Manteca City Council
June 20, 2023

City of Manteca Planning Commission

AGENDA REPORT

MEETING DATE: June 1, 2023
PROJECT NAME: Indelicato Annexation Project
PROJECT LOCATION: 14050 South Airport Way
APN: 204-100-52
APPLICATION NUMBERS: ANX21-104, GPA23-036, PRZ21-105, SDJ21-106 RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions:

1. Recommend that the City Council adopt the Indelicato Annexation Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and

2. Recommend that the City Council approve the annexation of the project parcel totaling 40 acres, and authorize application to LAFCo for annexation once the City has finished negotiating the new tax-sharing agreement; and

3. Recommend that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment to change the Public Quasi-Public (PQP) land use designation to Low Density Residential LDR; and

4. Recommend the City Council waive the first reading of the Ordinance approving the Pre-Zoning designation, and approve the pre-zoning designation of the parcel to be annexed; and

5. Recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution recommending approval of the Indelicato Tentative Subdivision Map.

PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant: Michael Kiper, KDH Group LLC
Property Owner: Robert J. Indelicato and Leslie A. Bloudoff, Trustees of the Bloudoff-Indelicato Family Trust
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (LDR) Public Quasi-Public (PQP)
Zoning Designation: No City Zoning District Designations County Zoning: AU-20 : Agriculture-Urban Reserve
Proposed Pre-Zoning: R-1 One Family Dwelling
Existing Use: Agriculture, row crops
Proposed Use: Single-Family Residential
ATTACHMENT 13

Parcel Size 40 acres
Adjacent Uses: North: Agricultural uses
South: Single-Family Residential
East: Single-Family Residential
West: N. Airport Way, Industrial Park
CEQA Determination Mitigated Negative Declaration

PROJECT DESCRIPTION & LOCATION
The Indelicato Annexation Project is a request for the Annexation of 40 acres of unincorporated land in San Joaquin County into the City of Manteca, a General Plan Amendment for a portion of the site, the Pre-zoning of all 40 acres, and a Tentative Subdivision Map covering the 40 acres.

The entire 40-acre annexation area is located near the northwest area of the City of Manteca, immediately north and west of the City Limit line. The site is bounded by the Del Webb development on the southern and eastern border of the site, agricultural lands to the north, and North Airport Way and the North West Airport Way Master Plan area to the west.

Figure 1 identifies the annexation boundary in red.

Figure 1: Annexation Boundary
The annexation area conforms to the Local Agency Formation Commission’s (LAFCo) requirements related to orderly development with regards to annexation, as it is a single parcel that does not leave out any unincorporated areas in the vicinity and creates a square and logical boundary for the City.

ATTACHMENT 13

PROJECT SITE EXISTING CONDITIONS
Figure 1 shows the project site is generally flat and has been farmed with orchard and row crops. The western portion currently has orchard crops with the eastern half has row crop.

There are a variety of irrigation facilities on the site that support the agricultural operation as well as minor agricultural irrigation ditches. There are no structures on the site. The site will be graded to match the existing fence line of the adjoining properties.

ANNEXATION
The San Joaquin County LAFCo controls the process of annexation. LAFCo is a regulatory agency with countywide jurisdiction, established by state law (the Cortese-Knox Act) to coordinate logical and timely changes in local city boundaries, and to insure that services are provided efficiently while agricultural lands are protected. When an applicant requests annexation of the City, it is the applicant asking the City to apply for annexation approval from LAFCo. Before the City is willing to consider applying for annexation on the applicant’s behalf, the City must ensure that the annexation can be supported by the General Plan.

General Plan Land Use Policy LU-P-9 states that the City will only consider applications for annexation that meet specific criteria below. It is important to note at this time that the City is currently under an 80/20 tax-sharing split with the County. However, efforts to negotiate a new tax-sharing agreement are underway and will likely be completed prior to this parcel’s annexation into the City. The new tax-sharing agreement will hopefully yield a 60/40 split between the City and County which puts the City in a far better fiscal situation than the current agreement. As such, staff is recommending that annexation only be permitted to move forward once the new tax sharing agreement is in place.

1. Are contiguous with city boundaries and provide for a logical expansion of the city;
Analysis: The proposed annexation area is immediately north and west of existing City limit lines. This annexation will continue the northern expansion of the City toward the existing northern limit of the Del Webb community to the east, and the North West Airport Master Plan Area to the west. Further, the annexation area is located within the 10-year Planning Horizon of Manteca’s existing Sphere of Influence, which is a LAFCo-approved boundary. Projects within the 10-year planning horizon are expected to develop between 2015 and 2025, as noted in the Municipal Service Review (MSR) report approved by LAFCo in 2015. This annexation request comes within this time window, which is important when considering annexation.

2. Create clear and reasonable boundaries;
Analysis: The proposed annexation is the next piece of property immediately adjacent to the City limit line and makes a logical and clear boundary for annexation.

3. Ensure the provision of adequate municipal services; ATTACHMENT 13

Analysis: The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project indicates that there are adequate municipal services for the proposed annexation.

4. Reflect a long-term fiscal balance to the City and its residents, when reviewed cumulatively with other annexations;
Analysis: A fiscal analysis of the subdivision was prepared by EPS. EPS is the economic firm that the City used for the economic analysis of land use for the General Plan and has background on the City and its fiscal health. EPS analyzed the master tax sharing agreement with San Joaquin County and the City of Manteca, which is ultimately in an 80/20 split agreement for property tax sharing revenue. Under an 80/20 split, the annexation would have a marginal net annual General Fund surplus of approximately $81,000. The analysis estimated that the project would generate about $244,000 in net, new annual City General Fund revenues and would require about $163,000 in annual City General Fund service costs. EPS then analyzed a 60/40 split. Under this split, the project would generate a net annual General Fund surplus of approximately $160,000. With the 60/40 split, the project would generate about $323,000 in net, new City General Fund revenues and would require the same $163,000 in annual City General Fund service costs. While either split would provide more revenue than the cost of providing services to the new project, staff recommends that the City only move forward with the annexation after the negotiations for the new tax sharing agreement are complete. The fiscal analysis prepared by EPS is attached to and incorporated into the Planning Commission Resolution 1630 for review.

5. Are consistent with State law and San Joaquin LAFCo standards; and Analysis: The proposed annexation is consistent with all State and LAFCo laws in that the annexation is following correct city procedures, it is consistent with the City’s General Plan, and the appropriate actions for annexation will be completed by the Council prior to an annexation application being made to LAFCO by the City.

6. Are consistent with the General Plan.

Analysis: Based on the analysis of the above five items, this annexation is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-P-9. In addition to this policy, this annexation is consistent with the overall intent of growth expressed in the General Plan. The General Plan regulates development to preserve Manteca’s roots as an agricultural center and to ensure balanced growth. The General Plan acknowledges that agriculture plays an important role in Manteca’s economy, but also understands that metered development will ensure economic growth and will allow the city to continue to provide for a quality of life for its current and future residents. Land Use Goal LU-2 discusses the need to provide adequate land in a range of densities to meet the housing needs of income groups expected to reside in Manteca, and to regulate residential growth consistent with the capacities of City facilities and services. This ATTACHMENT 13

annexation will allow for the construction of 173 units on traditional LDR lots, creating more housing opportunities for current and future residents in Manteca. Without this annexation, these homes would not be constructed in the City. Further, as noted in the MND, the City is able to provide the necessary services to accommodate these new housing units, making this annexation a logical expansion for the city.

Based on the analysis of the above findings, staff believes that the Planning Commission can recommend approval of the Annexation to the City Council.

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT

GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed subdivision has a General Plan Land use Designation of Public Quasi-Public (PQP) and Low Density Residential (LDR) (Figure 2). The proposed General Plan Amendment will change that PQP designation to LDR (Figure 3).

Figure 2: Existing Land Use Designation
Figure 3: Proposed Land Use Designation
Under the current General Plan, there is PQP-designated land in this area. However, the proposed General Plan Update’s preferred Land Use diagram does not include this PQP section. The General Plan Update was supposed to precede this item, eliminating the need for a General plan Amendment. However, since the General Plan was delayed, and the PQP land use designation on the controlling 2003 Land Use map still exists at the time this project will go to Planning Commission and City Council, the applicant needed to file for a General Plan Amendment. The environmental document did contemplate a General Plan Amendment in anticipation of a delay in the General Plan adoption.

When a General Plan Amendment is requested by a property owner, the applicant shall demonstrate that there is a substantial benefit to be derived from such amendment. The ATTACHMENT 13

City Council must find that the proposed amendment meets the letter and intent of the General Plan goals and policies.

The LDR land use designation requires a density range of 2.1 to 8.0 dwelling units per acre.

The project meets these density and land use requirements as the 173 units creates a density of 4.32 dwelling units per acre. Per the General Plan, the LDR land use designation allows substantial flexibility in selecting dwelling unit types and parcel configurations to suit particular site conditions and housing needs. The type of development anticipated in LDR includes small and clustered residential lots, as well as conventional large lot detached homes. The Indelicato Subdivision will have 5,000 and 6,000 square foot lots which will allow for a range in housing sizes, making the subdivision consistent with the intent of the LDR land use designation.

The proposed change is consistent with the preferred land use map being recommended to the City with the General Plan Update. The change in land use supports housing creation, which is a key City and state issue. Further, as discussed below, the project meets numerous General Plan goals and policies related to residential design and green space creation. For these reasons, Staff believes that the Planning Commission can find that the proposed amendment meets the letter and intent of the General Plan goals and policies.

PRE-ZONING
Unincorporated land outside the City’s limits do not have a City Zoning District designation.

Rather, the unincorporated land has a San Joaquin County zoning designation. Per section

17.10.180 of the Manteca Municipal Code, a pre-zone is required when the Annexation is brought before the City Council. The procedure, review, and action for pre-zoning are the same as that established for a Zoning Amendment pursuant to Section 17.10190 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed pre-zoning designation for the annexation parcel is R-1 One Family Dwelling Zoning District. The proposed zoning map is shown below in Figure

4. The map does not show a zoning designation for the property to the north of the project site as that is unincorporated land and does not have a City zoning designation. The Del Web property to the east and south have a Specific Plan zoning designation.

Figure 4: Proposed Pre-Zoning Map
ATTACHMENT 13

While the adjacent Del Webb community is zoned Specific Plan, the Union Ranch Specific Plan sets zoning criteria that is very similar to the R-1 standards. The lots in Del Web range in size from 4,600 sf to 7,500+ sf, with an average density of 4.16 dwelling units per acre, a very similar density to the proposed 4.32 du/a project. The lot sizes in Del Web are 75’x 98’, 55’x98’ and 46’x98’, also very similar to the 50’x100’ and 60’x100’ lots in the proposed subdivision. The setbacks established for the Del Web community also mirror the front and side setbacks of the R-1 district. The only difference is the rear setback, which is 13 feet for the Del Webb community, which is 7 feet shorter than the standard R-1 rear setback of 20 feet, which the proposed development will be required to maintain.

The number of stories in the Del Webb community was limited to one story, with two stories in the Union Ranch portion of the Specific Plan. To better match the adjoining subdivision, the applicant has agreed to restrict the homes along the shared property edge with the Del Web community to one story. This restriction is listed as condition 24.a. in the Conditions of Approval attached to Planning Commission Resolution 1630. Those homes not immediately adjacent to the shared property lines with Del Webb will not be conditioned to be one story.

The final distinction between the adjacent neighborhood and the proposed development is the age restriction that exists in the Del Webb community. The age restriction is a unique development standard specific to Del Webb. However, this does not change the notion that the use (single-family homes) and density of both project sites are nearly identical. Both Del Webb and the project site have a land use designation of LDR, which controls the use and density. It is important to note that the proposed project area has been designated LDR since the adoption of the 2003 General Plan. In other words, the proposed project like this has been considered for this site since at least 2003.

Based on the information provided above, the R-1 zoning district is a compatible zoning district in use and development standards and is the appropriate zoning designation for this site. In order to recommend approval of the Pre-Zoning to the City Council, the Planning Commission must make the following findings.

1. The proposed Zoning Amendment (text or map) is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs.

Analysis: The Pre-Zoning designation is consistent with the intent of the General Plan land use designations for Low-Density Residential. The proposed homes are allowed uses in the LDR land use designation. By giving this site the corresponding zoning designations to the General Plan Update land use designations, we are ensuring that the property develops according to the LDR standards.

2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.

ATTACHMENT 13

Analysis: The proposed pre-zoning designation will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City, in that the proposed Tentative Subdivision map is being reviewed concurrently with this project and is being conditioned to conform to the zoning district development standards and all performance standards established by the City’s Municipal Code, as well as the goals and policies of the General Plan.

3. The amendment has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Equality Act (CEQA).

Analysis: The proposed Pre-zoning has been analyzed in the Indelicato Mitigated Negative Declaration. The MND identified potentially significant impacts if mitigation measures were not put in place to mitigate those impacts. However, with the conditioned mitigation measures, the project will not have an environmental impact and complies with the provisions of CEQA.

4. If a map amendment, the site is physically suitable (including absence of physical constraints, access, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and provisions of utilities) for the requested zoning designations and anticipated land uses/development.

Analysis: As the project parcel exist today, there are no site impediments that cannot be altered (irrigation ditches) that would render the site unsuitable for the requested zoning designation.

5. If a text amendment, the amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code.

Analysis: This project does not include a text amendment.

Based on the analysis of the above findings, staff believes that the Planning Commission can recommend approval of the Pre-zoning designation of R-1 to the City Council.

GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
As noted above, the proposed subdivision has a General Plan Land use Designation LDR and PQP on the current land use map, but is entirely LDR on the updated General Plan land use map that will be presented to Council in the near term. Staff is presuming that the proposed General Plan Amendment will conform to the future adopted land use map.

The LDR land use designation requires a density range of 2.1 to 8.0 dwelling units per acre.

The project meets these density and land use requirements as the 173 units creates a density of 4.32 dwelling units per acre. Per the General Plan, the LDR land use designation allows substantial flexibility in selecting dwelling unit types and parcel configurations to suit particular site conditions and housing needs. The types of development anticipated in LDR includes small and clustered residential lots, as well as conventional large lot detached ATTACHMENT 13

homes. The Indelicato Subdivision proposes detached traditional single family lots between 5,000 and 6,000 square feet. These lot sizes make the subdivision consistent with the intent of the LDR land use designation.

There is also park in the proposed subdivision. While there is not a specific P Park designation on this site, a park and basin is a permissible use in the LDR land use designation. The proposed Park in the Indelicato Subdivision project will have 3.03 acres of parkland, .43 acres of which will be reserved for basin function. The park will have recreational areas, flexible use space, sports courts, active play areas, and any other amenity that the Parks Division deems necessary for the subdivision.

In addition to complying with the LDR land use designations regarding density and use, the proposed project complies with the following General Plan goals and policies:

1. Community Design Policy CD-P-7: The City shall implement neighborhood design standards in the Residential districts that contribute to the overall character of the neighborhood by emphasizing traditional residential features that enhance the sense of community, ensure a safe pedestrian orientation, and minimize the visual prominence of garages.

Analysis: The conditions of this annexation require that the proposed neighborhood have elements like enhanced visible edges, enhanced project entries, ample community open space, and well-planned circulation for both pedestrians and vehicles. The proposed subdivision has appropriate vehicular and pedestrian connections to the future neighborhood to the north with stubbed streets for future connections to those areas of the City not yet annexed. Required compliance to the City’s landscaping and lighting requirements will ensure a safe pedestrian experience in the neighborhood.

2. Community Design Goal CD-3: Establish distinct, attractive identities for neighborhoods, gateways, and commercial areas.

Analysis: The future subdivision will be required to provide a variety of architectural styles to create attractive streetscapes and develop an identity for this area of the city. Through cohesive, unique, and visually pleasing architecture, the project will be an inviting entrance into the northern area of the City. Detailed visual edges through varied roof design and rear elevation architecture will ensure there is no “back” to this subdivision. The project entries will have enhanced landscaping and defined entry features to spruce up this area of Airport Way.

3. Parks and Recreation Policy PF-P-46: The City shall expand the community and neighborhood park system with the goal of providing neighborhood park facilities within reasonable walking distance of all city residential areas.

Parks and Recreation Policy PF-P-47: The City shall use joint development of park and drainage detention basins in the development of neighborhood parks.

ATTACHMENT 13

Parks and Recreation Policy PF-P-49: City park acquisition and development efforts shall be based on a goal of 5 acres of developed neighborhood and community parkland per 1,000 residents within the city limits.

Analysis: The proposed project includes 3.03 acres of parkland. The property to the north, once developed, will have an adjoining park creating a large open space in this area. The proposed park area and drainage requirements will provide the community with a new an enjoyable place to congregate and play. The joint development of park and drainage detention basin will provide the practical and required use to handle storm water, but in the dry season will serves as another green space for community recreation and meet the City requirement.

4. Community Design Policy CD-P-44: Provide minimal levels of street, parking, building, site and public area lighting to meet safety standards and provide direction.

Analysis: This subdivision is required to provide minimum levels of site lighting in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. The improvement plans showing lighting information will also be compliant with the regulations regarding nearby sensitive users and will avoid light-spillover onto the neighboring homes to the south and east.

The lighting plan for the project will provide directional shielding for all exterior lighting to minimize the annoyance of direct or indirect glare, which will be an added benefit for the neighboring residences.

Based on the above goals and policies, it is clear that the annexation and subdivision is consistent with the General Plan.

ZONING ORDINANCE CONFORMANCE
Tentative Subdivision Map
The subdivision of land is governed by the Subdivision Map Act and Title 16 of the Manteca Municipal Code. The Planning Commission may recommend approval for a Tentative Subdivision Map if the Subdivision Map Act findings from Section 66474 of the Map Act can’t be made. In addition to the Title 16 findings, four more findings found in Chapter 16.09.040 of the Municipal Code must be made. The Subdivision Map Act findings and the additional findings in Chapter 16.09.040 of the Municipal Code are discussed below:

Subdivision Map Act (66474)
A legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval of a tentative map, if it makes any of the following findings:
a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451.

ATTACHMENT 13

Analysis: This project is consistent with the General Plan land use designations of LDR in that the entire density of the site is 4.32 du/a, which is between the minimum density of 2.1 and maximum density of 8.0 du/a. The applicant is also providing more park acreage than is required in the General Plan. The design conditions placed in the Conditions of approval will ensure that future homes will comply with the LDR land use regulations. This project is not a part of a Specific Plan. b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.

Analysis: The project’s subdivision design complies with the intent of the General Plan to allow a variety of housing types in the LDR land use designation. The range in lot sizes is exactly what the General Plan encourages in the LDR land use category. This project is not part of a Specific Plan.
c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.

Analysis: The site is physically suitable for this type of development. It is relatively flat with no physical impediments or restrictive easements. Road infrastructure and services are already available at this site, making it suitable for this type of development.
d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

Analysis: The required density for this parcel is 2.1 to 8.0 dwelling units per acre.

This project meets the density requirements at 4.32 dwelling units per acre.

Therefore, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

Analysis: As the lead agency for the Indelicato Annexation project, the City prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). While some impacts were identified, through the implementation of specific mitigation measures, those impacts can be mitigated to less than significant. There will be no injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat. f) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.

Analysis: As approved and conditioned, the design of this project will not cause serious health problems. This development will be required to comply with all standards, including performance standards, and regulations pertaining to health and safety found in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

ATTACHMENT 13

g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

Analysis: This site has been found to have no conflicting easements on site.

