DR

WALNUT AVE

ORCHARD WAY

CALIFORNIA AVE

MIKESELL ST

SPRECKELS AVE

POPLAR AVE

CHARLES AVE

RAYLOW AVE

GRANT AVE

SHERMAN AVE

MELLON AVE

MAPLE AVE

SYCAMORE AVE

ALMOND AVE

HAWES ST

SHASTA ST

LASSEN AVE

GARFIELD AVE

QUINTAL RD

PLUMAS WAY
TAPPAN
PL

FERN DELL LN

LAKESIDE AVE

VIRGINIA ST

MARION ST

CARSON AVE

CARNEGIE ST

WETMORE ST
Lincoln
Elementary School
Walnut
Place
Park
Skate
Park Mini
Park
Southside Park
Bay Meadows Park
Manteca High School
Spreckels
Recreation
Park
Manteca
Community
Day School
Lincoln
Park &
Pool
Sequoia
Elementary
School
Baccilieri
Park
Library
&
Park
Tennis
Courts
Hildebrand Park
Animal
Shelter
Station
#241
Superior
Court
Post
Office
Figure 5
Assessed Uses

MANTECA DOWNTOWN PLAN
LEGEND
Manteca Downtown Plan Area
City Limits
Agriculture
Residential Single Family
Residential Multi-Family
Commercial
Industrial
Government
Not Assigned Z 0 500 1,000
Feet
Sources: San Joaquin County GIS; City of Manteca; Assessor Data received 6/22/2022, Google Maps. Map date: August 11, 2022.

ATTACHMENT 2
UV120
Unincorporated
San Joaquin County
UV99

CENTER ST

YOSEMITE AVE

MAIN ST

ALPINE AVE

NORTH ST

ALAMEDA ST

ELM AVE

WAWONA ST

PARK AVE

VEACH AVE

ATHERTON DR

COTTAGE AVE

OREGON ST

LOCUST AVE

LUPTON ST

TAHOE ST

HACIENDA AVE

EDYTHE ST

VAN RYN AVE

WILLOW AVE

POWERS AVE

COWELL AVE

SONORA AVE

KENT ST

NORMAN DR

INDUSTRIAL PARK

FREMONT ST

SEQUOIA AVE

TRINITY ST

MARIE AVE

MARIN ST

SIERRA ST

STOCKTON ST

MISSION RIDGE DR

ARGONAUT ST

STEWART ST

MICHIGAN AVE

PALOMINO ST EDWARD AVE

NEVADA ST

EDISON ST

MYLNAR AVE

MOFFAT BLVD

MARTHA ST

YOLO ST

SUTTER ST

FLORES AVE
FIR ST

BRISTOW ST

VICTORY AVE

DYER AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHAMPAGNE LN ACACIA AVE

PINE ST

LINCOLN AVE
OAK ST

PERIMETER DR

VANDERBILT CIR

SOUTH ST

CHENIN BLANC DR

WALNUT AVE

ORCHARD WAY

CALIFORNIA AVE

MIKESELL ST

SPRECKELS AVE

POPLAR AVE

CHARLES AVE

GRANT AVE

SHERMAN AVE

MELLON AVE

MAPLE AVE

SYCAMORE AVE

ALMOND AVE

HAWES ST

SHASTA ST

LASSEN AVE

GARFIELD AVE

QUINTAL RD

PLUMAS WAY

FERN DELL LN

VIRGINIA ST

MARION ST

CARSON AVE

CARNEGIE ST

WETMORE ST
Diamond
Villas
Madan Das
Apartments
Stewart Street Apartments
The Address
Townhomes
Valencia
Place
Apartments
Cyrus Lane
Apartments
BBVA - ATM Install
Raymus Development
Office Building SPC
E Wetmore
Office and
Warehouse
Warehouse
Remodel &
Conversion
Deaf Puppy Comedy
Club Pinkberry
Funsten
Fence
Industrial
Yard
Warehouse
Remodel &
Conversion
American
Modular
Systems
Prologis/Spreckels
Distribution Center
Walmart
Expansion
Spreckles
Retail
Cabral-Jeep
Dealershop
Renovation
Grace Motors
Figure 6
Pending and Proposed Projects

MANTECA DOWNTOWN PLAN
LEGEND
Manteca Downtown Plan Area
City Limits
Commercial Projects
Residential Projects Z 0 500 1,000
Feet
Sources: San Joaquin County GIS; City of Manteca. Map date: July 13, 2022.

ATTACHMENT 2
UV120
Unincorporated
San Joaquin County
UV99

CENTER ST

YOSEMITE AVE

MAIN ST

ALPINE AVE

NORTH ST

ALAMEDA ST

ELM AVE

WAWONA ST

PARK AVE

VEACH AVE

ATHERTON DR

COTTAGE AVE

OREGON ST

LOCUST AVE

LUPTON ST

TAHOE ST

HACIENDA AVE

EDYTHE ST

VAN RYN AVE

WILLOW AVE

POWERS AVE

COWELL AVE
SONO
RA AVE

KENT ST

NORMAN DR

INDUSTRIAL PARK

FREMONT ST

SEQUOIA AVE

TRINITY ST

MARIE AVE

MARIN ST

SIERRA ST

STOCKTON ST

MISSION RIDGE DR

ARGONAUTST

STEWART ST

MICHIGAN AVE

PALOMINO ST EDWARD AVE

NEVADA ST

EDISON ST

MYLNAR AVE

MOFFAT BLVD

MARTHA ST

YOLO ST

SUTTER ST

FLORES AVE
FIR ST

BRISTOW ST

VICTORY AVE

DYER AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHAMPAGNE LN ACACIA AVE

PINE ST

LINCOLN AVE
OAK ST

PERIMETER DR

VANDERBILT CIR

SOUTH ST

CHENIN BLANC DR

WALNUT AVE

ORCHARD WAY

CALIFORNIA AVE

MIKESELL ST

SPRECKELS
AVE

POPLAR AVE
CH
ARLES

GRANT AVE
AVE

SHERMAN AVE

MELLONAVE

MAPLE AVE

SYCAMORE AVE

ALMOND AVE

HAWES ST

SHASTA ST

LASSEN AVE

GARFIELD AVE

QUINTAL RD

PLUMAS WAY

FERN DELL LN

VIRGINIA ST

MARION ST
CARSON
AVE

CARNEGIE ST

WETMORE ST
Figure 7
Vacant and Underutilized Opportunity Sites

LEGEND MANTECA DOWNTOWN PLAN
Manteca Downtown Plan Area
City Limits
Vacant and Underutilized Parcels
Z
0 500 1,000
Feet
Sources: San Joaquin County GIS; City of Manteca. Map date: August 10, 2022.

ATTACHMENT 2
Existing Conditions Report
Manteca Downtown Transit Planning Area | 13

DEMOGRAPHICS
The Downtown Transit Planning Area does not align with any Census Tracts or Census Block Groups, which are geographic subareas of a city or county that are frequently used to examine demographic conditions at a finer scale than citywide. Therefore, population and households for the Planning Area in 2020 are estimated based on a special aggregation of ESRI data and age, race, income, and household characteristics for the Downtown Transit Planning Area are summarized based on the data for a one-mile radius from the center of the area (referred to as the Planning Radius).

Population and Households
In 2020, there were approximately 8,036 persons residing in the Downtown Transit Planning Area and 2,559 households in this area.

Age
Table 5 summarizes the population age by percent for 2022 and 2027 for the Planning Radius, as well as median age. The median age in the Planning Radius has risen from 32.4 years in 2010 to 33.3 years in 2020 and is projected to continue rising to reach 33.7 years in 2027. In 2022, 28.9% of the population in the area is 19 years and younger, 23.8% is 20 to 34, 35.0% is 35 to 65, and 12.4% is over

65. Table 5: Age Trends for the Population by Percent (2022) Population by Age Census 2010 2022 Estimate 2027 Projection 0 - 4 8.6% 7.8% 8.0%
5 - 9 7.7% 7.5% 7.6%
10 - 14 7.9% 7.1% 7.4%
15 - 19 7.9% 6.5% 6.5%
20 - 24 7.1% 7.2% 6.3%
25 - 34 14.2% 16.6% 16.4%
35 - 44 13.2% 12.4% 13.8%
45 - 54 14.2% 11.1% 10.3%
55 - 64 9.3% 11.5% 10.1%
65 - 74 5.3% 7.4% 7.8%
75 - 84 3.2% 3.6% 4.3%
85+ 1.4% 1.4% 1.4%
Median Age 32.4 33.3 33.7
SOURCE: ESRI FORECASTS FOR 2022 AND 2027. U.S. CENSUS BUREAU 2010 DECENNIAL CENSUS DATA CONVERTED BY ESRI INTO 2020 GEOGRAPHY.

Race
A range of races and ethnicities are represented in the Planning Radius. Table 6 summarizes races and Hispanic ethnicity by percent for 2022 and 2027 for the Planning Radius. In 2022, over half of the persons in the Planning Area are of Hispanic origin, 40.1% of persons are White, 16.9% are two or ATTACHMENT 2
Existing Conditions Report
Manteca Downtown Transit Planning Area | 14
more races, 6.3% are Asian, 3.5% are Black, 2.3% are American Indian, 0.7% are Pacific Islander, and

30.2% are other races.

Table 6: Race and Ethnicity Trends for the Population by Percent (2022) Race and Ethnicity Census 2010 2022 Estimate 2027 Projection White Alone 62.6% 40.1% 37.3%
Black Alone 3.0% 3.5% 3.6%
American Indian Alone 1.5% 2.3% 2.5%
Asian Alone 3.6% 6.3% 6.8%
Pacific Islander Alone 0.3% 0.7% 0.7%
Some Other Race Alone 23.1% 30.2% 31.9%
Two or More Races 6.0% 16.9% 17.2%
Hispanic Origin (Any Race) 45.8% 53.4% 54.2%
SOURCE: ESRI FORECASTS FOR 2022 AND 2027. U.S. CENSUS BUREAU 2010 DECENNIAL CENSUS DATA CONVERTED BY ESRI INTO 2020 GEOGRAPHY.

Household Characteristics
The U.S. Census reports an average household size of 3.13 in Manteca in 2022. Citywide, 65.2% of households own their home and 34.8% rent in 2022. Table 7 summarizes the average household size and ratio of owner and renter occupied units in the Planning Radius. In the Planning Radius, the average household size is approximately 2.98 persons. Approximately 48% of households own their home and 52% rent in the Planning Radius; the ownership and renter rates have remained stable over the past decade and are projected to remain stable.

Table 7: Household Characteristics by Percent (2022)
Characteristic Census 2010 2022 Estimate 2027 Projection Average Household Size 2.98 2.98 2.98
Owner Occupied Housing Units 49% 48% 48%
Renter Occupied Housing Units 51% 52% 52%
SOURCE: ESRI FORECASTS FOR 2022 AND 2027. U.S. CENSUS BUREAU 2010 DECENNIAL CENSUS DATA CONVERTED BY ESRI INTO 2020 GEOGRAPHY.

Income
The U.S. Census reports a median household income of $78,846 and a per capita income of $30,511 in the City of Manteca in 2022. Table 8 summarizes household income ranges by percent for 2022 and 2027 for the Planning Radius, as well as median household income, average household income, and per capita income. In the Planning Radius, the median household income is $62,216 – 21% less than statewide and the per capita income is $27,001 – 12% less than statewide.

ATTACHMENT 2
Existing Conditions Report
Manteca Downtown Transit Planning Area | 15
Table 8: Household Income Trends by Percent (2022)
Households by Income 2022 Estimate 2027 Projection
<$15,000 5.8% 4.2%
$15,000 - $24,999 7.4% 5.6%
$25,000 - $34,999 8.5% 7.2%
$35,000 - $49,999 15.4% 11.7%
$50,000 - $74,999 21.9% 21.0%
$75,000 - $99,999 13.7% 13.6%
$100,000 - $149,999 17.3% 22.0%
$150,000 - $199,999 6.4% 9.3%
$200,000+ 3.7% 5.4%
Household Income Characteristics
Median Household Income $62,216 $75,372
Average Household Income $83,304 $100,000
Per Capita Income $27,001 $32,343
DATA NOTE: INCOME IS EXPRESSED IN CURRENT DOLLARS.

SOURCE: ESRI FORECASTS FOR 2022 AND 2027. U.S. CENSUS BUREAU 2010 DECENNIAL CENSUS DATA CONVERTED BY ESRI INTO 2020 GEOGRAPHY.

Household Spending Potential
Table 9 summarizes the average amount spent by household and total amount spent for the Planning Area and identifies the Spending Potential Index for the Planning Radius. The Spending Potential Index is household-based, and represents the amount spent for a product or service relative to a national average of 100.