Manteca Municipal Code Section 16.09.040
In addition to the requirements governing approval of the tentative map set forth in the Subdivision Map Act, the following considerations and findings shall be made:

A) Subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council shall review and consider any applicable environmental documents.

Analysis: As the lead agency for the Indelicato Annexation project, the City prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). While some impacts were identified, through the implementation of specific mitigation measures, those impacts can be mitigated to less than significant. There will be no injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat.

B) In reaching a decision upon the tentative subdivision map, the City Council shall consider the effect of that decision on the housing needs of the region and balance these needs against the public service needs of its residences and available fiscal and environmental resources.

Analysis: The project will provide the opportunity to create new housing in the City of Manteca. The 173 homes will provide a variety of lot sizes and housing types to ensure full access to housing to the public. While the site is technically outside of City limits until the annexation is approved, City services are near the project site and can be easily accessed for the new community. The project is estimated to generate a surplus for the General Fund at buildout. There are no significant impacts on the environment expected with the buildout of this project.

C) In reaching a decision upon the tentative subdivision map, the City Council shall consider the design of the subdivision as it provides for future passive and natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, as required by Government Code Section 66473.1.

Analysis: Future buildings will have windows on all facades on both stories, to optimize the potential for passive cooling. This project will also be required to comply ATTACHMENT 13

with any applicable California Building Code requirements that may promote passive and natural heating or cooling.

D) The tentative subdivision map may be approved or conditionally approved by the City Council if it finds that the proposed land division, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and all applicable provisions of this code.

Analysis: As discussed in this staff report, the project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of LDR, and supports many General Plan goals and policies. The project will also be required to be consistent with the Zoning Code Requirements for small-lot development.

Based on the above findings, Staff believes that the Planning Commission is able to recommend approval of the Tentative Map to the City Council.

CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONFORMANCE
On October 15, 2013, the Manteca City Council approved and adopted the Air Quality Element Update and Climate Action Plan in response to the passing of Assembly Bill AB32.

The intent of this plan is to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in both private and public sector development.

The project complies with the following Climate Action Plan strategies:

1. CAP Strategy: Compact Development CD-1: The City shall encourage projects consistent with the development densities allowed by the General Plan and are contiguous to existing development meet compact development criteria.

Analysis: This project is consistent with the development density allowed in the LDR land use designation, and it is contiguous to existing residential development to the north and east. It is a thoughtfully laid out project

2. CAP Strategy: Pedestrian Oriented Development POD-2: The City shall require sidewalks and/or pedestrian paths in all residential projects. The sidewalks should be wide enough to allow side-by-side walking and room for passing to increase comfort and convenience for walkers (5 to 6 feet).

Analysis: The project will have five-foot sidewalks throughout the subdivision with enhanced landscaping on the collector streets. The five-foot sidewalks will allow for side-by-side walking and room for passing. The project will also be providing public improvements on N. Airport Way.

3. CAP Strategy: Water Conservation (WC) WC-1: The City shall continue to implement water conservation measures to comply with the Model Water ATTACHMENT 13

Efficient Landscape requirements that implement the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 1881, Laird).

Analysis: The front yards of the homes will utilize low-water-use planting. This project is required to comply with the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, per Assembly Bill 1881.

4. Municipal Strategies - Urban Forestry (UF) UF-2: The City of Manteca will consider the following goals and actions when revising its urban forestry program:
 Increase public and private tree plantings citywide
 Use canopy trees along new major roadways and in new developments Analysis: This project will increase the amount of both public and private tree plantings and will use flowering trees throughout the subdivision. The project will require all front yards to have landscaping, including a tree, which will significantly cut down on the heat-island effect.

ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
As the lead agency for the Indelicato Annexation project, the City of Manteca prepared an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) indicate that there could be some significant adverse effects on the environment, there will not be a significant adverse effect in this case because the project has incorporated specific provisions to reduce impacts to a less than significant level and/or the mitigation measures described in the IS/MDN have been added to the project through the certification of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Conditions of Approval.

The IS/MND was circulated for a public review period from April 7, 2023 to May 8, 2023.

The City received 43 form comment letters and nine individual comment letters from seven different people (two individuals submitted two letters). The comments received were mostly unrelated to the environmental component of the project and will be discussed in the section below. Those environmental concerns raised were related to traffic flow and fish and wildlife resources. These comment letters and responses to these comment letters are attached to this staff report. The IS/MND is available for review on the City’s website here:
https://www.manteca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/planning-divisiondocuments/-folder-340 Based on the facts and finding presented in this staff report, staff believes that the Planning Commission can make the necessary recommendation to the City Council to adopt the IS/MND, and approve the Annexation, Pre-Zoning, and Tentative Subdivision Map for the Indelicato Annexation Project.

ATTACHMENT 13

PUBLIC COMMENT- NON-CEQA ISSUES
The City received 43 form letters during the environmental review process. These questions, listed below, are not CEQA related but were still addressed by the environmental consultant in the response to comments document. Staff is discussing a response here as well. In addition to this form letter, several other residents provided comments during the review period that were not CEQA related. These comments will be discussed after the form questions.

The five questions detailed in the form letter are written as received and the city response is below each item:

1. Will existing fences on the perimeter of adjacent property be a common fence for new construction/residences?
Answer: The project surveyor made note that the existing fences are located on the property line between the project parcel and the parcels to the south and east. That means that this fence is a common fence between the properties. Had the fence been entirely on Del Webb property, then this would not have been a common fence.

However, since the fence is straddling the property line, and is partially on the proposed project’s property, it is a common fence. At this point, California’s “Good Neighbor” fence laws apply. This law states that “the Good Neighbor Fence Act of 2013 establishes a rebuttable presumption that adjoining landowners share an equal benefit from any fence dividing their properties and, absent a written agreement to the contrary, are equally responsible for the reasonable costs for the fence.”

2. Will homes along the perimeter be single level/one story? This should be a major consideration of the owners, designers, contractors, and builders in order to maintain and protect the privacy, security, and quietude of the 55+ senior community that is adjacent.

Answer: The developer of the project has agreed to place one story homes along the southern and eastern perimeter of the project site that abuts the Del Webb community. Condition 24.a. states the following: “The new homes that will be located on the southern and eastern edge of the project that are immediately adjacent to the existing one-story, single family homes in the Del Webb community (specifically those homes located on Shady Oak Place, Shady Oak Street, Appleleaf Lane, Elmbrook Way, Dutchwood Lane, Dogwood Glen Way, and Fern Meadow Avenue), shall be restricted to one-story models.”

3. Is grading and construction being planned so that there will not be a concern regarding drainage flowing into back yards and homes in the adjacent community.

Answer: The project site will be graded to match the existing grade of the bottom of the Del Webb fencing. The grading and drainage plan will be required to be approved by the City Engineering Department prior to any movement of dirt in the area, and ATTACHMENT 13

the approved plan will not be permitted to have water trespass onto neighboring properties.

4. What will be the rules and regulations for landscaping? The adjacent community limits the type of trees allowed for planting in order to ensure there is no cracked and broken concrete, driveways and sidewalks, sprinkler systems, and sewage drains.

Also, trees MUST be planed at least five fee away from fences.

Answer: The City has general landscaping standards in the code that the project must adhere to. The Del Webb community has stricter landscaping standards as it is part of a Specific Plan. Those restrictions are only relevant to the Del Webb community and do not extend beyond the borders of the Del Webb community. The City does not regulate back yard planting and it will not be conditioning tree placement in the backyards of the proposed subdivision.

5. During construction, will property be watered down often to limit the amount of dust and dirt from blowing?
Answer: The City established dust control regulations with the passage of the Dust Control Resolution in 1999. Since the passage of this resolution, improvement plans are required to contain a statement requiring conformance to this resolution. Those sites that fail to adequately control dust during construction, either through site watering or other approved methods, face fines and other disciplinary action.

The remaining comment letters raised the following issues: 1) the conflict of two story homes adjacent to one story homes; 2) a sound wall around the community; 3) kids walking through the community and using the Del Webb park; 4) the use of roads in Del Webb; 5) no school bus turnout in the new subdivision; 6) the proposed right only control out of the Indelicato community; and 7) the creation of an overall master plan for the northern area of the City’s Sphere of Influence. Responses to these issues are below.

1. As noted above, the developer has agreed to only place one story homes along the southern and eastern edges of the project that abut the Del Webb community.

2. The project will be zoned R-1 and only residential uses are proposed for the project parcel. When a residential use is adjacent to another residential use the Municipal Code only requires a wood fence. As discussed above, the common fence that exists currently will be the only fence that staff will require for this subdivision. A sound wall would be an onerous requirement and there is no nexus for this request.

3. The streets of Del Webb are considered public right-of-ways. Unless the community was a gated community, there is no way for the City to prevent people from walking through the neighborhood. The Del Webb parks are privately maintained so community members or HOA may request to have children removed from the area.

4. The streets are public and there is no way for the City to limit who drives on these roads. However, going through the Del Webb community would be an indirect path to reach any desired services and the idea of “cutting through” the community is more of a NIMBY concern rather than one based on traffic data.

ATTACHMENT 13

5. Per California law, drivers must stop for a school bus if the bus stops in front of them and extends its stop sign and turns on the flashing red lights. Oncoming drivers must also do the same. Children will be allowed to get off the bus and completely cross the road before the school bus driver will turn off the lights, fold in the sign, and continue driving. The fine for ignoring this law can be as much as $1,000. For this reason, a dedicated bus turn out is not required when there is already California law that requires drivers to stop where they are when a school bus stops and has its flashing red lights one. The Manteca Unified School District was provided the opportunity to comment on this project and did not raise this concern after reviewing the project. The District has provided a letter of support for the approval of this subdivision as is.

6. Left turns onto Airport have been determined to be more unsafe than restricting the development to a right-in and right-out movement. This movement has been analyzed in the traffic report associated with this project and has been approved by the City Engineer. There has been nothing provided into the record that indicates that a right-in and right-out restriction is unsafe. A future traffic light will likely be installed somewhere between the proposed development and Lovelace Road, which will provide a U-turn opportunity for the development in the future.

7. There is no City requirement for a Master Plan. The Union Ranch Specific Plan was privately initiated and funded. Should a private entity wish to come forward with a Master Plan or Specific Plan for the area in the northern portion of the City’s Sphere of Influence, the City is open to reviewing it for conformity with the General Plan’s goals and policies.

Any CEQA issues related to these comment letters (if present) will be addressed in the Response to Comments attached to the Staff Report.

Report prepared by: Lea C. Simvoulakis, Deputy Director-Planning Attachments:

2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1630
a. Exhibit A Annexation Legal Description
b. Exhibit B Fiscal Analysis
c. Exhibit C Pre-Zoning Map
d. Exhibit D Tentative Map
e. Exhibit E Conditions of Approval
f. Exhibit F MMRP

3. Comment Letters and Response to Comments for the IS/MND Reviewed and Approved by:

Chris Erias 5/16/2023
Chris Erias, Development Services Director Date
ATTACHMENT 13
Resolution – Indelicato Annexation June 1, 2023
City of Manteca
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1630

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MANTECA,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MAKING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING THE CITY

COUNCIL ADOPT THE INDELICATO ANNEXATION MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN, AND

RECOMMEND THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE ANNEXATION AND AUTHORIZE

STAFF TO MAKE APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION TO LAFCO UNDER THE

FUTURE TAX-SHARING AGREEMENT, APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN

AMENDMENT, APPROVE THE PRE-ZONE DESIGNATION, AND APPROVE THE

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE INDELICATO ANNEXATION PROJECT (FILE NOS. ANX21-104, PRZ21-105, GPA23-036, and SDJ21-106) (SCH 2023040168)
WHEREAS, the Manteca Planning Commission, at their duly noticed public hearing on June 1, 2023, considered a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Pre-Zoning, and Tentative Subdivision Map for the Indelicato Annexation, filed by Michael Kiper with KDH Group LLC, 3200 Danville Boulevard, Suite 200, Alamo, CA 94507; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.08.060 of the Manteca Municipal Code, the City Council is the final decision-making body for all actions and the Planning Commission is the recommending body; and
WHEREAS, the annexation area legal description is attached as Exhibit A, and identifies the annexation of the 40 acres of property; and WHEREAS, the project site is farmland with row crops and no structures; and WHEREAS, the project site is identified as APN 204-100-520; WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision will have 173 residential units and a 3.03- acre part/basin; and
WHEREAS, to consider annexation, the city must determine that the project boundary is contiguous and that the annexation is a logical expansion of the city; the annexation creates clear and reasonable boundaries; there are adequate municipal services; the annexation reflects a long-term fiscal balance to the City; the annexation is ATTACHMENT 13
Resolution – Indelicato Annexation June 1, 2023
consistent with State law and the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO); finally the project is consistent with the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed annexation is contiguous and logical in that the annexation area is immediately adjacent to current city limits on the southern and eastern edge of the site and the annexation of this area is the next logical annexation site along Airport Way; and as detailed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, there are sufficient municipal services available to the annexation area; there is a long term fiscal benefit of the annexation under the future tax-sharing agreement as identified in the Fiscal Analysis attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B; the annexation is consistent with State Law and San Joaquin LAFCO requirements in that the applicant has followed the appropriate rules and procedures to pursue annexation through the City and LAFCO; and the project is consistent with the General Plan as the area is within the City’s Sphere of Influence in the 10-year horizon and annexation of this land was anticipated between the years of 2015- 2025; and
WHEREAS, the Development area and Non-development area are currently located within the unincorporated area of San Joaquin County within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Manteca, and as a requirement of San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission for annexations, land that is requested to be annexed into a city must be annexed with a pre-zoning district designation; and WHEREAS, the proposed Pre-Zoning Designation for the parcel is One-Family Dwelling (R-1), shown on the zoning map attached as Exhibit C; and WHEREAS, the General Plan land use designation for the project area is Low Density Residential (LDR) with a sliver of Public Quasi-Public (PQP) land use designation, and the proposed Manteca General Plan Update removes the PQP designation on this site, approval of which was to precede this proposed project but was delayed, so now this project needs to process a General Plan Amendment to remove the small portion of PQP on the site and change that land use designation to LDR and the existing and proposed land use maps are attached as Exhibit D; and WHEREAS, in order to develop the 173-unit subdivision known as the Indelicato Tentative Subdivision Map, the project applicant filed a Tentative Subdivision Map which is attached as Exhibit E with Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit F, and WHEREAS, the uses of the Subdivision are consistent with the LDR land use designations in that the uses and density of the proposed project conform to the LDR land use designation; and
WHEREAS, the City as the lead agency for the Project, has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project pursuant to an in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
ATTACHMENT 13
Resolution – Indelicato Annexation June 1, 2023
WHEREAS, the MND was made available for the statutory 30-day public review from April 7, 2023 to May 8, 2022 and public comments received were posted and responded to; and
WHEREAS, the MMRP is attached to this resolution as Exhibit G; and WHEREAS, the Annexation and Subdivision components of the project are found to be consistent with the overall policies of the Manteca General Plan and Manteca Municipal Code as described in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 1, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all information related to this matter, as presented at a public meeting, including any supporting reports by City Staff, and any information provided during public meetings.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Manteca Planning Commission, pursuant to the Manteca Municipal Code, upon evidence in the staff report and project file, makes the following findings to support the recommendation for approval of the Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Pre-zoning, and Tentative Subdivision Map for the Indelicato Annexation Project File Nos. ANX21-104, GPA23-036, PRZ21-05, and SDJ21-106.

Annexation Findings

1. The proposed annexation area is immediately north and west of existing City limit lines. Based on the annexation map (Exhibit A), this annexation is the next logical parcel for annexation in the northern area of the City.

2. The proposed annexation will get the City closer to a square boundary line between the DelWebb area and the North West Airport Master Plan area.

3. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project indicates that there are adequate municipal services for the proposed annexation area.

4. A fiscal analysis of the subdivision was prepared by EPS indicating that the project would generate a net increase in new City General Fund revenues. The City is currently negotiating a 60/40 tax sharing agreement and the project will not be annexed until this negotiation is complete.

5. The proposed annexation is consistent with all State and LAFCo laws in that the annexation is following correct city procedures, it is consistent with the City’s General Plan, and the appropriate actions for annexation will be completed by the Council prior to an annexation application is made to LAFCO by the City.

6. This annexation is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-P-9. In addition to this policy, this annexation is consistent with the overall intent of growth expressed in the General Plan as noted in the June 1, 2023 staff report.

General Plan Amendment Findings

1. The General Plan Amendment produces a benefit to the City in that an increase in LDR-designated land allows the City to provide necessary housing ATTACHMENT 13
Resolution – Indelicato Annexation June 1, 2023
opportunities to more members of the community, and the change in land use allows for a better site layout and design of the community park.

Pre-Zoning Findings

1. The proposed Pre-zoning is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs, in that the land uses for the R-1 zones are consisted with the LDR land use designation and the majority of the subdivision will develop based on the small-lot subdivision standards which are consistent with the General Plan.

2. The proposed amendments would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City, in that the proposed development is subject to the zoning ordinance and is required to comply with the rules and regulations therein. If at any time the future subdivision is deemed to be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City, the Police and Code Enforcement Departments will be notified for review and possible citation.

3. The amendment has been reviewed and is in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in that this project completed a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will mitigate all impacts where feasible.

4. The site is physically suitable (including absence of physical constraints, access, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and provisions of utilities) for the requested zoning designations and anticipated land uses/development, in that the site is relatively flat and has no physical obstructions.

Tentative Subdivision Map – Subdivision Map Act Findings:

Per the Subdivision Map Act, a legislative body of a city or county may approve the tentative map, based on the following findings:

1. The proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451 in that the proposed subdivision and existing uses are consistent with the LDR and land use designation and the project meets the density requirements.

2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans in that the subdivision is consistent with General Plan goals and policies related to high quality design, varied materials, and pedestrian connectivity.

3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development in that the site is relatively flat with no noticeable impediments to development. Further, city services are in the immediate vicinity and will be able to be brought to the project site.

4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that the parcel has been designated for residential use since the adoption of the current General Plan in 2003 and residential development on this site.

5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is unlikely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or ATTACHMENT 13
Resolution – Indelicato Annexation June 1, 2023
wildlife or their habitat in that this site is currently being farmed for agricultural uses and does not lend itself to fish or other wildlife habitat.

6. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is unlikely to cause serious public health problems in that the project has been reviewed by internal departments and external agencies, and any impacts that may occur due to the development have been mitigate to the fullest extent possible.

7. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision in that no conflicting easements exist, and any future right of dedication being required has been incorporated into the land plan.

I hereby certify that Resolution No. 1630 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Manteca at a regularly scheduled public hearing held on June 1, 2023, by the following vote:

Roll Call:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Ronald Laffranchi, Chairman Date
Exhibits:

Exhibit A Annexation Legal Description
Exhibit B Fiscal Analysis
Exhibit C Pre-Zoning Map
Exhibit D Tentative Subdivision Map
Exhibit E Conditions of Approval
Exhibit F MMRP
ATTACHMENT 13
ATTACHMENT 13

M EMORANDUM
To: Michael Kiper, KDH Group, LLC
From: Jamie Gomes and Sean Fisher
Subject: Indelicato Property Fiscal Impact Analysis;
EPS #212095
Date: March 15, 2022
Introduction
KDH Group, LLC (Applicant) retained Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) to evaluate the fiscal impacts of the proposed Indelicato Property Development (Project) on the City of Manteca (City). The Project is anticipated to be a residential development project on an approximately
40-acre parcel, located adjacent to the city limits. The site is located in unincorporated San Joaquin County (County), within the City’s Sphere of Influence but is anticipated to be annexed into the City before development. This
memorandum summarizes an evaluation of the fiscal
impacts of the Project on the City.