Table 9: Household Spending Potential and Budget Expenditures Category
Spending
Potential
Index
Average
Amount Spent
Total Amount
Spent Percent
Total Expenditures 80 $71,683.30 $419,849,079 100.0%
Food 81 $8,466.44 $49,587,920 11.8%
Food at Home 80 $4,963.06 $29,068,617 6.9%
Food Away from Home 81 $3,503.38 $20,519,303 4.9%
Alcoholic Beverages 78 $555.19 $3,251,732 0.8%
Housing 81 $23,199.55 $135,879,755 32.4%
Shelter 82 $18,680.17 $109,409,783 26.1%
Utilities, Fuel and Public Services 80 $4,519.37 $26,469,972 6.3% Household Operations 79 $1,982.45 $11,611,234 2.8%
Housekeeping Supplies 79 $702.68 $4,115,611 1.0%
Household Furnishings and Equipment 80 $2,038.26 $11,938,114 2.8% Apparel and Services 80 $1,934.76 $11,331,876 2.7%
ATTACHMENT 2
Existing Conditions Report
Manteca Downtown Transit Planning Area | 16
Transportation 81 $8,356.06 $48,941,449 11.7%
Travel 79 $2,269.68 $13,293,500 3.2%
Health Care 77 $5,462.31 $31,992,767 7.6%
Entertainment and Recreation 78 $2,852.29 $16,705,851 4.0% Personal Care Products & Services 80 $817.86 $4,790,192 1.1% Education 80 $1,576.19 $9,231,718 2.2%
Smoking Products 76 $332.46 $1,947,204 0.5%
Lotteries & Pari-mutuel Losses 74 $43.83 $256,690 0.1%
Legal Fees 77 $139.76 $818,550 0.2%
Funeral Expenses 76 $71.34 $417,855 0.1%
Safe Deposit Box Rentals 70 $3.68 $21,576 0.0%
Checking Account/Banking Service Charges 83 $30.12 $176,441 0.0% Cemetery Lots/Vaults/Maintenance Fees 69 $9.76 $57,190 0.0% Accounting Fees 78 $97.77 $572,621 0.1%
Miscellaneous Personal
Services/Advertising/Fines 80 $68.13 $399,038 0.1%
Occupational Expenses 79 $52.24 $305,946 0.1%
Expenses for Other Properties 68 $81.40 $476,735 0.1%
Credit Card Membership Fees 83 $8.19 $47,981 0.0%
Shopping Club Membership Fees 81 $36.03 $211,015 0.1%
Support Payments/Cash
Contributions/Gifts in Kind 78 $2,126.53 $12,455,071 3.0% Life/Other Insurance 74 $506.90 $2,968,900 0.7%
Pensions and Social Security 79 $7,479.59 $43,807,961 10.4% DATA NOTE: DETAIL MAY NOT SUM TO TOTALS DUE TO ROUNDING.

SOURCE: ESRI FORECASTS FOR 2022 AND 2027; CONSUMER SPENDING DATA ARE DERIVED FROM THE 2018 AND 2019 CONSUMER EXPENDITURE SURVEYS, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS.

ATTACHMENT 2
Existing Conditions Report
Manteca Downtown Transit Planning Area | 17
Housing Units
Table 10 summarizes housing units by type for the Downtown Transit Planning Area. As shown in Table 10, there are approximately 2,606 housing units in the Planning Area, with detached single family homes representing the majority of units (75%), followed by attached single family units (6%), duplex (5%) and triplex and fourplex units (5%).

Table 10: Housing Units by Type (2022)
Unit Type Number Percent
Detached single family 1,952 4.2%
Attached single family 159 5.6%
2 units in structure 132 7.2%
3 or 4 units in structure 124 11.7%
5 to 9 units in structure 108 21.0%
10 to 19 units in structure 80 13.6%
20 to 49 units in structure 17 22.0%
Mobile homes 34 9.3%
SOURCE: ARCGISPRO, 2022
Vacancy
In 2022, an estimated 298 (4.8%) of housing units are vacant.

ATTACHMENT 2

APPENDIX
B
Construction Cost Estimates
ATTACHMENT 2
1 CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE (CY) CY 260 $320 $83,200
2 MINOR CONCRETE (SIDEWALK) (CY) CY 130 $820 $106,600
3 MINOR CONCRETE (CURB) (LF) LF 1250 $70 $87,5004 MINOR CONCRETE (GUTTER) (LF) LF 810 $70 $56,7005 MINOR CONCRETE (CURB RAMP) CY 10 $700 $7,000 6 HOT MIX ASPHALT (TYPE A) TON 30 $1,150 $34,5007 THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (ENHANCED WET NIGHT VISIBILITY) LF 750 $2 $1,5008 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING (ENHANCED WET NIGHT VISIBILITY) SFQT 950 $8 $7,6009 REMOVE BASE AND SURFACING CY 90 $150 $13,500 10 MINOR CONCRETE (TEXTURED PAVING) CY 20 $1,500 $30,000 11 ROADWAY EXCAVATION CY 480 $160 $76,80012 LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION SQFT 1320 $42 $55,440 $560,340
Minor Items (10% of Items 1-12) LS 1 $57,000 $57,000
$617,340$617,340$185,300$802,700
Yosemite Ave/Manteca Ave Intersection Improvements
Cost Estimate
SUBTOTAL=
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL

ROADWAY
SUBTOTAL=
CONTINGENCY (30%) =
GRAND TOTAL =

GRAND TOTALSUBTOTAL

ATTACHMENT
2 1 CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE (CY) CY 100 $320 $32,000
2 MINOR CONCRETE (SIDEWALK) (CY) CY 40 $820 $32,8003 MINOR CONCRETE (CURB) (LF) LF 950 $70 $66,5004 MINOR CONCRETE (GUTTER) (LF) LF 350 $70 $24,5005 MINOR CONCRETE (CURB RAMP) CY 20 $700 $14,0006 HOT MIX ASPHALT (TYPE A) TON 30 $1,150 $34,5007 THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (ENHANCED WET NIGHT VISIBILITY) LF 1090 $2 $2,180 8 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING (ENHANCED WET NIGHT VISIBILITY) SFQT 1660 $8 $13,2809 REMOVE BASE AND SURFACING CY 20 $150 $3,000 10 MINOR CONCRETE (TEXTURED PAVING) CY 20 $1,500 $30,000 11 ROADWAY EXCAVATION CY 230 $160 $36,80012 LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION SQFT 920 $42 $38,640 13 GREEN PAINT SQFT 140 $8 $1,12014 SIGNAL MODIFICATION LS 1 $200,000 $200,000 $529,320
Minor Items (10% of Items 1-13) LS 1 $53,000 $53,000
$582,320$582,320$174,700$757,100
Main St/Moffat Blvd Intersection Improvements
Cost Estimate
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL CONTINGENCY (30%) =
GRAND TOTAL =

ROADWAYSUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL=

GRAND TOTAL
SUBTOTAL=

ATTACHMENT
2 1 CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE (CY) CY 220 $320 $70,400
2 MINOR CONCRETE (SIDEWALK) (CY) CY 60 $820 $49,2003 MINOR CONCRETE (CURB) (LF) LF 1060 $70 $74,2004 MINOR CONCRETE (GUTTER) (LF) LF 1060 $70 $74,2005 MINOR CONCRETE (CURB RAMP) CY 10 $700 $7,0006 HOT MIX ASPHALT (TYPE A) TON 110 $1,150 $126,500 7 THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (ENHANCED WET NIGHT VISIBILITY) LF 850 $2 $1,7008 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING (ENHANCED WET NIGHT VISIBILITY) SFQT 1110 $8 $8,880 9 ROADWAY EXCAVATION CY 350 $160 $56,000
10 LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION SQFT 3420 $42 $143,640
$611,720
Minor Items (10% of Items 1-10) LS 1 $62,000 $62,000
$673,720$673,720$202,200$876,000
Grant Ave from Moffat Blvd to Otis St
Roadway Improvements Cost Estimate
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL CONTINGENCY (30%) =
GRAND TOTAL =

ROADWAYSUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL=

GRAND TOTAL
SUBTOTAL=

ATTACHMENT
2 1 CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE (CY) CY 110 $320 $35,200
2 MINOR CONCRETE (SIDEWALK) (CY) CY 60 $820 $49,2003 MINOR CONCRETE (CURB) (LF) LF 450 $70 $31,5004 MINOR CONCRETE (GUTTER) (LF) LF 450 $70 $31,5005 MINOR CONCRETE (CURB RAMP) CY 10 $700 $7,0006 THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (ENHANCED WET NIGHT VISIBILITY) LF 3000 $2 $6,000 7 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING (ENHANCED WET NIGHT VISIBILITY) SFQT 1560 $8 $12,4808 GREEN PAINT SQFT 300 $8 $2,4009 ROADWAY EXCAVATION CY 170 $160 $27,200 $202,480
Minor Items (10% of Items 1-19) LS 1 $21,000 $21,000
$223,480$223,480
$67,100
$290,600
Yosemite Ave/Powers Ave Intersection Improvements
Cost Estimate
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL CONTINGENCY (30%) =
GRAND TOTAL =

ROADWAYSUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL=

GRAND TOTAL
SUBTOTAL=

ATTACHMENT
2 1 CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE (CY) CY 120 $320 $38,400
2 MINOR CONCRETE (SIDEWALK) (CY) CY 60 $820 $49,2003 MINOR CONCRETE (CURB) (LF) LF 450 $70 $31,5004 MINOR CONCRETE (GUTTER) (LF) LF 450 $70 $31,5005 MINOR CONCRETE (CURB RAMP) CY 20 $700 $14,0006 THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (ENHANCED WET NIGHT VISIBILITY) LF 880 $2 $1,7607 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING (ENHANCED WET NIGHT VISIBILITY) SFQT 990 $8 $7,9208 ROADWAY EXCAVATION CY 190 $160 $30,400 $204,680
Minor Items (10% of Items 1-8) LS 1 $21,000 $21,000
$225,680$225,680
$67,800
$293,500
Powers Ave/Hutchings St Intersection Improvements
Cost Estimate
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL CONTINGENCY (30%) =
GRAND TOTAL =

ROADWAYSUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL=

GRAND TOTAL
SUBTOTAL=

ATTACHMENT
2 1 CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE (CY) CY 80 $320 $25,600
2 MINOR CONCRETE (SIDEWALK) (CY) CY 50 $820 $41,0003 MINOR CONCRETE (CURB) (LF) LF 390 $70 $27,3004 MINOR CONCRETE (GUTTER) (LF) LF 390 $70 $27,3005 MINOR CONCRETE (CURB RAMP) CY 10 $700 $7,000 6 THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (ENHANCED WET NIGHT VISIBILITY) LF 1660 $2 $3,320 7 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING (ENHANCED WET NIGHT VISIBILITY) SFQT 990 $8 $7,9208 ROADWAY EXCAVATION CY 130 $160 $20,8009 REMOVE BASE AND SURFACING CY 10 $150 $1,500 $160,240
Minor Items (10% of Items 1-9) LS 1 $17,000 $17,000
$177,240$177,240
$53,200
$230,500
Powers Ave/Marin St Intersection Improvements
Cost Estimate
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL CONTINGENCY (30%) =
GRAND TOTAL =

ROADWAYSUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL=

GRAND TOTAL
SUBTOTAL=

ATTACHMENT
2 APPENDIX C
Moffat
Opportunity
Zone Land Use
Alternatives
ATTACHMENT 2
Moffat Gateway Site Land Use Concepts
Manteca Downtown Transit Planning Area i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................... 1 Organization...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1

2. LAND USE CONCEPTS ..............................................................................................................................2 Land Use Districts.......................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Land Use Concepts........................................................................................................................................................................ 5

3. LAND USE CONCEPTS COMPARISON .................................................................................................. 20 Land Use Designations By Acreage Comparison ................................................................................................................. 20 Housing, Non-Residential Development, and Jobs Capacity Comparison ...................................................................... 20 List of Tables
Table 1: Land Use Designations And Overlays......................................................................................................................... 3 Table 2: Concept A: Urban Village - Acreage By Land Use District..................................................................................... 5 Table 3: Concept A: Urban Village – New Development Potential........................................................................................ 6 Table 4: Concept B: Employment-Focused Growth – Acreage By Land Use District.....................................................10 Table 5: Concept B: Employment-Focused Growth – New Development Potential.........................................................11 Table 6: Concept C: Moderate Residential And Economic Growth Acreage By Land Use District..............................15 Table 7: Concept C: Moderate Residential And Economic Growth – New Development Potential.............................16 Table 8: Land Use Concepts - Acreage Comparisons ......................................................................................................... 20 Table 9: Growth Projections By Concept................................................................................................................................. 21

List of Figures
Figure 1: Concept A: Urban Village Land Use Plan ................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 2: Concept A: Urban Village Aerial View...................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 3: Concept A: Urban Village with Adjacent General Plan Land Use Designations .............................................. 9 Figure 4: Concept B: Employment-Focused Growth Land Use Plan ................................................................................12 Figure 5: Concept B: Employment-Focused Growth Aerial View......................................................................................13 Figure 6: Concept B: Employment-Focused Growth with Adjacent General Plan Land Use Designations ..............14 Figure 7: Concept C: Moderate Residential and Economic Growth Land Use Plan ......................................................17 Figure 8: Concept C: Moderate Residential and Economic Growth Aerial View.............................................................18 Figure 9: Concept C: Moderate Residential and Economic Growth with Adjacent General Plan Land Use Designations ............................................................................................................................................................... 19 ATTACHMENT 2
Moffat Gateway Site Land Use Concepts
Manteca Downtown Transit Planning Area 1

1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Land Use Concepts Report is to examine different approaches to accommodate future development, including a range of housing opportunities, that encourage economic and employment growth and fiscal sustainability for the Moffat Gateway site. The Moffat Gateway site is located southwest of the intersection of Moffat Boulevard and Industrial Park Drive and is bounded by the Union Pacific Railroad along the north/northeastern portion of the site, Industrial Park Drive to the south, and industrial uses to the west.