This fiscal impact analysis (Analysis) examines the Project’s estimated fiscal impact on the City’s annual General Fund budget. Specifically, the Analysis estimates whether
projected revenues from the Project will adequately cover the costs of delivering citywide services (e.g., general government, public protection, and parks and recreation) to the Project’s residents. The Analysis is based on the assumption that these services will be provided by the City.

It is assumed that the Project will annex into the City before development. The Analysis assesses two potential tax-sharing agreements that may be entered into by the
City and the County at the time of annexation. The base scenario reflects a tax-sharing scenario based on the
master tax-sharing agreement entered into between the
City and the County, dated November 2018. The master
tax-sharing scenario assumes 80 percent of eligible
property tax revenues will be allocated to the County and the remaining 20 percent will be retained by the City.

ATTACHMENT 13
Memorandum: Indelicato Property Fiscal Impact Analysis
March 15, 2022
2 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
In addition to the base scenario, the Analysis assesses the Project impacts under an alternative tax-sharing agreement scenario with 60 percent of eligible property tax revenues being allocated to the County and the remaining 40 percent being allocated to the City, consistent with the agreement reached for the recent Griffin Park Project annexation.

The technical analysis is attached to this memorandum. The technical analysis, including data, assumptions, and detailed calculations underlying the Analysis, is provided in Appendices A through D.

Project Overview
The Project is anticipated to develop on an approximately 40-acre vacant site, located adjacent to the city limits, north of Peach Avenue between Airport Way and Oleander Avenue. The Project is anticipated to contain 197 single-family dwelling units.

Table A-2 in Appendix A summarizes the Project’s land use plan at buildout.

Overview of Results
Under the base scenario, the Analysis yields the following results as summarized in Table 1. Table 2A provides a detailed line-item listing of City General Fund revenues and expenditures resulting from buildout of the Project under the Master Tax-Sharing Scenario. Table 2B provides a detailed line-item listing of revenues and expenditures under the Alternative Tax-Sharing Agreement Scenario:
 Buildout of the Project is estimated to yield a marginal net fiscal surplus for the City’s General Fund under the Master Tax-Sharing Scenario. At buildout, the Project is estimated to generate a net annual General Fund surplus of approximately $81,000. The Analysis estimates the Project will generate about $244,000 in net, new, annual City General Fund revenues and will require about $163,000 in annual City General Fund service costs.
 Under the Alternative Tax-Sharing Agreement Scenario, the Project is estimated to result in a fiscal surplus to the City. As shown in Table 2B, At buildout, the Project is estimated to generate a net annual General Fund surplus of approximately $160,000. Under the Alternative Tax-Sharing Agreement Scenario, the Analysis estimates the Project will generate about $323,000 in net, new, annual City General Fund revenues and will require about $163,000 in annual City General Fund service costs.

ATTACHMENT 13
Table 1
Indelicato Property
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Summary of Annual Surplus/Deficits (2020$)
Item
Annual Fiscal Impact
Annual General Fund Revenues $244,000
Annual General Fund Expenditures $163,000
Net General Fund Surplus/(Deficit) $81,000
sum
Source: EPS.

Estimated Annual
Revenues/Expenditures
(Rounded)
Master Tax Share
Agreement Scenario
Prepared by EPS 3/10/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212095 Manteca Dutra & Indelicato Fiscal Impact Analyses\Model\212095 Indelicato FIA m1 03.10.22 3 ATTACHMENT 13
Table 2A
Indelicato Property
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Item
Annual General Fund Revenues
Property Taxes $79,500
Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fees $92,800
Real Property Transfer Tax $9,400
Sales and Use Taxes $41,600
Public Safety Sales and Use Tax $1,200
Transient Occupancy Tax $5,800
Licenses and Permits -
Business Licenses $3,600
Franchise Fees $9,700
Total General Fund Revenue $243,600
Annual General Fund Expenditures
General Government
Legislation and Policy $900
Legal Services $500
City Administration $400
Public Works Administration $100
Non Departmental $5,000
Human Resources $900
Fiscal and Revenue Management $500
Economic and Community Development $200
Fleet Maintenance $200
Subtotal General Government $8,700
Public Safety
Police Protection $86,000
Animal Services $900
Fire Protection $42,100
Subtotal Public Safety $129,000
Parks, Recreation, and Community Services
Parks Maintenance $16,100
Library $700
Recreational and Senior Services $5,500
Subtotal Parks, Recreation, and Community Svcs $22,300
Public Utilities
Storm Drainage $400
Subtotal Public Utilities $400
Transportation
Streets $2,300
Subtotal Transportation $2,300
Total General Fund Expenditures $162,700
Net General Fund Surplus/(Deficit) $80,900
det sum
Source: EPS.

Estimated Annual Revenues /
Expenditures (Rounded)
Master Tax Share Agreement
Scenario
Estimated Annual Revenues and Expenditures -
Master Tax Share Agreement Scenario (2020$)
Prepared by EPS 3/14/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212095 Manteca Dutra & Indelicato Fiscal Impact Analyses\Model\212095 Indelicato FIA m1 03.10.22 4 ATTACHMENT 13
Table 2B
Indelicato Property
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Item
Annual General Fund Revenues
Property Taxes $159,000
Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fees $92,800
Real Property Transfer Tax $9,400
Sales and Use Taxes $41,600
Public Safety Sales and Use Tax $1,200
Transient Occupancy Tax $5,800
Licenses and Permits -
Business Licenses $3,600
Franchise Fees $9,700
Total General Fund Revenue $323,100
Annual General Fund Expenditures
General Government
Legislation and Policy $900
Legal Services $500
City Administration $400
Public Works Administration $100
Non Departmental $5,000
Human Resources $900
Fiscal and Revenue Management $500
Economic and Community Development $200
Fleet Maintenance $200
Subtotal General Government $8,700
Public Safety
Police Protection $86,000
Animal Services $900
Fire Protection $42,100
Subtotal Public Safety $129,000
Parks, Recreation, and Community Services
Parks Maintenance $16,100
Library $700
Recreational and Senior Services $5,500
Subtotal Parks, Recreation, and Community Svc $22,300
Public Utilities
Storm Drainage $400
Subtotal Public Utilities $400
Transportation
Streets $2,300
Subtotal Transportation $2,300
Total General Fund Expenditures $162,700
Net General Fund Surplus/(Deficit) $160,400
det sum
Source: EPS.

Estimated Annual Revenues /
Expenditures (Rounded)
Alternative Tax Share Scenario
Estimated Annual Revenues and Expenditures -
Alternative Scenario (2020$)
Prepared by EPS 3/10/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212095 Manteca Dutra & Indelicato Fiscal Impact Analyses\Model\212095 Indelicato FIA m1 03.10.22 5 ATTACHMENT 13
Memorandum: Indelicato Property Fiscal Impact Analysis
March 15, 2022
6 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Methodology and Assumptions
This section details the underlying methodology and assumptions used to estimate the fiscal impact of the Project on the City. It describes assumptions concerning municipal service delivery, land development, and General Fund budgeting. In addition, it details the methodology used to forecast the Project’s General Fund revenues and expenditures at buildout.

Municipal Service Provision
This Analysis examines the Project’s ability to generate adequate revenues to cover the City’s costs of providing public services to the Project. The services analyzed in this Analysis comprise General Fund services (e.g., public safety, parks, general government).

The Analysis excludes any services that may be funded privately, such as common area maintenance costs, which may be funded through a Homeowners’ Association (HOA) or other private mechanisms. The Analysis also excludes publicly administered service and maintenance costs such as landscaping, lighting, drainage, or roadway that are anticipated to be funded through other funding mechanisms. This Analysis also does not address activities budgeted in other City Governmental Funds or Proprietary Funds, nor does it include an evaluation of capital facilities or funding of capital facilities needed to serve new development.

General Assumptions
The Analysis is based on the City’s Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020–21, including mid-year budget adjustments provided by City staff, tax regulations, statutes current as of November 2021, and other general assumptions discussed herein.

Each revenue item is estimated based on current State of California (State) legislation and current City practices. Therefore, the Analysis reflects the current State-local fiscal relationship as it exists at the time the Analysis was completed.

Future changes by either State legislation or City practices may affect the revenues and expenditures estimated in this Analysis. All costs and revenues are shown in constant 2020 dollars. General fiscal and demographic assumptions are detailed in Table A-1 in Appendix A.

EPS consulted the City’s budget documents to develop forecasting methodologies for specific revenues and expenditures affected by new development in the proposed Project. In addition, EPS consulted with City staff to clarify budget data and review assumptions and Analysis results. This Analysis also used information from the following sources: Project Applicant, County Assessor and AuditorController, State Department of Finance (DOF), State Board of Equalization (BOE), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and subscription-based data sources (e.g., CoStar).

ATTACHMENT 13
Memorandum: Indelicato Property Fiscal Impact Analysis
March 15, 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 7
The actual fiscal impacts of new development in the Project will vary from those presented in this Analysis if development plans or other assumptions (e.g., assessed valuations, sales tax revenue assumptions) change from those presented in this Analysis.

General Fund Revenue- and Expenditure-Estimating Assumptions This Analysis considers only discretionary General Fund revenues that will be generated by the Project. Offsetting revenues, which are General Fund revenues that are dedicated to offset the costs of specific General Fund department functions, are excluded from this Analysis. Departmental costs funded by offsetting revenues or not affected by development also are excluded from this Analysis. Calculations used to exclude offsetting revenues from total annual revenues in the Analysis were reviewed by City staff and are shown in Table B-1 in Appendix B. Calculations to estimate annual expenditures, net of offsetting revenues, are shown in Table C-1 in Appendix C.

Development Assumptions
Listed below are brief summaries of land use and other development-related assumptions:
 Land Use: The Project is entitled to accommodate single-family residential units, as described above.
 Residential and Employee Estimates: Residential population is calculated using an average persons-per-household factor of 3.18 for single-family residential units, based on data provided by the U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2019 estimates. In estimating certain annual revenues and expenditures (service demands) related to the Project, EPS developed a “persons-served” population estimate to approximate the impacts of an employee in the Project relative to a Project resident. EPS uses a factor of

0.5 employees plus all residents to derive the Project’s persons-served population. As the Project contains no commercial uses, the Project’s persons served is equal to Project residents. Table A-3 in Appendix A shows the estimated residents and persons served generated by the Project.  Project Assessed Value: The estimated assessed valuation of residential development is based on Project-specific value assumptions provided by the Project Applicant. Estimated buildout assessed values for the Project are calculated in Table D-2 in Appendix D.

ATTACHMENT 13
Memorandum: Indelicato Property Fiscal Impact Analysis
March 15, 2022
8 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
 Property Turnover Rates: The Analysis is based on the assumption that a for-sale owner-occupied residential unit would turn over once every 7 years.  Income of Households: The average household income for residential units in the Project is used to forecast household retail expenditures. As shown in Table D-3 in Appendix D, this calculation was derived using the following assumptions and data inputs:
— Estimated home value.
— Assumed 5 percent, 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage with a 20 percent down payment and 2 percent annual taxes and insurance for owner-occupied residential units.
— Monthly HOA dues for owner-occupied units.
— Estimated 35 percent of income dedicated to mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance.

Revenue-Estimating Methodology
EPS used either a marginal-revenue case-study approach or an average-revenue approach to estimate Project-related revenues.

The marginal-revenue case-study approach simulates actual revenue generation resulting from new development. The case-study approach for estimating sales and use tax revenues, for instance, forecasts market demand and taxable spending from the Project’s new residents. Case studies used in this Analysis are discussed in greater detail later in this section.

The average-revenue approach uses the City’s FY 2020-21 budgeted revenue amounts on a citywide per-persons-served basis to forecast revenues derived from estimated residents and employees of the Project.1 Revenue sources not expected to increase as a result of development are excluded from this Analysis. These sources of revenue are not affected by development because they are either one-time revenue sources not guaranteed to be available in the future or there is no direct relation between increased employment growth and increased revenue.
1 A per-persons-served basis of estimating revenues is used to take into account that businesses (and their employees) have a fiscal impact on many City revenues but at a lower level than residential development’s impact. As the Project does not include commercial land uses, the persons served is equal to Project residents.

ATTACHMENT 13
Memorandum: Indelicato Property Fiscal Impact Analysis
March 15, 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 9
A listing of all included City revenue sources and the corresponding estimating procedure used to forecast future Project revenues is shown in Table B-1 in Appendix B. A summary of estimated annual General Fund revenues generated by the Project is provided in Table B-2.

Property Tax
Estimated annual property tax revenue resulting from development in the Project is presented in Table B-3 in Appendix B. To be consistent with the City’s budget data, the estimated assessed values for Project land uses are assumed to remain static in 2020 dollar values—real growth in assessed value is not estimated.

The Project site is located in Tax Rate Area (TRA) 102-151, which is located in the unincorporated County. The Project is anticipated to annex into the City, and the Analysis includes 2 potential annexation scenarios reflecting 2 allocations of the 1 percent ad valorem property tax to be retained by the City and the County following development. The Base Scenario is the Master Tax-Sharing Agreement Scenario, assuming 80 percent of eligible funds will be retained by the County and the remaining 20 percent will be retained by the City, after any Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) adjustments. The Alternative Tax-Sharing Agreement Scenario is based on the assumption the County will receive a 60 percent share of eligible funds, with the remaining 40 percent retained by the City. The share of property taxes the City is assumed to receive from the Project is derived from the total assessed value of the Project and the estimated property tax allocation, as shown in Table D-1 in Appendix D.2 Property Tax in Lieu of Vehicle License Fees
A formula provided by the State Controller’s Office was used to forecast Property Tax in Lieu of Vehicle License Fees (PTIL VLF), which are calculated by taking the percentage increase of the City’s assessed value resulting from the Project and applying that percentage share to the City’s current State allocation of PTIL VLF.

This calculation is shown in Table B-3 in Appendix B.

Real Property Transfer Tax
Real property transfer tax is based on the assessed value of the Project’s land uses and the anticipated turnover of residential properties over time. As stated earlier, the Analysis is based on the assumption the Project’s owner-occupied residential property will turn over 14.3 percent per year (or once every 7 years).

Real property transfer tax revenue projections are identified in Table B-4 in Appendix B.
2 Final amount subject to negotiation and agreement between the City and the County.

ATTACHMENT 13
Memorandum: Indelicato Property Fiscal Impact Analysis
March 15, 2022
10 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Sales Tax
Sales tax revenues are based on taxable sales generated in the City and the Bradley-Burns 1 percent local sales tax rate. The City has an additional voterapproved half-cent sales tax, Measure M, to be used for public safety expenditures. This Analysis includes only discretionary City General Fund expenditures; because Measure M funds are used for specific expenditures, the Measure M sales tax has been excluded from this Analysis. Estimated sales tax revenues to the City are summarized in Table B-5 in Appendix B.

For residential projects, EPS uses a Market Support Method, which measures taxable sales generated from new Project households and employees spending money within the City’s boundaries.

Market Support Method
New Households
This Analysis estimates retail expenditures of future residents in the Project by type of retail category and the share of expenditures estimated to be captured in the City (e.g., sales generated in the City’s retail establishments). The amounts and types of expenditures made by residents generally depends on their household income. Data for this Analysis are based on estimated Project resident incomes, household spending patterns, and retail demand and supply market conditions in the City.

Specifically, this Analysis estimates retail expenditures of future residents by:
 Estimating the total income of new households, based on projected home sales prices for new owner-occupied homes, housing costs, and estimated household income, as shown in Table D-3 in Appendix D. Estimated household incomes are based on the assumption that 35 percent of income is spent on housing costs.
 Evaluating Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES) data from the U.S. BLS, which reports the proportion of income spent on various household goods and services by income group.
 Translating the U.S. BLS data on household expenditures into retail store categories by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code.3 Sales prices for the Project’s owner-occupied homes are estimated at $690,000 per unit. Based on this estimated home sales price and monthly rent estimates, EPS estimated future household incomes of approximately $146,000. Typical household expenditure patterns from the U.S. BLS’ CES suggests, at these income 3 The NAICS classifies retail stores into 12 categories. Although not classified under retail trade, Food Services and Drinking Places typically are considered part of retail in retail market analyses.

ATTACHMENT 13
Memorandum: Indelicato Property Fiscal Impact Analysis
March 15, 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 11
levels, Project residents are estimated to spend 23 percent of their household income on taxable retail expenditures.

EPS estimates approximately 75 percent of household expenditures will be captured by retail outlets in the City. Refer to Table B-5A in Appendix B for more details.

Proposition 172
Public safety sales tax is collected on a countywide basis and allocated principally to the County, with a small portion of revenue allocated to incorporated cities in the County. This revenue source is used to fund police and fire services in the City. Estimated revenue from the City’s share of the County’s half-cent sales tax for public safety is shown in Table B-5.

Expenditure-Estimating Methodology
Expenditure estimates are based on the City’s FY 2020-21 budget and supplemental information from City staff.4 This Analysis estimates General Fund expenditures to the Project. General Fund department expenditures expected to be affected by the Project are forecasted using an average-cost approach, which uses the City’s FY 2020-21 budgeted expenditures on a citywide per-personsserved or per capita basis to forecast expenditures required to serve new development.

A listing of all City General Fund expenditures and the corresponding estimating procedure used to forecast future Project expenditures is shown in Table C-1 in Appendix C. A summary of estimated annual expenditures required to serve the Project at buildout is provided in Table C-2.

Average-Cost Expenditures
Expenditures that are affected by residents and employees are projected using a per-person-served average cost multiplier. These expenditures include all departmental expenditures, except parks, recreation, and community service expenditures, which are estimated using a per capita average cost multiplier because these services generally are demanded by residential development only.

For general government and public utility expenditures, an adjustment of 50 percent is made to account for fixed costs not expected to grow with Project development.
4 This Analysis primarily is based on the City’s FY 2020-21 budget, updated to reflect mid-year budget adjustments, as provided by City staff.

ATTACHMENT 13
Memorandum: Indelicato Property Fiscal Impact Analysis
March 15, 2022
12 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Technical Appendices
The technical calculations used in this Analysis are shown in Appendices A through D (Tables A-1 through D-3):
 Appendix A indicates the proposed land uses and general assumptions used in this Analysis.
 Appendix B identifies the projected revenues that will be generated by the Project for the City’s General Fund.
 Appendix C details the estimated expenditures for the City to provide General Fund services to the Project.
 Appendix D shows the projected assessed value of the Project, which serves as the basis for calculating property tax revenues. In addition, this appendix provides detail on the portion of the Assembly Bill 8 allocation of property tax revenues provided to the City and includes the calculation of estimated average household income.

ATTACHMENT 13
APPENDICES:

Appendix A: General Assumptions
Appendix B: Revenue-Estimating Tables
Appendix C: Expenditure-Estimating Tables
Appendix D: Supporting Tables for Revenue
and Expenditure Analyses
ATTACHMENT 13
APPENDIX A:

General Assumptions
Table A-1 General Assumptions ........................................... A-1 Table A-2 Land Use Summary at Buildout ............................. A-2 Table A-3 Estimated Persons Served .................................... A-3 Table A-3 Analysis Assumptions ........................................... A-4 ATTACHMENT 13
Table A-1
Indelicato Property
Fiscal Impact Analysis
General Assumptions
Item Assumption
General Assumptions
Fiscal Year FY 2020-21
General Demographic Characteristics
City of Manteca
Population [1] 84,800
Employees [2] 21,000
City of Manteca Persons Served [3] 95,300
gen assumps
Source: California Department of Finance; EDD; U.S. Census LED; EPS. [3] Persons served is defined as total population plus half of total employees. Used to estimate specific revenues and expenditures that are assumed to be impacted by growth in resident and employment populations and to avoid double counting of employees who reside in the City.