This report presents three different Land Use Concept concepts for the Moffat Gateway site and provides an analysis of the land use and growth, in terms of residential and non-residential development, relative to each concept.

This report purposely does not reach conclusions or suggest the manner in which the City should proceed in the development of the Moffat Gateway site. Rather, the report is intended to be used as a tool to facilitate discussion regarding land use scenarios and is the first step in developing a more detailed site-specific development plan.

Organization
This Moffat Gateway Site Land Use Concepts Report is organized into the following three chapters.

Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 1 describes the purpose of the report and presents an overview of its contents.

Chapter 2: Land Use Concepts
Chapter 2 describes the three land use concepts, including the districts used in the concepts.

Chapter 3: Comparative Analysis Of The Land Use Concepts Chapter 3 provides a comparative analysis of the three land use concepts, including land uses by acreage, development capacity for buildout, projected residential growth, and projected non-residential and employment growth.

ATTACHMENT 2
Moffat Gateway Site Land Use Concepts
Manteca Downtown Transit Planning Area 2

2. LAND USE CONCEPTS
The chapter is organized into two sections. The first section describes the land use districts that are applied to the site and the second section provides an overview of the three land use concepts.

Land Use Districts
This section lists the land use districts, and their associated development characteristics, that apply to one or more of the land use concepts. The districts describe what uses may develop, and at what density and/or intensity, on the Moffat Gateway site.

Collectively, the three land use concepts incorporate 7 land use districts. One residential district and one mixed use district provide for a range of housing types and densities, accompanied by neighborhood-serving commercial uses. Two commercial and industrial districts provide for a range of income- and employment-generating businesses. Three other designations support publicly owned facilities, parks and recreation, and infrastructure.

Table 1 lists the land use districts and provides the density and FAR assumptions for each district.

Density and Intensity
Density applies to residential
designations and mixed-use
designations that provide for
residential development. The term
describes the number of dwelling
units accommodated within 1 acre
of land (du/ac).

Intensity applies to commercial,
industrial, and mixed-use
designations that allow
nonresidential development. The
term describes the floor-to-area
ratio (FAR), the relationship
between the total area of a
development and the area of
parcel where the development is
located. FAR is calculated by
dividing the gross floor area of all
buildings on a lot by the area of
the lot.

ATTACHMENT 2
Moffat Gateway Site Land Use Concepts
Manteca Downtown Transit Planning Area 3
Table 1: Land Use Designations And Overlays
Land Use District Density/
Intensity Development Types
Urban Core
Accommodates residential, commercial, and office uses.

Upper-story residential, mixed commercial/residential
ground-floor uses, and multifamily uses are required, except where abutting industrial or other intensive uses. Specialty retail, personal services, restaurants, offices, financial organizations, institutions, and other businesses serving the daily needs of Moffat Gateway and Downtown area residents are allowed. Similar to the Urban Core, limitations on the size and location of parking, coupled with building orientation and design standards, will ensure that a pedestrian-oriented environment is created.

Residential Density:
30-35 du/ac
Commercial/Office/
Non-Residential
Uses: Minimum of

0.1 Residential Village
Accommodates attached single family and multifamily
housing, with the intent of providing ownership and rental housing. Housing types may include attached single family townhouses and condominiums, triplex and fourplex
buildings, apartments, and other forms of multi-family
housing. Projects should have transit-oriented amenities, including bus stops and pedestrian/bicycle connections to area-wide transit facilities and reduced parking requirements.

Residential Density:
14-18 du/ac
Employment Center
Intended to provide sites for administrative, financial, business, professional, medical, and public offices, business incubators, research and development, custom and light
manufacturing, limited assembly, warehousing and
distribution, technology and innovation, energy, hospitals and large-scale medical facilities, services, and supporting commercial uses. Development standards and buffering
required to prevent significant adverse effects on adjacent residential uses. This district recognizes the transition in a

0.5 – 1.0 FAR;
ATTACHMENT 2
Moffat Gateway Site Land Use Concepts
Manteca Downtown Transit Planning Area 4
Table 1: Land Use Designations And Overlays
Land Use District Density/
Intensity Development Types
reduced overall demand for office space and incre
for large-scale buildings that can accommodate
manufacturing, technology, and warehousing uses.

Commercial
Accommodates specialty retail, personal services,
restaurants, offices, financial organizations, institutions, and other businesses serving the daily needs of the Moffat
Gateway and Downtown area residents. Similar to the Urban Core, limitations on the size and location of parking, coupled with building orientation and design standards, will ensure that a pedestrian-oriented environment is created.

0.3 – 0.5 FAR
Parks/Greenbelt
Provides for parks, recreation complexes, community fields, public golf courses, stadiums, greenways, and local and regional trails.
-
Public/Quasi-Public
Provide for schools, government offices, service provider offices, transit sites, public utilities, other facilities that have a unique public or quasi-public character, such as cultural facilities, religious institutions, fraternal organizations, and similar uses.

0.25 FAR
ROW
Intended to designate land area dedicated to utilities, infrastructure, or road right-of-way.
-
ATTACHMENT 2
Moffat Gateway Site Land Use Concepts
Manteca Downtown Transit Planning Area 5
Land Use Concepts
The three land use concepts envision varied approaches to the development of the Moffat Gateway site.

Each concept is described below.

Land Use Concept A: Urban Village
The Urban Village concept introduces a mixed use character, with a mix of urban uses extending from the Moffatt Gateway along the railroad, residential uses along the eastern and central portions of Industrial Park Drive with public/quasi-public uses along the eastern portion of Industrial Park Drive, and employment-generating uses in the northwest area of the site. Concept A accommodates the most, and broadest range of, residential uses, with a master-planned community envisioned with access to services, transit, and/or employment opportunities.

Residential uses are anticipated at 35 units/acre in the Urban Core and 18 units per acre in the Residential Village. Residential uses are buffered from the railroad by park/greenbelt and commercial uses. The residential uses and densities support an urban village environment, while also increasing households in the proximity of Downtown. This concept supports the intent of enlivening the Downtown and provide additional residents to support shopping, dining, and businesses, continuing the revitalization and enhancement of the City’s historic center.