City of
Manteca
[1] Based on population estimates from the California Department of Finance (DOF) data for January 1, 2021.
[2] US Census Onthemap.ces.census.gov estimated a total of 18,767 jobs in Manteca, CA in 2018.

California EDD reports an annual average growth rate of 0.95% since 2018 for the Stockton-Lodi MSA.

EPS adjusted the 2018 employment figure to arrive at a 2021 employment estimate using this growth rate and further increased the total by 10% to account for self-employed workers. Estimate is rounded to the nearest hundred employees.

Prepared by EPS 212095 Indelicato FIA m1 03.10.22 3/10/2022 A-1 ATTACHMENT 13
Table A-2
Indelicato Property
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Total and Occupied Project Land Uses
Land Use
Total
Dwelling
Units
Vacancy
Rate
Occupied
Dwelling
Units
Development Projections
Residential Land Uses
Single Family Residential 173 6% 163
Subtotal Residential 173 163
Total All Land Uses 173 163
lu
Source: MCR Engineering, Inc; EPS.

Project Land Uses
Prepared by EPS 3/10/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212095 Manteca Dutra & Indelicato Fiscal Impact Analyses\Model\212095 Indelicato FIA m1 03.10.22 A-2 ATTACHMENT 13
Table A-3
Indelicato Property
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Estimated Persons Served
Assumption
Land Use [1]
Project Residents
Residential Land Uses PPH
Single Family Residential 3.18 518
Subtotal Residential Land Uses 518
Total Resident Population 518
Project Persons Served 518
pop
Source: California Department of Finance; EPS.

Estimated
Population
[1] For persons per household assumptions, refer to Table A-4.

Prepared by EPS 3/10/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212095 Manteca Dutra & Indelicato Fiscal Impact Analyses\Model\212095 Indelicato FIA m1 03.10.22 A-3 ATTACHMENT 13
Table A-4
Indelicato PropertyFiscal Impact AnalysisLand Use Assumptions Persons per
Estimated Property Household/
Assessed Turnover Vacancy Sq. Ft. per
Land Use Value [1] Rate [2] Rate [3] Employee [4]
Residential Land Uses per Unit
Owner-Occupied Residential
Single Family Residential $690,000 14.3% 6.0% 3.18
lu assum
Source: MCR Engineering, Inc; US Census; EPS.[1] Assessed value based on the rounded estimated market value per unit as provided by the Project Applicant.[2] Owner-occupied residential assumed to turn over once every 7 years and renter-occupied residential is assumed to turn over once every 15 years.

City of
Manteca
[3] Residential vacancy rates obtained from the US Census American Community Survey, 2019 estimates, for the City of Manteca.[4] Persons per household figures obtained from the US Census American Community Survey, 2019 estimates.

Prepared by EPS 3/14/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212095 Manteca Dutra & Indelicato Fiscal Impact Analyses\Model\212095 Indelicato FIA m1 03.10.22 A-4
ATTACHMENT 13
APPENDIX B:

Revenue-Estimating Tables
Table B-1 Revenue-Estimating Procedures ............................ B-1 Table B-2 Estimated Annual General Fund Revenues .............. B-2 Table B-3 Estimated Annual Property Tax Revenues ............... B-3 Table B-4 Real Property Transfer Tax Revenues ..................... B-4 Table B-5 Estimated Annual Sales and Use Tax Revenues ........ B-5 Table B-5A Estimated Annual Taxable Sales from Proposed Development, Market Support Method .................... B-6 ATTACHMENT 13
Table B-1
Indelicato PropertyFiscal Impact AnalysisRevenue-Estimating Procedures Based on City of Manteca FY 2020-21 Budget (2020$) FY 2020-21 FY 2020-21
Budgeted Budgeted
Estimating Case Study General Fund Offsetting Net General Service Revenue Item Procedure Reference Revenues [1] Revenues Fund Revenues Population [2] Multiplier General Fund Revenues
Property Taxes Case Study Table B-3 $10,600,345 - $10,600,345 NA - Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fees Case Study Table B-3 $7,228,240 - $7,228,240 NA - Real Property Transfer Tax Case Study Table B-4 $678,590 - $678,590 NA - Sales and Use Taxes Case Study Table B-5 $11,770,857 - $11,770,857 NA - Public Safety Sales and Use Tax Case Study Table B-5 $340,315 - $340,315 NA - Transient Occupancy Tax Persons Served - $1,062,469 - $1,062,469 95,300 $11.15 Licenses and Permits Persons Served - $252,635 ($252,635) - 95,300 - Business Licenses Persons Served - $667,000 - $667,000 95,300 $7.00 Franchise Fees Persons Served - $1,777,125 - $1,777,125 95,300 $18.65 Excise Tax [3] - $450,000 - $450,000 NA -
Intergovernmental [3] - $1,746,492 ($295,000) $1,451,492 NA -Charges for Services [3] - $8,699,849 ($4,940,845) $3,759,004 NA - Fines and Forfeitures Persons Served - $304,980 ($304,980) $0 95,300 - Use of Money & Property [3] - $920,000 - $920,000 NA -
All Other Revenue [3] - $57,650 - $57,650 NA -
Total General Fund Revenues $46,556,547 ($5,793,460) $40,763,087 Fund Reserves $8,315,434
Total General Fund Revenues (Incl. Reserves) $54,871,981 rev pro
Source: City of Manteca FY 2020-21 Final Budget including Midyear Budget Amendments (Current as of March 10, 2021); EPS.[1] Includes midyear budget amendments as provided by City staff, current as of March 10, 2021.[2] Refer to Table A-1 for details.[3] This revenue source is not expected to be affected by anticipated development and therefore is not evaluated in this analysis.

City of
Manteca
Prepared by EPS 3/14/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212095 Manteca Dutra & Indelicato Fiscal Impact Analyses\Model\212095 Indelicato FIA m1 03.10.22 B-1
ATTACHMENT 13
Table B-2
Indelicato Property
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Estimated Annual General Fund Revenues (2020$)
Case Study
Revenue Category Reference
General Fund Revenues
Property Taxes Table B-3 $79,500
Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fees Table B-3 $92,800 Real Property Transfer Tax Table B-4 $9,400
Sales and Use Taxes Table B-5 $41,600
Public Safety Sales and Use Tax Table B-5 $1,200
Transient Occupancy Tax - $5,800
Licenses and Permits - -
Business Licenses - $3,600
Franchise Fees - $9,700
Fines and Forfeitures - -
Total General Fund Revenue $243,600
rev
Source: City of Manteca FY 2020-21 Adopted Budget; EPS.

Estimated
Annual Revenue
(Rounded)
Prepared by EPS 3/10/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212095 Manteca Dutra & Indelicato Fiscal Impact Analyses\Model\212095 Indelicato FIA m1 03.10.22 B-2 ATTACHMENT 13
Table B-3
Indelicato PropertyFiscal Impact Analysis
Estimated Annual Property Tax Revenues (2020$)
Assumption/
Item Source Formula
Assessed Value of Project Table D-2 a $119,370,000
Property Tax Revenue (1% of Assessed Value) 1.0000% b = a * 1.00% $1,193,700 Estimated Property Tax Allocation [1]
City of Manteca General Fund 13.3174% c = b * 13.32% $158,970 Other Agencies/ERAF 86.6826% d = b * 86.68% $1,034,730
Total City of Manteca General Fund Property Tax e = c $158,970 Property Tax In-Lieu of Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fee Revenue (VLF) Total Citywide Assessed Value [2] f $9,295,356,393
Total Assessed Value of Project g $119,370,000
Total Assessed Value h = f + g $9,414,726,393
Percent Change in AV i = g / f 1.28%
Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF [3] $7,228,240 j = i * $7,228,240 $92,824 prop tax
Source: City of Manteca; San Joaquin County Auditor-Controller; EPS.

Alternative Tax Share Scenario
[2] Reflects Assessed Valuation for FY 2020-21. Includes Citywide secured, unsecured, homeowner exemption, and public utility roll.
[3] Property tax in-lieu of VLF amount derived from the City of Manteca FY 2020-21 Annual Budget. Refer to Table B-1 for details.
[1] Refer to Table D-1 for details.

Property Tax
Revenues
(2020$)
Prepared by EPS 3/14/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212095 Manteca Dutra & Indelicato Fiscal Impact Analyses\Model\212095 Indelicato FIA m1 03.10.22 B-3
ATTACHMENT 13
Table B-4
Indelicato Property
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Real Property Transfer Tax (2020$)
Assumption/
Description Source
Rate per $1,000 of AV $0.55
Project Assessed Value Table D-2
Single Family Residential $119,370,000
Total Assessed Value $119,370,000
Turnover Rate
Single Family Residential 14.30%
Annual Transfer Tax Revenue [1]
Single Family Residential $9,388
Total Annual Transfer Tax Revenue $9,388
transfer
Source: City of Manteca; San Joaquin County Auditor-Controller; EPS.

Estimated Annual
Property Transfer Tax
Revenue
[1] Formula for Transfer Tax = Assessed Value/$1,000 * Rate per $1,000 of Assessed Value * Turnover rate.

Prepared by EPS 3/10/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212095 Manteca Dutra & Indelicato Fiscal Impact Analyses\Model\212095 Indelicato FIA m1 03.10.22 B-4 ATTACHMENT 13
Table B-5
Indelicato Property
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Estimated Annual Taxable Sales and Use Tax Revenue (2020$) Item Formula
Estimated Annual Taxable Sales
Annual Taxable Sales from Market Support (Residents) a $4,156,500 Annual Taxable Sales from New Development b = a $4,156,500 Annual Sales Tax Revenue
Bradley Burns Local Sales Tax Revenue c = b * 1.0000% 1.0000% $41,565 City of Manteca Prop 172 Public Safety Sales Tax Revenue [1] d = c * 2.8912% 2.8912% $1,202 sales
Source: City of Manteca; California State Board of Equalization; EPS.

Source/
Assumptions
Annual Sales
Tax Revenue
[1] Calculated as the ratio of Proposition 172 Public Safety Tax revenue to total sales tax revenue based on the FY 2020-21 Budget. Any variation in the relationship between Proposition 172 Public Safety Tax revenue and total sales tax revenue affecting the estimate of this revenue source is estimated to be nominal.

Prepared by EPS 3/10/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212095 Manteca Dutra & Indelicato Fiscal Impact Analyses\Model\212095 Indelicato FIA m1 03.10.22 B-5 ATTACHMENT 13
Table B-5A
Indelicato Property
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Estimated Annual Taxable Sales from Proposed Development, Market Support Method (2020$) Annual Taxable Sales from Market Support Assumption
Annual Taxable Sales from New Residents
Residential Development Table A-2 Occupied Dwelling Units Single Family Residential 163
Total Residential Development 163
Taxable Retail Expenditures per Household [1] Taxable Retail Expenditures Single Family Residential $34,000 $5,542,000
Total Taxable Retail Expenditures $5,542,000
Estimated Citywide Capture from New Households [2] 75% $4,156,500 Total Annual Taxable Sales from Market Support $4,156,500 sales a
Source: Costar; Gregory Group; Bureau of Labor Statistics; City of Manteca; EPS. [1] For details pertaining to resident estimates, refer to Table A-3.

Estimated Annual
Taxable Sales
[2] Represents the portion of household and employee retail expenditures estimated to take place within the City of Manteca.

Prepared by EPS 3/10/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212095 Manteca Dutra & Indelicato Fiscal Impact Analyses\Model\212095 Indelicato FIA m1 03.10.22 B-6 ATTACHMENT 13
APPENDIX C:

Expenditure-Estimating Tables
Table C-1 Expenditure-Estimating Procedures ........................ C-1 Table C-2 Estimated Annual General Fund Expenditures .......... C-2 ATTACHMENT 13
Table C-1
Indelicato PropertyFiscal Impact AnalysisExpenditure-Estimating Procedures Based on City of Manteca FY 2020-21 Budget (2020$) FY 2020-21 FY 2020-21 Population
Estimating Budgeted Less Offsetting Net City or Persons FY 2020-21 Adjustment Net FY 2019-20 Item Procedure Expenditures [1] Revenue Expenditures Served Avg. Cost Factor [2] Avg. Cost General Fund Expenditures
General Government
Legislation and Policy Persons Served $1,569,362 - $1,569,362 95,300 $16.47 10% $1.65Legal Services Persons Served $920,326 - $920,326 95,300 $9.66 10% $0.97City Administration Persons Served $1,276,411 ($475,458) $800,953 95,300 $8.40 10% $0.84Public Works Administration Persons Served $1,709,398 ($1,554,893) $154,505 95,300 $1.62 10% $0.16Non Departmental Persons Served $9,181,518 - $9,181,518 95,300 $96.34 10% $9.63Human Resources Persons Served $1,644,221 - $1,644,221 95,300 $17.25 10% $1.73Fiscal and Revenue Management Persons Served $1,713,751 ($822,631) $891,120 95,300 $9.35 10% $0.94Economic and Community Development Persons Served $365,978 - $365,978 95,300 $3.84 10% $0.38Fleet Maintenance Persons Served $450,675 - $450,675 95,300 $4.73 10% $0.47Subtotal General Government $18,831,640 ($2,852,981) $15,978,659 Public Safety
Police Protection [3] Persons Served $19,436,258 ($840,780) $18,595,478 95,300 $195.13 85% $165.86Animal Services Persons Served $450,319 ($252,635) $197,684 95,300 $2.07 85% $1.76Fire Protection [3] Persons Served $10,890,170 ($1,792,064) $9,098,106 95,300 $95.47 85% $81.15Subtotal Public Safety $30,776,747 ($2,885,479) $27,891,268 Parks, Recreation, and Community Services
Parks Maintenance Per Capita $2,988,546 ($55,000) $2,933,546 84,800 $34.59 90% $31.13Library Per Capita $133,160 - $133,160 84,800 $1.57 90% $1.41Recreational and Senior Services Per Capita $996,298 - $996,298 84,800 $11.75 90% $10.57Subtotal Parks, Recreation, and Community Svcs $4,118,004 ($55,000) $4,063,004 Public Utilities
Storm Drainage Persons Served $671,420 - $671,420 95,300 $7.05 10% $0.70Subtotal Public Utilities $671,420 - $671,420 Transportation
Streets Persons Served $474,170 - $474,170 95,300 $4.98 90% $4.48Subtotal Transportation $474,170 - $474,170 Total General Fund Expenditures $54,871,981 ($5,793,460) $49,078,521 exp
Source: City of Manteca FY 2020-21 Final Budget including Midyear Budget Amendments (Current as of March 10, 2021); EPS.[1] Includes midyear budget amendments as provided by City staff, current as of March 10, 2021.[3] Police and Fire protection expenditures included reflect only City General Fund Police expenditures and excludes any Measure M funded expenditures (Fund 320) for one-time capital expenditures included in the public safety endowment fund (Fund 330).
[2] An adjustment factor may be used to reflect the fact that new residents may not increase certain General Fund department expenditures at a 1:1 ratio.Given the relatively small size of the Project, an adjustment factor has been applied to the average-cost multipliers for all categories to reflect the percentage of expenditures subject to increases, accounting for fixed costs and unique Project considerations.

Prepared by EPS 3/14/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212095 Manteca Dutra & Indelicato Fiscal Impact Analyses\Model\212095 Indelicato FIA m1 03.10.22 C-1
ATTACHMENT 13
Table C-2
Indelicato Property
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Estimated Annual General Fund Expenditures (2020$)
Expenditure Category
General Fund
General Government
Legislation and Policy $854
Legal Services $501
City Administration $436
Public Works Administration $84
Non Departmental $4,994
Human Resources $894
Fiscal and Revenue Management $485
Economic and Community Development $199
Fleet Maintenance $245
Subtotal General Government $8,691
Public Safety
Police Protection $85,970
Animal Services $914
Fire Protection $42,062
Subtotal Public Safety $128,946
Parks, Recreation, and Community Services
Parks Maintenance $16,138
Library $733
Recreational and Senior Services $5,481
Subtotal Parks, Recreation, and Community Svcs $22,352
Public Utilities
Storm Drainage $365
Subtotal Public Utilities $365
Transportation
Streets $2,321
Subtotal Transportation $2,321
Total Annual General Fund Expenditures $162,675
exp
Source: City of Manteca FY 2020-21 Adopted Budget; EPS.

Estimated Annual
Expenditures [1]
[1] Annual expenditure estimated on a per persons served or per capita basis.

Refer to Table C-1 for estimating procedure and Table A-4 for population estimates.

Prepared by EPS 3/14/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212095 Manteca Dutra & Indelicato Fiscal Impact Analyses\Model\212095 Indelicato FIA m1 03.10.22 C-2 ATTACHMENT 13
APPENDIX D:

Supporting Tables for Revenue and
Expenditure Analyses
Table D-1 Estimated Property Tax Allocations for
Annexation Areas ............................................... D-1 Table D-2 Project Assessed Valuation .................................. D-2 Table D-3 Estimated Average Annual Household Income ........ D-3 ATTACHMENT 13
Table D-1
Indelicato PropertyFiscal Impact AnalysisPreliminary Property Tax Allocations for Annexation Areas Tax Code Entity TRA 102-151 TRA 102-151
Formula a e h #REF! j = i / $1,120,527
Subject to Detachment
10001 County General 20.4423% $229,061 60% $223,838 19.97613%10527 Road District 3 3.9380% $44,127 - $0 0.00000%14901 Lathrop-Manteca Rural Fire 8.9133% $99,875 - $0 0.00000%40200 City of Manteca 0.0000% - 40% $149,225 13.31742% Subtotal 33.2936% $373,063 100% $373,063 33.29356%
Not Subject to Detachment
10618 County Library 1.6517% $18,507 - $18,507 1.65167% 12601 Manteca Unified Schools 27.1435% $304,149 - $304,149 27.14338%13001 S.J. Delta Comm College 3.6748% $41,177 - $41,177 3.67478%13201 County Office Of Education 1.3348% $14,956 - $14,956 1.33476% 16001 Sjc Flood Control 0.1612% $125 - $1,806 0.16117%
21901 Sjc Mosquito Abatement 0.7234% $563 - $8,105 0.72337%24601 South San Joaquin Irrigation 5.4580% $4,249 - $61,158 5.45800%41100 ERAF 26.5590% $21,216 - $297,604 26.55933% Subtotal 66.7064% $404,943 0% $747,463 66.70644%
Total 100.00000% $778,007 100% $1,120,527 100.00000%
TRA
Source: San Joaquin County Auditor-Controller; EPS.[1] Provided by the San Joaquin County Auditor-Controller.[2] Based on the master tax-sharing agreement between San Joaquin County and the City of Manteca entered into on November 2018.

Post-ERAF
Distribution
Alternative Tax Share Scenario
Property Tax
Sharing
Agreement [2]
Post Annexation Average
Base
Revenue
Existing Tax
Rate Area (TRA)
Post-ERAF
Distribution [1]
Gross
Revenue
(FY 2019-20)
[1]
Prepared by EPS 3/14/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212095 Manteca Dutra & Indelicato Fiscal Impact Analyses\Model\212095 Indelicato FIA m1 03.10.22 D-1
ATTACHMENT 13
Table D-2
Indelicato Property
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Project Assessed Valuation (2020$)
Item
Development Projections in Current City Limits
Residential Land Uses per Unit
Single Family Residential $690,000 $119,370,000
Subtotal Residential $119,370,000
Total All Land Uses $119,370,000
av
Source: KDH Group; EPS.
[1] Refer to Table A-4 for details.

Rounded
Value per
Unit/Sq. Ft.
[1]
Total Assessed
Value (2020$)
Prepared by EPS 3/10/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212095 Manteca Dutra & Indelicato Fiscal Impact Analyses\Model\212095 Indelicato FIA m1 03.10.22 D-2 ATTACHMENT 13
Table D-3
Indelicato Property
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Estimated Average Annual Household Income (2020$)
Taxable Annual Taxable
Estimated Total Annual Estimated Expenditures Expenditures Home Mortgage Household as a Percentage per Household
Residential Land Use Value [1] or Rent [2] Income [3] of Income [4] (Rounded) Owner-Occupied Residential
Single Family Residential $690,000 $51,159 $146,000 23% $34,000 income
Source: KDH Group; Bureau of Labor Statistics; EPS.
[1] See Table A-4 for detail on estimated values for residential units. [4] Based on household expenditures data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018 Consumer Expenditure Survey.

City of
Manteca
[2] Based on a 5%, 30-year fixed-rate mortgage with a 20% down payment, $150 monthly Homeowner's association dues and 2% annual taxes and insurance.
[3] Assumes 35% of income dedicated to housing costs (mortgage, taxes, insurance, and HOA dues) or rent payments. Rounded to the nearest $1,000.

Prepared by EPS 3/10/2022 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212095 Manteca Dutra & Indelicato Fiscal Impact Analyses\Model\212095 Indelicato FIA m1 03.10.22 D-3 ATTACHMENT 13

EXHIBIT C
Pre-Zoning Map
ATTACHMENT 13

EXHIBIT D
Existing Land Use Designation
Proposed Land Use Designation
ATTACHMENT 13

UNION RANCH
UNIT NO. 4B

UNION RANCH
UNIT NO. 3

UNION RANCH
UNIT NO. 4A UNION RANCH UNIT NO. 9

CARDOZA
204-100-510
198-030-250
53 172 171 170 169 168 167 166
19 11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
27 33
34 36
37 38
45 44
43 31
42 30
41 29
40 28
39 32
35 49
64 151
54 55 56 57 58
46 47
48 51
50 52 60 59
66 65
62 63
61 165 164 163 162 161 160 159 158 157 156 155 154 153 152 142 150 149 148 147 146 145 144 143 141 140 139 138 137 74 80 82
67 68 69
81 77
78 79
71 70
76 72
73 75
113
93 101
88 90
89 98
97 99
109 108
102
100
110 111 112 114 115 116
87 91
95 96
94 92
83 85
86 107 106 105
104
103
121
133
125
129
131
132
128
130
122
123
124
127
126
117 118 119 120
135
134 136
2 3
5 7
6 4
1 8
21 22
23 24
25 20
9 10
84 26
173
COURT 1
COURT 2
STREET 1
STREET 2
STREET 5
STREET 4

STREET A

STREET B

STREET C STREET D

STREET E

STREET F

STREET G
STREET 5
LOT A: PARK/BASIN

FUTURE PARK/BASIN

AIRPORT WAY

SHADY OAKS STREET

DAISYWOOD DRIVE

ELMBROOK WAY DOGWOOD GLEN WAY SHADY OAKS PLACE ROCKBROOK LANE PLUMCREEK LANE APPLELEAF LANE MILLPOND WAY ASHBRIDGE LANE REDBUD WAYDUTCHWOOD LANE

HICKORY CREEK LANE

FOX TROT WAY

DAISYWOOD DRIVE

DAISYWOOD DRIVE

DAISYWOOD DRIVE

FERN MEADOW AVENUE
STREET 5
STREET 3
STREET 3
STREET 2

PROJECT
SITE

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY CITY OF MANTECA

GENERAL NOTES, KEY MAP AND LEGEND
1 SUBDIVISION PLAN VICINITY MAP
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR:

TRACT NO. 4065
BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 19, T.1S., R.7E., M.D.B.M.,

CITY OF MANTECA, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

KIPER AT INDELICATO

INFORMATION DATA TABLE
NORTH
0 120
60 NORTH

1. OWNER: ROBERT J & LESLIE A INDELICATO
PO BOX 1088
LODI, CA 95241

2. APPLICANT: DOUG LEDEBOER
KDH GROUP LLC.
3200 DANVILLE BLVD., SUITE 200
ALAMO, CA 94507

3. ENGINEER: MCR ENGINEERING, INC.
1242 DUPONT COURT
MANTECA, CA 95336

4. NO. OF LOTS: 173

5. LAND USE: EXISTING: AGRICULTURAL
PROPOSED: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

6. PROPOSED ZONING: R1

6. GENERAL PLAN: LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)

8. UTILITIES: WATER: CITY OF MANTECA
SEWER: CITY OF MANTECA
TELEPHONE: VERIZON
GAS & ELECTRIC: PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
IRRIGATION: S.S.J.I.D.

9. APN: 204-100-520

10. THIS SUBDIVISION CONTAINS 173 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, 1 PARK/OPEN SPACE LOTS ON 40 +/- ACRES.

11. THE PROPERTY IS RELATIVELY FLAT WITH ELEVATIONS RANGING FROM 25'-27'.

12. BOUNDARY LINES ARE BASED ON RECORD INFORMATION.

13. EXISTING UTILITIES BASED ON RECORD INFORMATION AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY.

BENCHMARK: CITY OF MANTECA BENCHMARK NO. 32.

ELEVATION: 28.65

10. ANY EXISTING WELLS AND/OR SEPTIC SYSTEMS ON SITE SHALL BE ABANDONED PER SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY STANDARDS.

11. PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS SHALL BE DEDICATED ALONG ALL STREET FRONTAGES.

12. UTILITIES TO BE LOCATED WITHIN PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS AND SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY GOVERNING

AGENCIES

13. THE SUBDIVIDER HERBY RESERVES TEH RIGHT TO FILE "MULTIPLE SUBDIVISION MAPS" AS SET FORTH BY THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 66456.1., AND FILE PARCEL MAPS FOR REASON OF SALE.

LOT SUMMARY:

LOT A - PARK BASIN: 3.03 ACRES
LOTS 1-58 & 151-173 50' X 100' (81).

LOTS 59-150 60' X 100' (92)

SHEET INDEX
# SHEET TITLE
1 GENERAL NOTES, KEY MAP AND LEGEND
2 TYPICAL STREET SECTIONS
3 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
4 LARGE LOT FINAL MAP
5 GRADING PLAN
6 DIMENSION PLAN
7 UTILITY PLAN

PLAN REVISIONS
DATE
CK. BY:

NO.

SCALE:

DR. BY:

JOB NO.:

DATE:

DESCRIPTIONS
SHEET NO.

OF SHEET

AS SHOWN
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 ENGINEERING
w w w . m c r e n g . c o m
1242 DUPONT COURT
MANTECA , CA 95336
TEL :

FAX :
( 209 ) 239 - 6229
( 209 ) 239 - 8839
APPROVED:

Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig.

R
811 / 800-227-2600 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR: KIPER AT INDELICATO 21-036
SLS
5/24/2023

JEH/RBP KIPER AT INDELICATO MANTECA, CA
7 14. THIS PROJECT WILL COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S POST-CONSTRUCTION MANUAL. THE FINAL DESIGN WILL BE ALL PARCEL LINES SHALL CONFORM TO THIS TENTATIVE MAP.

DETERMINED DURING THE IMPROVEMENT PLAN STAGE OF THE PROJECT.

EXHIBIT E
ATTACHMENT 13

UNION RANCH
UNIT NO. 4B

UNION RANCH
UNIT NO. 3

UNION RANCH
UNIT NO. 4A UNION RANCH UNIT NO. 9

CARDOZA
204-100-510

CONVERSION RCCI
198-030-250
53 172 171 170 169 168 167 166
19 11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
27 33
34 36
37 38
45 44
43 31
42 30
41 29
40 28
39 32
35 49
64 151
54 55 56 57 58
46 47
48 51
50 52
60 59
66 65
62 63
61 165 164 163 162 161 160 159 158 157 156 155 154 153 152 142
150 149 148 147 146 145 144 143 141 140 139 138 137
74 80
82 67 68 69
81 77
78 79
71 70
76 72
73 75
113
93 101
88 90
89 98
97 99
109 108
102
100
110 111 112 114 115 116
87 91
95 96
94 92
83 85
86 107 106 105
104
103
121
133
125
129
131
132
128
130
122
123
124
127
126
117 118 119 120
135
134 136
2 3
5 7
6 4
1 8
21 22
23 24
25 20
9 10
84 26
173
LOT A: PARK/BASIN

FUTURE PARK/BASIN
B
C

F A A A
A A
A
A A
A
B

SHADY OAKS STREET ELMBROOK WAY DOGWOOD GLEN WAY SHADY OAKS PLACE ROCKBROOK LANE REDBUD WAY FERN MEADOW AVENUE C
D
E
COURT 1
COURT 2
STREET 1
STREET 2
STREET 5
STREET 4

STREET A

STREET B

STREET C STREET D

STREET E

STREET F

STREET G
STREET 5

AIRPORT WAY
STREET 5
STREET 3
STREET 3
STREET 2
25'
20'
45' FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS

REVISED
65'
2% MIN
22'
44'
CL
60'
ROW

CURB TO CURB
60' RESIDENTIAL STREET
2% MIN
22'
2% MIN
18' CL

DRIVE-OVER

CURB AND
GUTTER
2% MIN

DRIVE-OVER

CURB AND
GUTTER
2' 5' 18' 5' 2'
50' RESIDENTIAL STREET

WALK WALK

DRIVE-OVER

CURB AND
GUTTER

DRIVE-OVER

CURB AND
GUTTER
3' 5'
WALK
5' 3'
WALK

ROW ROW
36'
50'
ROW

CURB TO CURB

ROW ROW
A B

DRIVE-OVER

CURB AND
GUTTER
2% MIN
2% MIN
22' CL22'
44'

CURB TO CURB
2' 5'
WALK
1'
52'
ROW

ROW ROW
(NOT TO SCALE)
52' RESIDENTIAL STREET

AT PARK C

VERTICAL CURB

AND GUTTER
VARIES 8'
WALK
(NOT TO SCALE)

PER CITY OF MANTECA STANDARDS
AIRPORT WAY F 140' ULTIMATE ROW
2% MIN
VARIES 6' 6'
12'

RAISED MEDIAN

VERTICAL CURB

AND GUTTER
VARIES 12'

FUTURE LANE LANE
5'
20'

MEANDERING
WALK
12' 11'
39'
11'

VERTICAL CURB

AND GUTTER

LANE MERGE LANE PAVED SHOULDER
2% MIN
5'
BIKE
5'
BIKE
CL

SEPARATED
WALK
30'
6' HIGH MASONRY
WALL
2 '
14'
40'

CURB TO CURB
2% MIN
40' 35' ROW DEDICATION
(E) ROW
75'
5:1
4:1
+4.75 EL.
16'

HOUSE PAD
3:1
30' PROPOSED SETBACK
20' TYPICAL SETBACK

LANDSCAPED

EARTHEN BERM
2% MIN
22'
44'
CL
65'
ROW

CURB TO CURB
65' RESIDENTIAL ENTRY STREET
2% MIN
22'

DRIVE-OVER

CURB AND
GUTTER
3' 5'
WALK
5' 8'
WALK

ROW ROW

D (NOT TO SCALE)
6' HIGH MASONRY
WALL
2% MIN
18' CL
2% MIN

DRIVE-OVER

CURB AND
GUTTER
5' 18' 5' 2'
55' RESIDENTIAL ENTRY STREET

WALK WALK
36'
55'
ROW

CURB TO CURB

ROW ROW

E (NOT TO SCALE)

PER CITY OF MANTECA STANDARDS
6' HIGH MASONRY
WALL
7'
(F) ROW

VERTICAL CURB

AND GUTTER

VERTICAL CURB

AND GUTTER
(NOT TO SCALE)

PER CITY OF MANTECA STANDARDS
5' 10' TYPICAL STREET SECTIONS
2 NORTH
0 100
50 PLAN REVISIONS
DATE
CK. BY:

NO.

SCALE:

DR. BY:

JOB NO.:

DATE:

DESCRIPTIONS
SHEET NO.

OF SHEET

AS SHOWN
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 ENGINEERING
w w w . m c r e n g . c o m
1242 DUPONT COURT
MANTECA , CA 95336
TEL :

FAX :
( 209 ) 239 - 6229
( 209 ) 239 - 8839
APPROVED:

Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig.

R
811 / 800-227-2600 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR: KIPER AT INDELICATO 21-036
SLS
5/24/2023

JEH/RBP KIPER AT INDELICATO MANTECA, CA
7 EXHIBIT F ATTACHMENT 13

23.16 25.31

22.94 23.43 23.50

22.53 23.47 23.42 22.62

22.64 22.42300

22.79 23.00 23.20

22.96 23.9724.0534323.12 23.21 23.88

23.35410

23.48412 23.61415 24.03339 23.50 23.40

22.63 22.46 22.88 22.47 22.3222.81 23.07

22.87 22.47 22.7222.69 22.66 22.71 23.10

22.58 22.49 22.40 22.6122.90 22.8522.95

22.91 23.20

23.36 23.28 23.44 23.72 23.6823.46 23.30 23.1224.53

23.42 24.55 23.43 23.44 23.45 22.43

23.41 23.5323.79 23.78 23.73 23.54 22.50

23.20 22.4023.56 23.6323.89 23.87 23.8823.68 23.53 23.1224.57

24.3824.71 22.59

23.62 23.7423.97 23.8923.69 23.59 23.23 22.52

22.77 22.39 23.59 23.7423.9323.56

23.2124.68

24.56 22.5023.40 23.6323.8423.55 23.35 23.02 23.4723.35 23.12

23.18 23.53 22.92

23.44 23.7323.8923.57 23.33 23.1424.77

23.7624.01 23.59 23.38 23.29 24.40 23.03 23.51

23.58 23.49

23.44 23.6123.58 23.60

23.293.54

23.86 24.0623.69 23.53 23.29 24.284.71

23.3423.55 23.84 24.0623.70 23.50 23.1024.67

23.09 23.54 23.87 23.9623.61 23.40

22.9924.62

23.62 23.9223.9623.69 23.42

23.1224.77 23.58 23.54

23.5423.60 23.87 23.28 23.60 23.90

24.0223.73 23.48 23.26 23.32 24.7924.60

24.83 24.58

24.73 24.28

24.60 24.31

24.43 24.42

24.72 24.35

24.69 24.21

24.68 24.38

24.51 24.47

24.63 24.38

24.80 24.64

24.55 24.30

24.68 24.44

24.58 24.54

24.47 24.60

24.50 24.46 23.37

23.22 24.68

24.7025.34

24.18 24.24

24.40 23.48

23.48 24.47 25.15

23.78 26.08 26.08 25.94

24.87 24.66 26.09 25.93

25.76 24.77 24.47 25.68 24.52 26.22 24.88 26.12 24.67 25.99 24.78 25.94 24.60 25.96 24.66 25.71 24.53 25.60 24.64 25.50 24.80 25.52 24.76 25.80 24.92 25.83 24.76 25.96 24.66 25.71

24.62 26.04

24.90 26.04

24.87 24.42

26.12 26.29

25.50 26.03

26.41 24.56

26.14 25.12

24.92 26.14

25.48 24.85

26.14 25.29

25.05 25.03

25.14 25.11 22.55 25.08 22.37

24.14 27.20 24.19 24.36 24.27

26.20 27.15

27.14 27.19

25.90 24.84

26.06 25.24

26.12 25.11

24.52 24.31 24.15

27.10 27.07

24.07 27.13

25.27 25.02

25.30 25.70

25.43 26.12

25.23 24.76

25.72 25.56

24.15 24.41 27.20

27.18 27.11

24.69 25.82

25.53 25.66

26.30 27.02

26.38 26.94

26.18 27.11

26.28 27.00

26.07 26.89

26.27 27.08

26.25 27.03

26.25 26.96

26.15 27.00

26.09 26.81

26.04 26.97

26.27 26.95

26.22 27.06

26.13 26.80

26.04 27.24

26.25 27.19

27.07 26.27

26.96 27.78

25.79 28.26

25.75 28.13

25.85 28.00

25.77 27.93

25.71 28.07

25.62 27.68

25.57 27.77

25.55 27.49

25.7827.43

25.97 27.17

25.98 26.82

26.01 25.60

25.26 27.00

26.33 25.98

27.37 25.67

25.48 26.04

25.30 25.80

25.46 25.41

25.86 25.26

25.29 25.80

25.38 25.40

25.78 25.19

25.20 25.68

25.42 25.45

25.82 25.16

25.30 26.02

25.41 25.52

25.76 25.29

25.25 25.84

25.35 25.36

25.78 25.20

25.26 25.74

25.40 25.08

25.27 25.39

25.27 25.34

25.33 25.34

25.20 25.21

24.70 25.32

25.17 25.39

25.34 25.42

25.22 25.54

25.36 25.44

25.32 25.25

25.31 25.29

25.24 25.31

25.23 25.35

25.43 25.22

25.24 25.31

25.36 25.26

25.33 25.24

25.34 25.31

25.44 25.42

25.34 25.25

25.29 25.33

25.23 25.23

25.34 25.24

25.25 25.38

25.32 25.32

25.28 25.28

25.26 25.26

25.50 25.30

25.26 25.28

25.36 25.36

25.30 25.37

25.36 25.38

25.34 25.32

25.27 25.26

25.30 25.27

25.22 25.27

25.85 25.65

25.29 25.37

25.33 25.33

25.19 25.28

25.27 25.27

25.42 25.24

25.34 25.27

25.22 25.26

25.29 25.32

25.26 25.35 25.43

25.79 25.93

25.34 25.54

25.49 25.28

25.36 25.30

25.76 25.67

25.66 25.58

25.62 25.31

25.81 27.35

25.26 25.22

25.06 24.97

25.14 25.15

25.36 25.24

25.49 25.23

25.52 25.21

25.16 25.30

24.69 25.80

24.61 24.53

24.21 24.39 24.70 24.36 24.30

24.05 24.37

24.36 23.92 24.1623.80 24.0724.2423.95 23.77 23.4824.56 24.75

24.58 24.45 24.38

24.44 24.63 24.48 24.67 24.48 24.40

24.38 24.44

24.39 24.47 24.36 24.62 24.54 24.47 24.21 24.54 24.25 24.28 24.30

24.59 24.53 24.38 24.33 24.42 24.35 24.38 24.21 24.270

24.4634

24.46 24.44

24.57 24.44 24.66 24.32 24.38 24.47 24.59 24.52 24.36

22.42 22.3479 23.06 23.11 24.03340

22.92 23.0223.1778 22.86 23.00 22.76

24.60 24.30 24.30 24.24 24.29 24.35

24.51 24.32 24.30

24.28 23.96

24.29 24.22 24.39 24.32 24.48 24.61

24.41 24.30 24.1921

24.50 24.87

24.20 24.74

24.13 24.89

24.18 25.20

24.20 24.81

24.23 24.92

24.48 24.96

24.44 24.96

23.92 23.86

24.42 24.10

24.32 24.34

24.17 24.25

24.80 24.36

24.78 24.46

24.28 24.38

25.08 24.04

23.65 24.43

24.80 24.31

25.88 25.85

25.92 25.76

25.78 25.97 6"FM 12"W 30"SS 30"SS 12"W 24"G

INDELICATO
204-100-520
CARDOZA 204-100-510

SSJID LATERAL RG
(EX.) IRRIGATION GATE STRUCTURE
TOP: ±27.20
24" VALVE ELEV.: ±24.41
(EX.) IRRIGATION GATE "C" STRUCTURE
TOP: ±25.00
24" VALVE ELEV.: ±22.55
(EX.) 12" VENT
TOP: ±27.15
BOT.: ±18.15
(EX.) 24" VENT
TOP: ±31.50
BOT.: ±22.70
(EX.) IRRIGATION GATE STRUCTURE
TOP: ±27.20
24" VALVE ELEV.: ±24.36
(EX.) IRRIGATION GATE STRUCTURE
TOP: ±27.10
24" VALVE ELEV.: ±24.31
26 25.5
26 26
26 26 26
26 26
26 26.5 26