Concept A provides for an Urban Village with community-serving retail, service, and office uses as well as employment uses to provide jobs and revenues. This concept would allow for a continuation of industrial uses, through the Employment designation while transitioning to an urban mixed use environment in the central and western portion of the site to provide for residential growth to support the viability of on-site commercial and the retail, restaurant, and transit-oriented uses envisioned for the greater Downtown area. FARs are proposed at 0.8 for Employment Center and 0.45 for Commercial uses.

This land use concept provides for a greenway and neighborhood park along the northeastern portion of the site and greenways along Industrial Park Drive. The greenways buffer the residential uses from adjoining railroad and roadways, while also providing bicycle/pedestrian opportunities. This concept includes two bicycle/pedestrian connections from the site to the neighborhood north of the site in order to connect the site to the Tidewater Trail adjacent Moffat Boulevard and sidewalks along Moffat Boulevard to improve connectivity to the Downtown area and Transit Center.

Land use districts associated with Concept A are shown in Figure 1, which provides the Concept A land use plan with acreages and measurements (in feet) shown for each land use polygon and building footprints shown for nearby uses). Figure 2 shows the Concept A Land Use Plan with an aerial view of surrounding uses. Figure 3 shows the Concept A Land Use Plan in the context of the General Plan Land Use Map.

Table 2 summarizes land use designations by acreage under Concept A, Urban Village.

Table 2: Concept A: Urban Village - Acreage By Land Use District General Plan Land Use District Acres % of Acres
Urban Core 9.1 23%
ATTACHMENT 2
Moffat Gateway Site Land Use Concepts
Manteca Downtown Transit Planning Area 6
Table 2: Concept A: Urban Village - Acreage By Land Use District General Plan Land Use District Acres % of Acres
Residential Village 8.8 22%
Employment 9.7 25%
Commercial 1.0 3%
Parks/Greenbelt 3.4 9%
Public/Quasi-Public 3.0 8%
ROW 4.3 11%
Total 39.4 100%
Source: De Novo Planning Group, 2022
Table 3 summarizes new growth that could occur with buildout of Concept A, Urban Village. It is important to note that a range of growth scenarios could occur under the land use districts envisioned for each concept and the below scenario is consistent with Urban Village approach to Concept A.

Table 3: Concept A: Urban Village – New Development Potential District
Residential Non-Residential
Dwelling
Units Retail Services Office Industrial
Public/
QuasiPublic
Urban Core 317 19,776 19,776 - - -
Residential Village 140 - - -
Employment - 16,936 321,786 -
Commercial - 10,095 10,095 - - -
Parks/Greenbelt - - - - - -
Public/Quasi-Public - - - - - 32,778

ROW - - - - - -
Total 475 29,871 29,871 16,936 321,786 32,778
Source: De Novo Planning Group, 2022
ATTACHMENT 2

3.01 ac

1.43 ac

6.18 ac

2.62 ac

9.08 ac

1.03 ac

9.72 ac

0.14 ac 0.27 ac 0.29 ac

4.34 ac

1.3 ac

VAN RYN
COWELL

CALIFORNIA
EDWARD
MOFFAT
POWERS

INDUSTRIAL PARK
STATE ROUTE 120
YOLO
124.87 ft
141.28 ft
163.36 ft
192.33 ft
193.95 ft
194.19 ft
194.24 ft
220.84 ft
210.03 ft
231.46 ft
322.15 ft
323.56 ft
416.7 ft
419.45 ft
489.68 ft
590.88 ft
614.01 ft
±
0 100 200
Feet
LEGEND
Project Boundary
Conceptual Land Use Designation
Residential Village (8.80 ac)
Commercial (1.03 ac)
Employment Center (9.72 ac)
Public/Quasi-Public (3.01 ac)
Urban Core (9.08 ac)
Park/Greenbelt (3.44 ac) ROW
(4.34 ac)
Pedestrian/Bicycle Connection
Concept A: Urban Village
Land Use Plan
Sources: San Joaquin County GIS. Map date: December 21, 2022.

Figure 1
*
*

ATTACHMENT 2

VAN RYN
COWELL

CALIFORNIA
EDWARD
MOFFAT
POWERS

INDUSTRIAL PARK
STATE ROUTE 120YOLO
±
0 100 200
Feet
LEGEND
Project Boundary
Conceptual Land Use Designation
Residential Village
Commercial
Employment Center
Public/Quasi-Public
Urban Core
Park/Greenbelt
ROW
Concept A: Urban Village
Land Use Plan
Sources: San Joaquin County GIS. Map date: December 21, 2022.

Figure 2
*
*
ATTACHMENT 2
MOFFAT

INDUSTRIAL PARK
YOLO

VAN RYN
POWERS

CALIFORNIA
COWELL
±
0 100 200
Feet
LEGEND
Project Boundary
Conceptual Land Use Designation
Residential Village
Commercial
Employment Center
Public/Quasi-Public
Urban Core
Park/Greenbelt
ROW
General Plan L
andUseDesignation
Low Density Residential
General Commercial Light Industrial Public/Quasi-Public Park Concept A: Urban Village
Land Use Plan and
Adjacent General Plan
Land Uses
Sources: San Joaquin County GIS. Map date: December 21, 2022.

Figure 3

ATTACHMENT 2
Moffat Gateway Site Land Use Concepts
Manteca Downtown Transit Planning Area 10
Land Use Concept B: Employment-Focused Growth
The Employment-Focused Growth concept identifies potential changes in land use and development intensity to accommodate a significant amount of new employment-generating development, with a continued emphasis on industrial development as well as a mix of urban uses, including high density residential, retail, restaurants, and services.

Concept B broadly applies the Employment Center district to encourage jobs- and revenue-generating growth and high quality employment opportunities, including research and technology, office, manufacturing, warehousing, and similar employment-generating uses. This concept would provide for a continuation of industrial uses from the eastern edge through the central portion of the site, with a mix of uses located at the Moffat Ave/Industrial Park gateway portion of the site. A FAR of 1.0 is anticipated for the Employment Center district.

Under this scenario, a residential density of 30 units/acre anticipated for Urban Core. The residential density is reduced in comparison to Concepts A and C in order to provide for more of a transition between the more intensive non-residential uses accommodated under this concept.

This concept provides for greenways along Industrial Park Drive, as well as a bicycle/pedestrian connection to the Tidewater Trail and to Moffatt Boulevard. This concept also provides for a park in the central section of the site to provide a buffer between residential and community-serving uses and more intensive employment-generating and potential industrial uses.