26.5 26

26.5 26

26.5 26

26.5 26

26.5 26
26 26.5 26
26 26
26 26 26
26 25.5 26
26 25.5 26

25.5 26

25.5 26

25.5 26
26 25.5 25.5

25.5 25.5

25.5 25.5 25.5

25.5 25.5

25.5 25.5

25.5 25.5

25.5 25.5

25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5

25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5

25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5

25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5

25.5 25.5

25.5 25.5

25.5 25.5

25.5 25.5

25.5 25.5

25.5 25.5 25.5

24.5 24.5

24.5 24.5

24.5 24.5 24.5

24.5 24.5 24.5

24.5 24.5

24.5 24.5

24.5 24.5

24.5 24.5

24.5 24.5

24.5 24.5

24.5 24.5

24.5 24.5

24.5 24.5

24.5 24.5

24.5 24.5 24.525

24.5 24.5

24.5 24.5

24.5 24.5

24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5

24.5 24.5

24.5 24.5

24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5

24.5 24.5 24.5

24.5 24.5

24.5 24.5

24.5 24.5

24.5 24.5

24.5 24.5

24.5 24.5

24.5 24.5 24

24.5 24

24.5 24

24.5 24

24.5 24

24.5 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45
46 47
48 49
50 51
52 SHADY OAKS STREET ELMBROOK WAY DOGWOOD GLEN WAY SHADY OAKS PLACE ROCKBROOK LANE PLUMCREEK LANE APPLELEAF LANE MILLPOND WAY REDBUD WAY ASHBRIDGE LANE DUTCHWOOD LANE FERN MEADOW AVENUE

AIRPORT WAY
PARCEL:
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
APN:
204-260-310
204-260-300
204-260-290
204-260-280
204-260-270
204-260-260
204-260-250
204-260-240
204-260-230
204-260-220
204-260-210
204-260-200
204-260-190
204-260-180
204-260-170
204-260-160
204-260-150
204-260-140
204-210-170
204-210-160
204-210-150
204-210-140
204-210-130
204-210-120
204-210-110
204-210-100
204-210-090
204-250-580
204-250-570
204-250-560
204-250-550
204-250-540
204-250-530
204-250-520
204-250-510
204-250-500
204-250-490
204-250-480
204-250-470
204-380-370
204-380-360
204-380-350
204-380-340
204-380-330
204-380-320
204-380-310
204-380-300
204-380-290
204-380-280
204-380-270
204-380-260
204-380-250 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
NORTH
3 0 50
25 PLAN REVISIONS
DATE
CK. BY:

NO.

SCALE:

DR. BY:

JOB NO.:

DATE:

DESCRIPTIONS
SHEET NO.

OF SHEET

AS SHOWN
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 ENGINEERING
w w w . m c r e n g . c o m
1242 DUPONT COURT
MANTECA , CA 95336
TEL :

FAX :
( 209 ) 239 - 6229
( 209 ) 239 - 8839
APPROVED:

Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig.

R
811 / 800-227-2600 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR: KIPER AT INDELICATO 21-036
SLS
1/30/2022

JEH/RBP KIPER AT INDELICATO MANTECA, CA
7 EXHIBIT F ATTACHMENT 13

UNION RANCH
UNIT NO. 4B

UNION RANCH
UNIT NO. 3

UNION RANCH
UNIT NO. 4A UNION RANCH UNIT NO. 9

CARDOZA
204-100-510

CONVERSION RCCI
198-030-250
53 172 171 170 169 168 167 166
19 11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
27 33
34 36
37 38
45 44
43 31
42 30
41 29
40 28
39 32
35 49
64 151
54 55 56 57 58
46 47
48 51
50 52
60 59
66 65
62 63
61 165 164 163 162 161 160 159 158 157 156 155 154 153 152 142 150 149 148 147 146 145 144 143 141 140 139 138 137
74 80
82 67 68 69
81 77
78 79
71 70
76 72
73 75
113
93 101
88 90
89 98
97 99
109 108
102
100
110 111 112 114 115 116
87 91
95 96
94 92
83 85
86 107 106 105
104
103
121
133
125
129
131
132
128
130
122
123
124
127
126
117 118 119 120
135
134 136
2 3
5 7
6 4
1 8
21 22
23 24
25 20
9 10
84 26
173
PARCEL: 1

22.11 AC
# LOTS: 92
PARCEL: 2

17.89 AC
# LOTS: 81
L = 677.19'
L = 1566.80'
L = 1010.69'
L = 676.96'
L = 1219.40'
L=111.70
L = 162.86'
L=30.39
L = 68.24' L = 302.00'
L = 42.87' L = 100.00'
L = 1314.11'

SHADY OAKS STREET ELMBROOK WAY DOGWOOD GLEN WAY SHADY OAKS PLACE ROCKBROOK LANE PLUMCREEK LANE APPLELEAF LANE MILLPOND WAY ASHBRIDGE LANE REDBUD WAY DUTCHWOOD LANE

HICKORY CREEK LANE

FERN MEADOW AVENUE
LOT A: PARK/BASIN

FUTURE PARK/BASIN
COURT 1
COURT 2
STREET 1
STREET 2
STREET 5
STREET 4 STREET A

STREET B

STREET C STREET D

STREET E

STREET F

STREET G
STREET 5

AIRPORT WAY
STREET 5
STREET 3
STREET 3
STREET 2
PHASE 1

22.11 AC
# LOTS: 92
PHASE 2

17.89 AC
# LOTS: 81

PHASING INFORMATION
PHASE #
1 2
AREA

22.11 17.89
# LOTS
92 81 FINAL SUBDIVISION PHASING MAP
NORTH
4 0 100
50 LEGEND

PARCEL BOUNDARY

RW DEDICATION

PLAN REVISIONS
DATE
CK. BY:

NO.

SCALE:

DR. BY:

JOB NO.:

DATE:

DESCRIPTIONS
SHEET NO.

OF SHEET

AS SHOWN
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 ENGINEERING
w w w . m c r e n g . c o m
1242 DUPONT COURT
MANTECA , CA 95336
TEL :

FAX :
( 209 ) 239 - 6229
( 209 ) 239 - 8839
APPROVED:

Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig.

R
811 / 800-227-2600 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR: KIPER AT INDELICATO 21-036
SLS
1/30/2022

JEH/RBP KIPER AT INDELICATO MANTECA, CA
7 EXHIBIT F ATTACHMENT 13

UNION RANCH
UNIT NO. 4B

UNION RANCH
UNIT NO. 3

UNION RANCH
UNIT NO. 4A UNION RANCH UNIT NO. 9

CARDOZA
204-100-510

CONVERSION RCCI
198-030-250

22.72 GB

22.40 LP

23.73 LP

23.07 LP

22.30 LP

23.92 GB

24.85 HP

23.80 HP

23.62 LP

23.81 LP

23.66 LP

23.23 LP

23.23 LP

23.55 LP

23.66 LP

23.66 LP

24.69 HP

23.03 LP

23.40 LP

24.33 HP

24.57 HP

24.59 HP

24.48 HP

25.22 HP

24.44 HP

24.30 LP

24.96 LP

24.44 LP

24.30 HP

25.94 HP

24.58 HP

24.44 HP

26.17 HP

26.17 HP

25.88 HP

25.90 HP

24.54 LP

25.50 HP

25.50 HP

24.58 HP

24.7 25.3

25.6 25.5

25.5 25.3

25.2 25.0

24.5 25.0 25.3 25.5 25.6 25.8 26.0 26.0 25.8 25.7 25.5 25.4 25.3 25.2 25.0 25.0 25.2 25.5 25.6 25.7 25.8 25.9 26.0 26.0 25.9 25.6 25.5 25.4 25.3 25.2 25.2 25.4 25.6 25.7 25.8 25.9 26.2

26.4 26.6

26.7 26.8

27.0 27.2

27.2 27.0

26.8 26.8

27.2 26.8

26.5 27.0

27.5 27.2

27.0 26.8

27.3 27.0

26.8 26.6 26.5 26.3

26.5 26.7

26.5 26.2

26.5 26.7

26.7 27.2 27.2 26.7 26.5 26.4 26.6

26.6 27.3

27.5 27.5

27.0 26.5

25.3 26.0

25.8 26.3

26.3 26.3

26.4 25.8 26.0 26.3 26.5

26.4 25.9

25.7 25.9

25.5 25.2

25.2 25.5

25.6 25.3

25.6 25.5 25.4

24.9 24.9

25.6 24.9

25.6 25.6

25.0 25.6

25.2 25.4 25.5

25.4 25.6

25.3 25.5

25.7 25.9

25.9 25.5

25.5 25.8

25.5 25.2 25.6

25.3 25.3

25.4 25.5 26.0

25.8 25.4 25.7

25.5 25.5

25.6 25.5

24.8 25.0

25.2 25.5 25.3

25.2 26.1 25.8 25.4

25.8 25.5

25.3 25.1

25.3 24.9

25.4 25.3

25.5 25.6

25.6 25.8

25.7 25.9

25.8 25.7

25.94 MA

25.93 MA

26.23 MA 25.60
MA

26.04 MA

27.02 MA

26.89 MA

26.96 MA

26.97 MA

27.78 MA

27.93 MA

27.00 MA

26.82 MA

23.19 GB

23.07 GB
BOTTOM 16.0

24.39 HP

23.30 GB

23.23 LP

24.30 23.00 LP
CR

27.70 FG

27.83 FG

28.43 FG

23.00 CR

22.69 LP
.0043 .0043 .0016

25.85 HP
A A

ON-SITE DETENTION BASIN
SIZE: 1.72 ACRES
BOT ELEV.: 16.00
BASIN HWL: 20.80

FUTURE PARK/BASIN
COURT 1
COURT 2
STREET 1
STREET 2
STREET 5
STREET 4

STREET A

STREET B

STREET C STREET D

STREET E

STREET F

STREET G
STREET 5

AIRPORT WAY
STREET 5
STREET 3
STREET 3
STREET 2
TC = 24.30 EXISTING GRADE
6:1
6:1
HWL = 20.80 HWL = 20.80
TC = 24.30
TOP = 21.80 TOP = 21.80

EXISTING GRADE

PROPOSED GRADE PUMPED

DISCHARGE TO

SSJID RG
24" STORM DRAIN TO PUMP
BOTTOM=16.00 GRADING PLAN
5 NORTH
0 100
50 SCALE: 1" =
SECTION A-A BASIN 1 20

PLAN REVISIONS
DATE
CK. BY:

NO.

SCALE:

DR. BY:

JOB NO.:

DATE:

DESCRIPTIONS
SHEET NO.

OF SHEET

AS SHOWN
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 ENGINEERING
w w w . m c r e n g . c o m
1242 DUPONT COURT
MANTECA , CA 95336
TEL :

FAX :
( 209 ) 239 - 6229
( 209 ) 239 - 8839
APPROVED:

Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig.

R
811 / 800-227-2600 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR: KIPER AT INDELICATO 21-036
SLS
1/30/2022

JEH/RBP KIPER AT INDELICATO MANTECA, CA
7 EXHIBIT F ATTACHMENT 13

UNION RANCH
UNIT NO. 4B

UNION RANCH
UNIT NO. 3

UNION RANCH
UNIT NO. 4A UNION RANCH UNIT NO. 9

CARDOZA
204-100-510

CONVERSION RCCI
198-030-250
49 5,000 SF
121
6,552 SF
133
6,692 SF
64 6,000 SF
27 6,590 SF
113
6,318 SF
107
6,500 SF
74 6,000 SF
93 6,079 SF
101
10,259 SF
151
5,000 SF
125
6,445 SF
55 5,838 SF
80 10,058 SF
172
5,000 SF
170
5,000 SF
171
5,000 SF
169
5,000 SF
168
5,000 SF
167
5,000 SF
166
5,000 SF
165
5,000 SF
164
5,000 SF
163
5,000 SF
162
5,000 SF
161
5,000 SF
160
5,000 SF
159
5,000 SF
158
5,000 SF
157
5,000 SF
156
5,000 SF
155
5,000 SF
154
5,000 SF
153
5,000 SF
152
5,000 SF 142
6,000 SF
150
6,000 SF
149
6,000 SF
148
6,000 SF
147
6,000 SF
146
6,000 SF
145
6,000 SF
144
6,000 SF
143
6,000 SF
137
6,080 SF
141
6,000 SF
140
6,000 SF
139
6,000 SF
138
6,000 SF
135
6,854 SF
134
8,367 SF 136
6,485 SF
82 6,914 SF
67 6,914 SF
68 6,000 SF
69 6,000 SF
81 6,307 SF
77 8,198 SF
78 6,403 SF
79 8,009 SF
71 7,470 SF
70 6,298 SF
76 7,592 SF
72 6,864 SF
73 6,376 SF
75 6,000 SF
94 8,010 SF
92 6,000 SF
83 7,866 SF
85 6,000 SF
86 6,000 SF
84 88
7,516 SF
90 6,432 SF
89 7,335 SF
98 8,178 SF
97 6,700 SF
99 8,897 SF
105
6,631 SF
106
6,500 SF
109
7,942 SF
108
6,500 SF
104
10,084 SF
102
12,969 SF
103
7,685 SF
100
8,340 SF
129
10,527 SF
131
11,562 SF
132
10,527 SF
128
6,692 SF
130
11,562 SF
122
6,459 SF
123
6,250 SF
124
6,250 SF
127
9,082 SF
126
7,215 SF
118
6,000 SF
120
6,000 SF
119
6,000 SF
117
6,522 SF
116
6,632 SF
115
6,318 SF
114
6,318 SF
111
6,317 SF
112
6,318 SF
110
6,759 SF
58 6,214 SF
57 5,376 SF
56 5,838 SF
53 6,800 SF 54
5,576 SF
46 6,729 SF
47 5,585 SF
48 5,087 SF
51 5,002 SF
50 5,000 SF
52 6,773 SF
59 6,414 SF
60 5,882 SF
66 7,940 SF
65 6,162 SF
62 9,091 SF
63 5,720 SF
61 7,790 SF
33 6,876 SF
34 6,550 SF
36 5,963 SF
37 5,627 SF
19 6,803 SF
38 7,035 SF
45 6,642 SF
44 6,192 SF
43 5,803 SF
31 7,262 SF
42 5,486 SF
30 5,200 SF
41 5,290 SF
29 5,200 SF
40 5,336 SF
28 5,200 SF
39 7,147 SF
11 5,000 SF
12 7,264 SF
13 6,195 SF
14 6,234 SF
15 6,142 SF
16 5,933 SF
17 5,695 SF
18 5,465 SF
32 7,234 SF

41.07' 50.00' 31.42' 80.00' 80.00'

31.42' 50.00' 60.00' 60.00' 59.95' 82.32' 28.99'

45.29'

58.92'

44.39'

14.80'

60.00'

60.00'

38.21'

28.22' 77.36' 27.77' 60.32'

52.84'

61.43'

45.78'
100.00'
115.78'

43.27' 55.06' 55.06' 55.06' 55.06' 55.06' 56.00' 42.33'

32.36' 77.79' 31.42'
111.23'
105.38'
111.82'
111.57'
113.15'
111.03'

30.48' 31.51' 69.82'

50.00'

84.80'

50.00'
100.00'

50.00'

50.00'
100.00'

88.14' 100.00' 79.23'

32.25'

48.07' 60.00' 60.00' 60.00' 47.70'

24.87' 55.48'

55.89'

81.46'

35.93'

25.68'

44.50' 44.50'

44.50'

44.50'

25.68'
102.41'

69.88'

70.40'
100.00' 59.30'
100.00'

46.50' 52.00' 52.00' 52.00' 59.67' 31.30' 50.11'

50.33'

50.68'

51.04'

45.02'

33.22' 90.67' 84.34'

67.58' 52.00' 52.00' 61.58' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00'

63.18' 63.18' 63.18' 44.89' 63.17' 63.18' 100.00'

52.12' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 45.82' 100.00'

93.49' 65.00' 69.00'

73.38'

32.54'

29.31' 82.26'

78.23'

33.30'
100.00'

57.17'

67.68'

24.04'
100.00'

60.00'

60.00'

60.00'

15.85'

51.63'

71.48'

34.32'

78.02' 84.62' 26.94'

45.40'

55.59'

60.00'

56.63'
100.00'

65.08'

67.00'
100.00'

77.80' 37.87'

67.00'
128.27'

50.22'

31.05'

58.68'

50.54'

56.94'

32.79'

49.40'
155.27' 10.06' 70.84'

30.58'

27.39'

86.82'
100.51'

99.78'

35.88'
114.12'
106.43'

58.71'

51.91' 100.00' 100.00'

60.00' 60.00' 60.00' 60.80' 36.02' 60.00' 60.00' 60.00' 60.00' 60.00' 60.00' 60.00' 60.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 60.00' 60.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 42.77' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 100.49'

81.46'

61.31'

59.29' 62.50' 62.50' 66.68'
100.00'

32.36' 74.14'

35.93' 100.00'

79.63'

22.49'

58.38' 63.00' 100.00'

43.00' 55.76' 58.38' 58.38' 53.76' 43.00'

45.63'

26.80' 77.89' 85.06' 34.57'

58.55'

61.66'

84.20'

44.14'

28.99' 31.42' 80.00' 80.00'

31.42' 45.00'

53.87'

46.32'

70.00' 60.00' 66.01' 91.61'
109.71' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 101.25' 113.33' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00'
100.00'

94.08' 84.33' 15.85'
106.75'
100.00'
102.22'

99.99'
100.00'
100.00'

68.64'

64.94'

35.93'

87.44' 77.89' 25.67'

42.80'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'

58.65'
100.00'
100.00' 100.00' 100.00'
111.47'

98.70'
100.53'
102.41'

69.88'

70.40'
100.53'
166.71'
100.00'
100.00'
111.55' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00'

55.04'
100.00'
100.00'
100.00'
100.39' 93.44' 100.00'
100.00'

90.23'
110.42' 50.00'
126.90'
112.16'

54.33'

54.33'

53.91'
134.67'
121.19' 50.00'
120.39'
104.70' 50.00'
110.43'
101.65'

49.90'

51.82'

53.76' 50.00'
114.83'
100.69' 50.00'
106.16'
104.78'

50.00' 50.00' 53.76' 31.53' 50.12'

50.37'

50.75'

51.04'

48.33'

29.86' 80.00' 81.94'
100.00' 107.49' 66.44'

28.74' 66.44' 50.00' 100.00'

79.24'

34.32' 100.00' 100.00' 100.00'

50.00' 100.00'

31.42'

50.30'

50.30'

50.30'

50.30'

50.30'

50.30'
119.78' 124.72'
116.91' 124.19'
114.05' 121.02'
110.83' 116.28'
105.48' 111.53'
87 6,213 SF
91 6,024 SF
95 8,004 SF
96 6,706 SF

65.00' 63.17' 63.18' 63.18' 63.18' 63.18' 69.11' 64.30' 60.00' 60.00' 60.00' 64.37' 100.09'

79.03' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 50.00' 60.00' 60.00' 60.00' 60.00' 60.00' 60.00' 60.00' 60.00' 60.00' 60.00' 60.00' 60.00' 60.00' 60.80' 68.60' 74.68' 82.11' 168.99' 62.50' 62.50' 62.50' 66.83' 79.29' 89.62' 84.80' 168.99'

59.52'

66.99'

58.27'
35 6,273 SF
100
110.83'

50.00' 72.64'

53.54' 79.9' 80.13'
119.7'
112.93'

50.26'

51.02'

51.04'

50.9'

50.00'

50.00'

50.00'

60.84'

50.00'

59.97'

56.61'

51.74'

58.38' 51.76'

60.57'

60.00'

65.00'

43.72'

65.51'

70.28'

50.74'

55.59'

60.00'

60.00'

59.84'

54.18' 25.32' 39.68' 10.82'

58.27'

87.08'

57.08' 46.37' 15.63'
134.67'
131.43'

56.79'
153.73'
126.90'
148.15'
120.39'
128.97'
126.89'
120.39'
114.83'
110.92'
111.55'
108.52' 62.00' 65.00' 112.9' 55.76'

42.49'

50.03'

60.00'

60.00'

55.50'

65.00' 121.01'
110.42'

60.00'

60.00'
111.53'

94.15'

64.08'

60.00'

60.00'
R505.00'
R555.00'
R505.00'
R555.00'
R805.00'
R255.00'
R300.00'
R300.00'
10' PUE
10' PUE
10' PUE
10' PUE
10' PUE
10' PUE
R = 20'
R = 20' R = 20'
R = 20'
R = 50'
R = 20' R = 20'
R = 20' (TYP)
R = 20'

43.38'
2 6,403 SF
3 6,156 SF
5 6,126 SF
7 6,153 SF
6 6,142 SF
4 6,110 SF
1 7,232 SF
8 6,706 SF
21 5,137 SF
22 5,411 SF
23 5,628 SF
24 5,774 SF
25 5,917 SF
20 6,558 SF 43.22' 55.94' 26.33' 43.21' 55.08' 55.08' 27.03' 37.60' 28.08' 50.07' 50.07' 36.39' 50.00' 46.44' 50.07' 28.67' 11.87' 28.03'

4.57' 13.61'
173
7,838 SF7,838 SF
10 5,000 SF
9 7,069 SF

50.00'
26 6,061 SF6,061 SF 50.30' 100.00'
122.64'

21.97'

51.24'
9 7,069 SF 33.92' 43.12'

31.30'

3.10'
119.78'

72.64' 50.00' 100.00' 100.00'

50.00'
122.64'

19.76' 5.00'
R1000.00'
LOT A: PARK/BASIN

3.03 AC

FUTURE PARK/BASIN

SHADY OAKS STREET ELMBROOK WAY DOGWOOD GLEN WAY SHADY OAKS PLACE ROCKBROOK LANE PLUMCREEK LANE APPLELEAF LANE MILLPOND WAY ASHBRIDGE LANE REDBUD WAYDUTCHWOOD LANE

HICKORY CREEK LANE

FERN MEADOW AVENUE
COURT 1
COURT 2
STREET 1
STREET 2
STREET 5
STREET 4

STREET A

STREET B

STREET C STREET D

STREET E

STREET F

STREET G
STREET 5

AIRPORT WAY
STREET 5
STREET 3
STREET 3
STREET 2 DIMENSION PLAN
NORTH
6 0 100
50 PLAN REVISIONS
DATE
CK. BY:

NO.

SCALE:

DR. BY:

JOB NO.:

DATE:

DESCRIPTIONS
SHEET NO.

OF SHEET

AS SHOWN
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 ENGINEERING
w w w . m c r e n g . c o m
1242 DUPONT COURT
MANTECA , CA 95336
TEL :

FAX :
( 209 ) 239 - 6229
( 209 ) 239 - 8839
APPROVED:

Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig.

R
811 / 800-227-2600 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR: KIPER AT INDELICATO 21-036
SLS
1/30/2022

JEH/RBP KIPER AT INDELICATO MANTECA, CA
7 EXHIBIT F ATTACHMENT 13

UNION RANCH
UNIT NO. 4B

UNION RANCH
UNIT NO. 3

UNION RANCH
UNIT NO. 4A UNION RANCH UNIT NO. 9

CARDOZA
204-100-510

CONVERSION RCCI
198-030-250
53 172 171 170 169 168 167 166
19 11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
27 33
34 36
37 38
45 44
43 31
42 30
41 29
40 28
39 32
35 49
64 151
54 55 56 57 58
46 47
48 51
50 52
60 59
66 65
62 63
61 165 164 163 162 161 160 159 158 157 156 155 154 153 152 142
150 149 148 147 146 145 144 143 141 140 139 138 137
74 80
82 67 68 69
81 77
78 79
71 70
76 72
73 75
113
93 101
88 90
89 98
97 99
109 108
102
100
110 111 112 114 115 116
87 91
95 96
94 92
83 85
86 107 106 105
104
103
121
133
125
129
131
132
128
130
122
123
124
127
126
117 118 119 120
135
134 136
2 3
5 7
6 4
1 8
21 22
23 24
25 20
9 10
84 26
173
15"SD
18"SD
15"SD 15"SD 15"SD
15"SD 15"SD 24"SD
18"SD
15"SD 15"SD
15"SD 15"SD

SDFM SDFM
SDFM
SDFM
24"SD 36"SD 30"SD
8"SS 8"SS 8"SS 8"SS 8"SS 8"SS 6"SS
6"SS
6"SS
6"SS 8"SS 6"SS
6"SS
6"SS
6"SS
8"SS
6"SS
6"SS 6"SS
6"SS 6"SS
6"SS 6"SS 6"SS
6"SS
6"SS
8"SS
8"SS
8"SS
8"SS 8"SS
30"SS
30"SS
15"SD
15"SD
8"W
8"W 8"W 8"W
8"W 8"W 8"W 8"W
8"W
8"W
8"W
8"W
8"W
8"W
8"W 8"W
8"W 8"W
8"W 8"W
18"SD
18"SD 6"FM 12"W 30"SS 12"W 24"G

STREET G
COURT 1
COURT 2
STREET 1
STREET 3
STREET 5
STREET 4 STREET A

STREET B

STREET C STREET D

STREET E

STREET F STREET G
STREET 5

AIRPORT WAY

CONNECT TO
EXISTING 12" WATER

INSTALLED WITH

CENTERPOINT PHASE
1 IMPROVEMENTS
STUB 30" SEWER

FOR FUTURE
CONNECT TO EXISTING 30" SEWER

INSTALLED WITH UNION RANCH

SUBDIVISION

CONNECT TO
EXISTING 12" WATER

INSTALLED WITH

CENTERPOINT PHASE
1 IMPROVEMENTS

CANDY CANE
DISCHARGE INTO 42"

SSJID LATERAL RGC

PUMP STATION

DISCHARGE INTO

SSJID LATERAL RGC
STREET 2
STREET 5
STREET 3
STREET 2 UTILITY PLAN
NORTH 7
0 100
50 PLAN REVISIONS
DATE
CK. BY:

NO.

SCALE:

DR. BY:

JOB NO.:

DATE:

DESCRIPTIONS
SHEET NO.

OF SHEET

AS SHOWN
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 ENGINEERING
w w w . m c r e n g . c o m
1242 DUPONT COURT
MANTECA , CA 95336
TEL :

FAX :
( 209 ) 239 - 6229
( 209 ) 239 - 8839
APPROVED:

Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig.

R
811 / 800-227-2600 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR: KIPER AT INDELICATO 21-036
SLS
5/24/2023

JEH/RBP KIPER AT INDELICATO MANTECA, CA
7 EXHIBIT F ATTACHMENT 13
1 Exhibit F
City of Manteca Development Services Department
Conditions of Approval Indelicato Annexation, Pre-Zone, General Plan Amendment and Tentative Subdivision Map
June 1, 2023
Project File Number: ANX21-104, PRZ21-105, GPA23-036, SDJ21-106 Project Name: Indelicato Annexation and Subdivision Map Project Address: 14050 South Airport Way
APNs: 204-100-520
Property Owners: Robert J. Indelicato and Leslie A. Bloudoff, Trustees of the Bloudoff-Indelicato Family Trust
14050 South Airport Way
Manteca, CA 95336
Project Applicant: Michael Kiper
KDH Group, LLC
3200 Danville Boulevard, Suite 200
Alamo, CA 94507
This list of conditions is not intended to be all-inclusive or a comprehensive list of City regulations. All conditions are referenced to the Indelicato Subdivision Map (dated May 24, 2023) on file with the City of Manteca, Development Services Department, Planning Division.

City of Manteca Development Services Department:

The Tentative Subdivision Map dated May 24, 2023, are approved subject to the following Conditions:

1. Acceptance of Tentative Subdivision Map. Unless the Subdivider formally objects to these conditions prior to approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map by the City Council, the Subdivider is bound by, to comply with, and to perform all requirements of or by the Subdivider pursuant to all of the terms, provisions, and conditions of these Conditions of Approval. All costs associated with compliance ATTACHMENT 13
2 with the conditions shall be at the owner/developer’s expense.

2. Expiration of Tentative Subdivision Map. This Tentative Subdivision Map approval shall automatically expire on June 20, 2025 or 24 months from and after the date of issuance. The date of issuance is the date this Tentative Subdivision Map is approved by the City Council. Prior to the expiration date the applicant may apply for an extension not to exceed three years.

3. Vested Rights. This approval does not vest Subdivider’s rights regarding future development. All ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the project and public improvements to be constructed by the Developer shall be those in force and effect at the time the applicable plan or permit approval is granted.

4. Vesting Fees. This approval does not vest Subdivider’s rights regarding the payment of any development impact fees, exactions and dedications, processing fees, inspection fees, plan checking fees or charges, or any other fee or charge that could have been legally imposed by the City when the original application was deemed complete. All fees and charges shall be paid at the rate in effect at the time such fees are customarily due.

5. Fees. The developer shall pay all applicable processing fees, permit fees, City development fees, fire fees, school fees, drainage fees, habitat conservation fees and other public entity fees in effect at the time of the issuance of the applicable permit.

6. Outside Agency Fees. It is the responsibility of the owner/developer to contact all outside agencies and pay applicable fees associated with this project.

7. Community Facilities District (CFD). Annexation to the Community Facilities District: Applicant shall submit an executed petition affirmatively consenting to annex the subject property into the Community Facilities District (CFD) 2022-1 and agree to pay the special taxes levied by the CFD 2022-1 for the purpose of maintaining public services associated with parks and landscape maintenance, police protection, fire suppression, and street maintenance services for new developments. The CFD annexation process shall be completed prior to the issuance of the first building permit. Applicant shall comply with all rules, regulations, policies, and practices established by the State Law and/or by the City with respect to the CFD including, without limitation, requirements for notice and disclosure to future owners and/or residents.

8. Conformance to Plans. This approval is dependent upon and limited to the proposals and plans contained, supporting documents submitted, presentations made to staff, Planning Commission and/or City Council as affirmed to by the applicant. Any variation from these plans, proposals, supporting documents or presentations is subject to review and approval prior to implementation.

9. Conformance with Subdivision Ordinance. The final map shall comply with all of the requirements for final maps in Chapter 16 of the Manteca Municipal ATTACHMENT 13
3 Code and shall show and contain all of the data required by Section 16.09.

10. Substantial Conformance. Site development plans shall be in substantial conformance to the approved tentative map/site plan and must be submitted, in English units, to the City Engineering Department for review and approval. Maps shall be prepared, wet signed and sealed by a civil engineer, land surveyor, or architect registered in the State of California and licensed to prepare final maps and/or site development plans. The City Engineer will be the approving authority.

11. Subsequent Development. All activities undertaken in accordance with this approval shall comply with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code. In cases of conflict between the City’s Municipal Code or map-specific conditions of approval, the governing priority shall be, to the extent legally permitted, as follows: 1) Municipal Code regulations; 2) project-specific conditions; 3) standard conditions. The applicant shall comply with all regulations and code requirements of the Development Services Director, City Engineer, Building Official, Fire Chief, the Police Chief and any other agencies requiring review of the project. If required, these agencies shall be supplied copies of the final maps, site plans, public improvement plans, grading plans and building plans.

12. Structure Conformance. Applicant shall ensure all future homes and/or structures are built in compliance with the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

13. Utility Companies. The applicant is responsible for contacting all appropriate utility companies to obtain agreements for extension and/or relocation of services necessary for the proposed development.

14. Other Requirements. The applicant shall secure and comply with all applicable federal, state and local licenses, permits, authorizations, conditions, agreements, and orders prior to or during construction and operation, as appropriate.

15. Failure to Comply. Should the project be found, at any time, not to be in compliance with any of the Conditions of Approval, or should the applicant construct or operate this development in any way other than specified in the Application or Supporting documents or presentations to staff, Planning Commission or City Council, as modified by the Conditions of this Approval, then the terms of this Approval shall be considered to be violated.

16. Indemnification. The applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its council members and commissioners, officers, agents, employees, and representatives from liability for any award, damages, costs and fees, including without limitation attorneys’ fees, incurred by the City and/or awarded to any plaintiff in any action related to or arising out of the City’s approval of this project or subdivision Map or any environmental or other documentation related to this project or subdivision Map. The applicant further agrees to provide a defense for the City in any such action.

17. Limits of Approval. Approval of this application does not constitute approval of any other entitlement or any other necessary permit, license, or approval.

ATTACHMENT 13
4 18. Compliance with Local and State Laws. The subject use shall be conducted in full compliance with all local and state laws. No part of this approval shall be construed to permit a violation of any part of the Manteca Municipal Code. This Tentative Subdivision Map shall be subject to revocation if the subject use is conducted in such a manner as to cause a nuisance.

19. Erosion Prevention. The applicant shall take all necessary measures to ensure that his activities or those of his agents do not result in measurable erosion of soils on the site, either wind or water, during the construction and operation of the project covered by this approval.

20. Building Plans. All conditions of approval for this project shall be written by the project developer on all building permit plan check sets submitted for review and approval. These conditions of approval shall be on, at all times, all grading and construction plans kept on the project site. It is the responsibility of the building developer to ensure that the project contractor is aware of, and abides by, all conditions of approval. Prior approval from the Planning Manager must be received before any changes are constituted in site design, grading, building design, building colors or materials, etc.

21. Tree Removal. Prior to the approval of improvement plans, the Project applicant shall provide a landscape plan that includes tree planting specifications established by the Manteca Municipal Code (17.19.060) for the replacement of any trees, excluding orchard and non-native trees, to be removed at a ratio of 1:1. Replacement trees shall be planted on-site at a location that is agreeable to the City.

22. Notice of Industrial Development. It shall be disclosed to future home buyers that there is existing and proposed industrial development on the west side of North Airport Way and that the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan area is an active industrial center that includes but is not limited to the activities of manufacturing, warehousing, and wholesale operations that currently operate and propose to operate on a 24-hour schedule, seven days per week. The City shall be provided a copy of this disclosure prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.

23. Setback from N. Airport Way. The homes adjacent to N. Airport Way will maintain a 30 foot setback from the masonry wall to the edge of the house pad as shown below:

ATTACHMENT 13
5 24. Design Requirements:
a. The new homes that will be located on the southern and eastern edge of the project that are immediately adjacent to the existing one-story, single family homes in the Del Webb community (specifically those homes located on Shady Oak Place, Shady Oak Street, Appleleaf Lane, Elmbrook Way, Dutchwood Lane, Dogwood Glen Way, and Fern Meadow Avenue), shall be restricted to one-story models.
i. The 50x100 and 60x100 lots in this area will have at least two singlestory floorplans. ii. There shall be at least three elevations provided for each of the two floor plans.
b. Variable plan types and elevations shall be incorporated along the other streets in the subdivision to create visual diversity and interesting streetscapes. There shall be a minimum of three plan types for the community and each plan type shall include at least three distinct architectural styles.
c. A particular architectural style shall not be repeated more than every third home. Only two of the same architectural styles, even if they are different floor plan types, will be allowed on side-by-side homes. Adding or deleting minimal elevation treatments such as false shutters or similar types of minimal elevation changes will not change this requirement. d. Homes located long the outside edges of the project, along major roads, and around the park shall have enhanced detailing around windows and doors and visible edges; the homes shall have varying roof spans and the colors and materials shall be varied.
e. Architectural elements must not end at the corner of a building and shall wrap around the corner and extend to a logical terminus point that is incorporated into the overall architectural design.
f. The use and incorporation of porches, trellis, roof overhangs, and patios shall be provided to add interest and a sense of community liveliness to the streetscape.

ATTACHMENT 13
6 g. Garages and garage doors shall be designed to minimize the visual impact of the garage doors on the streetscape. This shall be done through changes in the setback for the garage or side-entry.
h. A single garage door shall not exceed the width of a two-car garage door. A second garage door for a third garage bay is permissible assuming a break in the façade between the two doors. The driveway shall be no wider than 6” wider than the width of the garage door.
i. The color palette for homes shall be comprised of two or more complementary options that include a base color, trim color, and accent color. Not more than four different colors may be used on an elevation. j. Each home shall have a tree planted in the front yard. Corner lots shall have at least two trees, one in the front yard and at least one on the corner side yard.

25. Environmental Mitigation
a. Agricultural Resources
i. AG-1: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, or prior to the conversion of important farmland on the Project site, the Project applicant shall participate in the City's agricultural mitigation fee program and the SJMSCP by paying the established fees on a peracre basis for the loss of important farmland. Fees paid toward the City's program shall be used to fund conservation easements on comparable or better agricultural lands to provide compensatory mitigation.
b. Biological Resources
i. BIO-1: Prior to commencement of any grading activities, the Project proponent shall seek coverage under the SJMSCP for habitat impacts to covered special status species. Coverage involves compensation for habitat impacts on covered species through implementation of incidental take and minimization measures (ITMMs) and payment of fees for conversion of lands that may provide habitat for covered special status specie. These fees are used to preserve and/or create habitat in preserves to be managed in perpetuity. Obtaining coverage for a Project includes incidental take authorization (permits) under the Endangered Species Act Section 10(a), California Fish and Game Code Section 2081, and the MBTA. Coverage under the SJMSCP would fully mitigate all habitat impacts on covered special-status species.
c. Cultural and Tribal Resources
i. CUL-1: The Project applicant shall ensure that a training session for all workers is conducted in advance of the initiation of construction activities at the site. The training session will provide information on ATTACHMENT 13
7 recognition of artifacts, human remains, and cultural deposits to help in the recognition of potential issues.
ii. CUL-2: The Project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to observe initial ground disturbance activities, during initial grading.