Land use districts associated with Concept B are shown in Figure 4, which provides the Concept B land use plan with acreages and measurements (in feet) shown for each land use polygon and building footprints shown for nearby uses). Figure 5 shows the Concept B Land Use Plan with an aerial view of surrounding uses. Figure 6 shows the Concept B Land Use Plan in the context of the General Plan Land Use Map.

Table 4 summarizes land use designations by acreage under Concept B, Employment-Focused Growth.

Table 4: Concept B: Employment-Focused Growth – Acreage By Land Use District General Plan Land Use District Acres % of Acres
Urban Core 10.0 25%
Residential Village 0.0 0%
Employment 23.3 59%
Commercial 0.0 0%
Parks/Greenbelt 1.8 5%
Public/Quasi-Public 0.0 0%
ROW 4.3 11%
Total 39.4 100%
Source: De Novo Planning Group, 2022
Table 5 summarizes new growth that could occur with buildout of Concept B, Employment-Focused Growth. It is important to note that a range of growth scenarios could occur under the land use districts ATTACHMENT 2
Moffat Gateway Site Land Use Concepts
Manteca Downtown Transit Planning Area 11
envisioned for each concept and the below scenario is consistent with employment- and revenuefocused approach to Concept B.

Table 5: Concept B: Employment-Focused Growth – New Development Potential District Dwelling
Units Retail Services Office
Industrial Public/
QuasiPublic
Urban Core 300 39,204 39,204 - - -
Residential Village - - - - - -
Employment 50,747 964,200 -
Commercial - - - - - -
Parks/Greenbelt - - - - - -
Public/Quasi-Public - - - - - -

ROW - - - - - -
Total 300 39,204 39,204 50,747 964,200 -
Source: De Novo Planning Group, 2022
ATTACHMENT 2

8.1 ac

15.21 ac

0.94 ac

4.71 ac

0.16 ac

5.28 ac

0.16 ac 0.2 ac 0.36 ac 4.31 ac
VAN RY
N
COWELL

CALIFORNIA
EDWARD
MOFFAT
POWERS

INDUSTRIAL PARK
STATE ROUTE 120
YOLO
195.33 ft
271.01 ft
337.67 ft
346.49 ft
398.61 ft
411.25 ft
417.6 ft
521.53 ft
1045.02 ft
1218.31 ft
1608.47 ft
±
0 100 200
Feet
LEGEND
Project Boundary Conceptual Land Use
Urban Core (10.0 ac)
Employment Center (23.3 ac)
Park/Greenbelt (1.82 ac)
ROW (4.30 ac)
Conceptual Land Use Plan 2
Sources: San Joaquin County GIS. Map date: December 21, 2022.

Figure 4

Pedestrian/Bicycle
Connection
ATTACHMENT 2
VAN RY
N
COWELL

CALIFORNIA
EDWARD
MOFFAT
POWERS

INDUSTRIAL PARK
STATE ROUTE 120
YOLO
±
0 100 200
Feet
LEGEND
Project Boundary Conceptual Land Use
Urban Core
Employment Center
Park/Greenbelt
ROW
Conceptual Land Use Plan 2
Sources: San Joaquin County GIS. Map date: December 21, 2022.

Figure 5
ATTACHMENT 2
MOFFAT
YOLO

INDUSTRIAL PARK

VAN RYN
POWERS

CALIFORNIA
COWELL
±
0 100 200
Feet
LEGEND
Project Boundary
Conceptual Land Use
Urban Core
Employment Center
Park/Greenbelt
ROW
General P
lan Land Use Designation
Low Density Residential
General Commercial
Light Industrial
Public/Quasi-public
Park
Concept B: EmploymentFocused Growth
Land Use Plan and
Adjacent Draft General Plan
Land Uses
Sources: San Joaquin County GIS. Map date: December 21, 2022.

Figure 6

ATTACHMENT 2
Moffat Gateway Site Land Use Concepts
Manteca Downtown Transit Planning Area 15
Land Use Concept C: Moderate Residential and Employment Growth The Moderate Residential and Employment Growth concept provides for a range of employmentgenerating uses, while accommodating residential and mixed uses. This concept includes opportunities to increase industrial, technology, commercial, and service uses, along with accommodating a range of residential densities and types. A residential density of 35 units per acre is proposed for the Urban Core and 18 units per acre for the Residential Village district.

Employment Center uses are anticipated at 0.8 FAR.

Similar to Concepts A and B, this concept strengthens the community’s economic and employment-generating uses, with increased commercial, industrial, office, and other nonresidential uses and increased flexibility in siting a variety of employment- and economicsupporting uses, providing for more extensive growth of local employment opportunities with the intent of providing residents increased opportunities to live and work in their community. The inclusion of residential uses in the Urban Core and Residential Village districts provides for residential uses adjacent to the Downtown area with the intent to enliven the Downtown and provide residents to support shopping, dining, and businesses.

A focal point of this concept is a community park located at the Moffat Ave/Industrial Park gateway portion of the site. Concept C provides for two pedestrian/bicycle connections to the Tidewater Trail and Moffat Boulevard, increasing connectivity to the greater Downtown area and providing access to the Manteca Transit Center.

Land use districts associated with Concept C are shown in Figure 7, which provides the Concept A land use plan with acreages and measurements (in feet) shown for each land use polygon and building footprints shown for nearby uses). Figure 8 shows the Concept C Land Use Plan with an aerial view of surrounding uses. Figure 9 shows the Concept C Land Use Plan in the context of the General Plan Land Use Map.

Table 6 summarizes land use designations by acreage under Concept B, Employment-Focused Growth, and how the concept’s designation of land within the Planning Area compares to the Existing General Plan.

Table 6: Concept C: Moderate Residential And Economic Growth Acreage By Land Use District General Plan Land Use District Acres % of Acres
Urban Core 6.4 16%
Residential Village 5.3 14%
Employment 14.7 37%
Commercial 0.0 0%
Parks/Greenbelt 6.4 16%
Public/Quasi-Public 2.4 6%
ROW 4.2 11%
Total 39.5 100%
Source: De Novo Planning Group, 2022
ATTACHMENT 2
Moffat Gateway Site Land Use Concepts
Manteca Downtown Transit Planning Area 16
Table 7 summarizes new growth that could occur with buildout of Concept B, EmploymentFocused Growth. The Mid-Term condition anticipates that vacant and underutilized parcels are developed, while the Buildout Scenario anticipates redevelopment of select parcels that have had a change in land use designation and could potentially intensify under the new land use designation.

Actual development rates and growth rates, particularly for non-residential uses, are likely to be significantly lower than the total development shown in the table over the next 20-40 years, as new development and growth is largely dictated by market conditions.

Table 7: Concept C: Moderate Residential And Economic Growth – New Development Potential District Dwelling
Units Retail Services Office
Industrial Public/
QuasiPublic
Urban Core 222 13,852 13,852 - - -
Residential Village 96 - - - - -
Employment - - - 25,665 487,645 -
Commercial - - - - - -
Parks/Greenbelt - - - - - -
Public/Quasi-Public - - - - - 25,918

ROW - - - - - -
Total 318 13,852 13,852 25,665 487,645 25,918
Source: De Novo Planning Group, 2022
ATTACHMENT 2

1.78 ac

11.38 ac

3.35 ac

5.34 ac

0.67 ac

2.38 ac

5.52 ac

3.91 ac

0.90 ac

4.22 ac
VAN RY
N
COWELL

CALIFORNIA
EDWARD
MOFFAT
POWERS

INDUSTRIAL PARK
STATE ROUTE 120
YOLO

86.33 ft89.68 ft

98.53 ft
116.41 ft
189.24 ft
232.64 ft
239.52 ft
242.88 ft
254.04 ft
284.39 ft
311.38 ft
314 ft
320.6 ft
324.84 ft
330.02 ft
472.16 ft
496.25 ft
637.03 ft
650.62 ft
840.57 ft
846.81 ft
1319.52 ft
±
0 100 200
Feet
LEGEND
Project Boundary
Conceptual Land Use
Residential Village (5.34 ac)
Urban Core (6.36 ac)
Employment Center (14.73 ac)
Public/Quasi-Public (2.38 ac)
Park/Greenbelt (6.42 ac)
ROW (4.22 ac)
Pedestrian/Bicycle Connection
Concept C: Moderate
Residential and Employment
Growth Land Use Plan
Sources: San Joaquin County GIS. Map date: December 21, 2022.

Figure 7

ATTACHMENT 2

VAN RYN
COWELL

CALIFORNIA
EDWARD
MOFFAT
POWERS

INDUSTRIAL PARK
STATE ROUTE 120YOLO
±
0 100 200
Feet
LEGEND
Project Boundary
Conceptual Land Use
Residential Village
Urban Core
Employment Center
Public/Quasi-Public
Park/Greenbelt
ROW
Concept C: Moderate
Residential and
Employment Growth Aerial
View
Sources: San Joaquin County GIS. Map date: December 21, 2022.

Figure 8
*
*
ATTACHMENT 2
MOFFAT

INDUSTRIAL PARK
YOLO

VAN RYN
POWERS

CALIFORNIA
COWELL
±
0 100 200
Feet
LEGEND
Project Boundary
Conceptual Land Use
Residential Village
Urban Core
Employment Center
Public/Quasi-Public
Park/Greenbelt
ROW
General Plan L
andUseDesignation
Low Density Residential
General Commercial
Light Industrial
Public/Quais-public
Park
Concept C: Balanced
Employment and
Residential Growth Adjacent
Draft General Plan Land
Uses
Sources: San Joaquin County GIS. Map date: December 21, 2022.

Figure 9 *
*
ATTACHMENT 2
Moffat Gateway Site Land Use Concepts
Manteca Downtown Transit Planning Area 20

3. LAND USE CONCEPTS COMPARISON
This chapter compares the three concepts in terms of several factors, including land use districts by acreage and growth potential, including residential, non-residential, and employment.

Land Use Designations By Acreage Comparison
Table 8 provides a comparison between the three land use concepts’ acreage allocations by land use designation and overlay.

Table 8: Land Use Concepts - Acreage Comparisons
Land Use District Concept A Concept B Concept C
Acres % Acres % Acres %
Urban Core 9.1 23% 10.0 25% 6.4 16%
Residential Village 8.8 22% 0.0 0% 5.3 14%
Employment 9.7 25% 23.3 59% 14.7 37%
Commercial 1.0 3% 0.0 0% 0.0 0%
Parks/Greenbelt 3.4 9% 1.8 5% 6.4 16%
Public/Quasi-Public 3.0 8% 0.0 0% 2.4 6%
ROW 4.3 11% 4.3 11% 4.2 11%
Total 39.4 100% 39.4 100% 39.5 100%
Source: De Novo Planning Group, 2022
Housing, Non-Residential Development, and Jobs Capacity Comparison As outlined in Table 9 below, each land use concept envisions a substantial increase in residential and non-residential development potential. It is anticipated that this development would occur as a result of a master plan or specific plan effort.

As shown in Table 9, Concept A would accommodate approximately 475 dwelling units, 431,242 s.f. of non-residential uses, and 370 jobs. Non-residential uses include approximately 30,000 s.f. of retail, 30,000 s.f. of services, 17,000 s.f. of office, 322,000 s.f. of industrial, and 33,000 s.f. of public/quasi-public uses as detailed in Table 3. Concept A has the highest residential development of the three concepts and the lowest ratio of jobs per housing unit.

Concept B would accommodate approximately 300 dwelling units, 1,093,355 s.f. of non-residential uses, and 903 jobs. Non-residential uses include approximately 39,000 s.f. of retail, 39,000 s.f. of services, 51,000 s.f. of office, and 964,000 s.f. of industrial uses as detailed in Table 5. Concept B has the highest jobs-creating uses of the three concepts, with the most non-residential development and the least residential development. Concept B has the highest jobs per housing unit ratio.

Concept C would accommodate approximately 318 dwelling units, 566,932 s.f. of non-residential uses, and 472 jobs, as shown in Table 9. Non-residential uses include approximately 14,000 s.f. of retail, 14,000 s.f. of services, 26,000 s.f. of office, 488,000 s.f. of industrial, and 26,000 s.f. of ATTACHMENT 2
Moffat Gateway Site Land Use Concepts
Manteca Downtown Transit Planning Area 21
public/quasi-public uses as detailed in Table 7. Concept C would result in slightly more residential units than Concept B but less than Concept A and would result in mid-range jobs creation, with

1.48 jobs per housing unit. Concept C would result in the highest amount of parks/greenbelt (6.4 acres), followed by Concept A at 3.4 acres.

Table 9: Growth Projections By Concept
Concept Dwelling
Units
Non-Residential
S.F. Jobs Jobs:Housing
Concept A: Urban Village 475 431,242 370 0.78
Concept B: Employment-Focused Growth 300 1,093,355 903 3.01 Concept C: Moderate Residential and
Economic Growth 318 566,932 472 1.48
Sources: De Novo Planning Group, 2022; jobs estimates based on US Department of Energy Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey, 2016
ATTACHMENT 2