If artifacts, exotic rock, shell or bone are uncovered during the construction, the archaeologist will be able to document the finding, and determine if additional work is necessary to excavate or remove the artifacts or feature.
iii. CUL-3: If cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric sites, historic sites, isolated artifacts/features, and paleontological sites) are discovered during construction, work shall be halted immediately within 50 meters (165 feet) of the discovery, the City of Manteca shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology (or a qualified paleontologist in the event paleontological resources are found) shall be retained to determine the significance of the discovery. The City of Manteca shall consider recommendations presented by the professional for any
unanticipated discoveries and shall carry out the measures deemed feasible and appropriate. Such measures may include avoidance, preservation in place, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures. Specific measures are developed based on the significance of the find.
iv. CUL-4: If any human remains are found during grading and construction activities, all work shall be halted immediately within 50 meters (165 feet) of the discovery and the County Coroner must be notified, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California's Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission, and the procedures outlined in CEQA Section 15064.5(d) and (e) shall be followed. Additionally, if the Native American resources are identified, a Native American monitor, following the Guidelines for Monitors/Consultants of Native American Cultural, Religious, and Burial Sites established by the Native American Heritage Commission, may also be required and, if required, shall be retained at the applicant's expense.
d. Geology, Soil, and Mineral Resources
i. GEO-1: Prior to issuance of any building permits, the Project applicant shall be required to submit building plans to the City of Manteca for review and approval. The building plans shall also comply with all applicable requirements of the most recent California Building Standards Code. All on-site soil engineering ATTACHMENT 13
8 activities shall be conducted under the supervision of a licensed geotechnical engineer or certified engineering geologist. ii. GEO-2: The Project applicant shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the RWQCB in accordance with the NPDES General Construction Permit requirements. The SWPPP shall be designed to control pollutant discharges utilizing Best Management Practices (BMPs) and technology to reduce erosion and sediments. BMPs may consist of a wide variety of measures taken to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff from the Project site. Measures shall include temporary erosion control measures (such as silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps, check dams, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary revegetation or other ground cover) that will be employed to control erosion from disturbed areas. Final selection of BMPs will be subject to approval by the City of Manteca and the RWQCB. The SWPPP will be kept on site during construction activity and will be made available upon request to representatives of the RWQCB.
e. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
i. HAZ-1: The Project applicant shall hire a qualified consultant to perform soil and site testing to check whether hazardous conditions are present, prior to any grading activities. The soil sampling shall address the presence/absence of hazardous substances in the soils, including agrichemicals and/or petroleum products. A soil sampling and analysis workplan shall be shall be prepared and meet the requirements of the Department of Toxic Substances Control Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (2008). The soils in the area where farming equipment and/or tanks have been stored should be included in the soil sampling and analysis workplan.

If the sampling results indicate the presence of agrichemicals that exceed commercial screening levels, a removal action workplan shall be prepared in coordination with San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department. The removal action workplan shall include a detailed engineering plan for conducting the removal action, a description of the on-site contamination, the goals to be achieved by the removal action, and any alternative removal options that were considered and rejected and the basis for that rejection.

A no further action letter shall be issued by San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department upon completion of the removal action. The removal action shall be deemed complete when the confirmation samples exhibit concentrations below the commercial screening levels, which will be established by the agencies.

ATTACHMENT 13
9 If asbestos-containing materials and/or lead are found in the buildings, a California Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (Cal/OSHA) certified asbestos containing building materials (ACBM) and lead based paint contractor shall be retained to remove the asbestos-containing materials and lead in accordance with EPA and Cal/OSHA standards. In addition, all activities (construction or demolition) in the vicinity of these materials shall comply with Cal/OSHA asbestos and lead worker construction standards. The ACBM and lead shall be disposed of properly at an appropriate offsite disposal facility.
ii. HAZ-2: Prior to initiation of any ground disturbance activities within 50 feet of a well, the Project applicant shall hire a licensed well contractor to obtain a well abandonment permit from San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department, and properly abandon the on-site wells, pursuant to review and approval of the City Engineer and the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department.
f. Noise:
i. NOISE-1: Construction activities shall adhere to the requirements of the City of Manteca Municipal Code with respect to hours of operation. This requirement shall be noted in the improvements plans prior to approval by the City's Public Works Department. All equipment shall be fitted with factory equipped mufflers, and in good working order. This requirement shall be noted in the improvements plans prior to approval by the City's Public Works Department. ii. NOISE-2: A 10-foot-tall barrier shall be constructed along the Airport Way frontage, adjacent to proposed Project residential uses, in order to achieve the City's exterior noise standards. Noise barrier walls shall be constructed of concrete panels, concrete masonry units, earthen berms, or any combination of these materials that achieve the required total height. Wood is not recommended due to eventual warping and degradation of acoustical performance.

These requirements shall be included in the improvements plans prior to their approval by the City's Public Works Department.

Figure 3.11-3 in the Noise Study shows the recommended sound wall locations.
iii. NOSIE-3: For the first rows of lots adjacent to the Airport Way right of way, second floor exterior facades with a view of Airport Way would need the following noise control measures:

1. Windows shall have a sound transmission class (STC)
rating of 38.

2. Interior gypsum at exterior walls shall be 5/8" hung on ATTACHMENT 13
10 resilient channels;

3. Ceiling gypsum shall be 5/8";

4. Exterior finish shall be stucco, fiber cement lap siding, or system with equivalent weight per square foot;

5. Mechanical ventilation shall be installed in all residential uses to allow residents to keep doors and windows closed, as desired for acoustical isolation.

6. As an alternative to the above-listed interior noise control measures, the applicant may provide a detailed analysis of interior noise control measures once building plans
become available. The analysis should be prepared by a
qualified noise control engineer and shall outline the
specific measures required to meet the City of Manteca 45 dB Ldn interior noise level standard.
iv. NOSIE-4:Any compaction required less than 26 feet from the adjacent residential structures shall be accomplished by using static drum rollers which use weight instead of vibrations to achieve soil compaction. As an alternative to this requirement, pre-construction crack documentation and construction vibration monitoring could be conducted to ensure that construction vibrations do not cause damage to any adjacent structures.
g. Public Services
i. PUBLIC-1: The Project applicant shall pay applicable park in-lieu fees or dedicate parkland in accordance with the City of Manteca Municipal Code standards outlined in Chapter 3.20. Proof of payment of the in-lieu fees shall be submitted to the City Engineer. h. Utilities
i. UTIL-1: Prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit, the Project applicant shall submit a drainage plan to the City of Manteca for review and approval. The plan shall include an engineered storm drainage plan that demonstrates attainment of pre-Project runoff requirements prior to release at the outlet canal and describes the volume reduction measures and treatment controls used to reach attainment consistent with the Manteca Storm Drain Master Plan.

City of Manteca Engineering Division Conditions
General

1. All improvements shall comply with the City of Manteca Standard Plans and Specifications. Improvement plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for ATTACHMENT 13
11 approval. An encroachment permit is required for all work within the public rightof-way.

2. Developer shall provide easements, requested by the respective utility companies, within the subdivision and shall show said easements on the final subdivision map.

Any existing facilities within or adjacent to the project that are affected by this project shall be relocated and placed underground at the Developer’s expense.

3. Developer shall dedicate ten-foot (10’) wide public utility easements on all street frontages for underground facilities and appurtenances, upon approval and recordation of each Final Map, with the exception of the following locations. a. N. Airport Way
b. The northern side of Street 1

4. Developer shall indicate on the improvement plans topographical information which shall include one-foot (1’) contour intervals and benchmark data based on City datum.

5. Developer shall relinquish access rights to and from City right-of-way for all lots that back to or have side lot frontage on N. Airport Way.

6. During all construction phases, Developer shall comply with City Laws regarding dust control. Developer shall also comply with San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Regulation VIII (Fugitive Dust Prohibitions) in an effort to reduce the amount of fine particulate matter (PM10) entrained into the ambient air from man-made sources.

7. As required by The Professional Land Surveyors’ Act (Business and Professions Code §§ 8700-8805), Section 8771, prior to the start of construction, all survey monuments that have the possibility of being damaged, destroyed or covered over during the course of construction for this project, shall be located and referenced by a licensed land surveyor and a corner record or record of survey shall be filed with the county surveyor. Survey monuments which are damaged, destroyed or covered over during the course of construction must be re-set at the original location with a new monument and monument box, or a new monument set as a witness corner to the original location, and another corner record or record of survey shall be filed with the county surveyor. All work in this condition shall be done by a licensed land surveyor.

8. Prior to approval of a Final Map for any phase of the project the following shall be submitted by the developer and approved by the Engineering Department:
a. On-site grading and drainage plan,
b. On-site utility (sanitary sewer, water and storm drain) plan, c. Off-site improvement plan,
d. Erosion control plans,
e. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP),
ATTACHMENT 13
12 f. Documentation, as required in the Post-Construction Stormwater Standards Manual, showing compliance with WQO NPDES 2013-0001-DWQ, g. Joint Trench Intent plans, and
h. Dedication of required rights-of-way and easements to the City.

The plans specified in (a), (b) and (c) above shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer.

The items in (d), (e) and (f) above shall be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD).

9. Joint trench utility installation shall be in accordance with Manteca Municipal Code Chapter 13.34 and City Standards.

10.All residential address numbers shall be plainly visible from the street fronting the property. Said numbers/letters shall contrast with background.

11.Developer shall enter into an Improvement Agreement for construction of the roadway and utility improvements which will be dedicated to the City. The agreement will require posting a Performance Bond in the amount of one-hundred percent (100%), posting a Labor-Material Bond in the amount of fifty percent (50%), and payment of all required plan check, testing and inspection fees.

12.Developer shall install a benchmark on the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 vertical control system with this project. Final location shall be approved by the City Engineer and shown on the Improvement Plans. Developer shall obtain a benchmark from the City of Manteca and it shall be punched with the elevation, datum reference and benchmark number, which will be assigned by the City. A corner record shall be filed with the San Joaquin County Surveyor’s Office and shall include the language that the benchmark is being added to the City of Manteca Vertical Control Network.

13.Per City of Manteca Standard Drawing ST-1, prior to issuance of the first building permit, Developer shall install streets within the development in accordance with the “all weather road” standard. In addition to the requirements set forth in City Standard Drawing ST-1, prior to issuance of the first building permit, the Developer shall have installed all street name signs within the development.

14.Per City of Manteca Resolution No. R2008-150, which approved the City’s Residential Subdivision Partial Acceptance Policy, the Developer is eligible to receive a Partial Acceptance once all health and safety items are complete. Under the Partial Acceptance Policy, Developer is only allowed to pull building permits for a maximum of fifty percent (50%) of the total number of dwellings within a Unit.

Final acceptance of a Unit must be obtained to pull any building permits within the final fifty percent (50%). Furthermore, the partial acceptance of public improvements shall permit the occupancy of structures that front upon public streets that are included in the partially accepted public improvements. No Certificate of Occupancy will be issued until the partial acceptance has been approved by the City Council.

ATTACHMENT 13
13 15.Per City of Manteca Resolution No. R2012-183, which approved the City’s Policy Relating to Timing of Construction of Park Facilities associated with Residential Development, the park improvements shall be installed and available to the public prior to the issuance of the first building permit after building permits have been issued for twenty-five percent (25%) of the total number of lots shown on this subdivision’s tentative map.

16.Per City of Manteca Resolution No. R2016-235, which approved the City’s Park Acquisition & Improvement Fee Update, the Developer shall pay the applicable adopted park fees.

17.Improvements which will be dedicated to the City must use a benchmark on the City of Manteca Vertical Control Network to establish the elevations of the improvements. The benchmark used shall be noted on the Improvement Plans.

18.The Engineering elements for this project shall be reviewed and finalized during the Improvement Plan review process. Designs/layouts presented with the Tentative Map are proposed to support Tentative Map approval and are not being approved with this action.

Streets

19.Cross sections for roadways that are included in the City’s adopted Public Facilities Implementation Plan (PFIP), Transportation Element, shall be in accordance with that document. Unless otherwise detailed in these conditions, cross sections for roadways that are not included in the PFIP shall be in accordance with the City of Manteca Standard Plans. An encroachment permit is required for all work within the public right-of-way.

20.Soils R-value tests shall be performed from representative soils within the proposed subdivision. A geotechnical report shall be submitted to the City Engineer with calculations determining the street pavement structural design.

Design shall conform to City of Manteca Resolution R-5633, “Street Structural Design Policy”. The minimum traffic indices shall be as follows:
a. N Airport Way: 11.0
b. 60’ right-of-ways, or equivalent curb-to-curb width: 8.0 c. 50’ right-of-ways, or equivalent curb-to-curb width: 6.0 d. Cul-de-sacs: 4.5

21.N. Airport Way
a. Developer shall dedicate right-of-way along the east side of N. Airport Way to accommodate a seventy-five foot (75’) half-width street section. b. Developer shall construct full width street improvements along N. Airport Way, including new street structural section, curb, gutter, ten foot (10’) wide meandering sidewalk, landscaping with trees and automatic irrigation system, street lights, signage and striping. The full width street improvements do not include any improvements beyond the curb and gutter ATTACHMENT 13
14 on the west side of N. Airport Way, opposite of the project. Developer shall also construct a twelve foot (12’) wide raised landscaped median with automatic irrigation system centered on the ultimate N. Airport Way centerline.
c. Developer may, in accordance with Title 16 of the Manteca Municipal Code, request City Council’s approval to construct a part-width street for N. Airport Way consisting of completion of the median, one twelve foot (12’) wide travel lane and a two foot (2’) wide pave shoulder on the side opposite of the subdivision, including transitions and striping needed to connect with existing roadway improvements. City Council must approve the request by a four-fifths (4/5ths) vote.
d. If City Council does not approve the part-width street request, the Developer shall, on behalf of the City, obtain right-of-way along the west side of N.

Airport Way to accommodate full width street improvements. e. The median in N. Airport Way shall extend for the full N. Airport Way frontage of the subdivision. Street1 and Street 5, as labeled on the Tentative Map, shall be right-in/right-out only access points from and to N. Airport Way.

22.Final Map phasing will need to be coordinated with the timing and necessity of roadway construction. Roadway construction for each phase shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and may include roads on the Tentative Map that are not immediately adjacent to the proposed Final Map.

23.Where offsite property acquisition is required by these conditions, if the developer has made good faith efforts to obtain the ROW, which can be shown to the City in writing, and is unable to come to an agreement with the property owner, the City will make a determination to remove this condition or begin its own negotiations with the property owner.

24.Developer shall install traffic calming measures and measures on roadways immediately adjacent to the park/basin. The traffic calming measures shall be reviewed and approved during the Improvement Plan submittal process.

25.No driveway shall be closer than twenty-feet (20’) to a curb return. Driveway locations shall be shown on Improvement Plan submittals. Vertical curb shall be installed for 20’ past the curb return.

26.Developer shall install a barricade in accordance with City Standard ST-20 at all streets stubbed to undeveloped land.

27.Developer shall contact the local post office for direction regarding placement of mail receptacles or any other type of mail delivery proposed.

28.Developer shall relocate existing mailboxes, per the direction of the City Engineer and the United States Postal Service. Mailboxes shall be constructed in conformance with the standards of the United States Postal Service.

ATTACHMENT 13
15 29.Developer shall ensure the structural sections of the existing roadways which are adjacent to this project are in accordance with the traffic indices in these conditions. The developer may remove and replace the existing pavement with a new structural section, in accordance with the specified traffic index, or the Developer may core the existing pavement and submit the results to the City Engineer for approval to leave the existing structural section in place. The surface of the roadway where the existing pavement structural section is approved to remain shall be removed and replaced with an overlay (minimum 0.20’ grind and asphalt concrete overlay), which is done at the same time as the adjacent new pavement.

30.The street light locations shall be finalized during the Improvement Plan review process. Street lights shall maintain an average foot candle coverage of 0.40 throughout the project, with a minimum allowable foot candle at any location of

0.07. A street light photometric plan, showing the foot candle coverage, shall be submitted with the Improvement Plans.

31.If Developer installs electrolier poles other than the City’s standard cobra head fixture on a galvanized pole, the Developer shall supply the City with one extra complete light fixture and pole, per phase/unit of the project. If applicable, this will be a condition of final acceptance of the subdivision.

32.The thickness of all sidewalks installed with the project shall be six inches (6”).

33.A sidewalk ends sign shall be installed at the northern end of the subdivision’s sidewalk on N. Airport Way.

34.Accessibility ramps installed or modified with this project shall be in compliance with the latest revision of the California Building Code, Chapter 11B and Caltrans Standard Plans, detail A88A.

Fencing and Walls

35.Wall heights indicated within the Tentative Map and these conditions are minimums. The installed height may be greater, if necessary to mitigate noise impacts per this project’s adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Wall heights shall be measured from the highest-grade elevation on the adjacent residential lot.

36.Developer shall construct a six foot (6’) high chain link fence along boundaries of the park which abut undeveloped land.

37.Developer shall construct a minimum six foot (6’) high wood fence along the boundaries of this subdivision which abut undeveloped land.

38.Streets stubbed onto undeveloped land shall have a six foot (6’) high chain link fence extending from building set back line to building set back line and a Type ‘B’ Barricade per City Std. Plan No. ST-20, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer.

ATTACHMENT 13
16 39.Developer shall install minimum six foot (6’) high decorative masonry sound wall along those streets where access rights have been relinquished to the City of Manteca.

40.All masonry walls shall be reinforced, solid-grout filled and constructed onsite (no prefabricated walls), with decorative caps and pilasters, subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and Public Works Department.

Water

41.Improvements shall be designed and constructed in conformance with the latest version of the City Water Master Plan.

42.The City’s Water Master Plan and User Rate Charges are currently being analyzed and updated by HydroScience. The update of the Master Plan is anticipated to be completed in late 2023. The Water Master Plan will identify improvement projects that need to be engineered and constructed for both the distribution system and the treatment systems. As the needed projects, both distribution and treatment, are identified, and associated costs estimated, user rates, connection charges, and Public Facilities Implementation Plan (PFIP) fees will likely increase. New development projects will have to pay the following fees, as adopted by the City Council, that are in place at the time of development/permit issuance: (1) User Rate Charges, (2) Connection Charges, and (3) PFIP fees.

43.Water mains installed in stubbed streets shall extend to the property line and shall have a blowoff per City Std. Plan No. W-7.

44.A minimum ten-foot (10’) separation, from outside of pipe to outside of pipe, shall be maintained between water mains and parallel sanitary sewer, storm drain, and irrigation lines.

45.Existing wells within the boundary of the proposed development which are not approved for use by the City, shall be abandoned in accordance with San Joaquin County Public Health Services requirements.

46.Fire hydrant locations shall be as approved by the Fire Department and finalized during the Improvement Plan review process. Developer shall provide and install fire hydrant “blue dot” reflective markers prior to issuance of the first building permit.

47.Developer shall pay fees associated with the Reclaimed Water Master Plan for all houses within this subdivision for which a building permit is issued after adoption of said Reclaimed Water Master Plan and fees by the City Council of Manteca.

48.Developer shall install a reclaimed water line from N. Airport Way to the irrigation well within the park. The route of the reclaimed water line shall be approved by the City Engineer. All piping, valves and appurtenances for this system shall be purple.

49.Existing service connections to the City’s water mains which will not be used by this project shall be abandoned, as directed by the City of Manteca.

50.Irrigation Supply
ATTACHMENT 13
17 a. A separate landscape irrigation meter shall be installed at the back of the sidewalk adjacent to a dedicated public street right-of-way for the use of irrigation of the public area landscaping.
b. Landscape irrigation water system shall be designed to operate from a single point of connection.
c. Irrigation water from potable system shall be delivered via a single meter which is no larger than 2”.
d. Irrigation water from the potable system shall be protected with a reduced pressure backflow device.

Storm Drainage

51.Improvements shall be designed and constructed in conformance with the latest edition of the Storm Drain Master Plan, the City’s Post-Construction Manual and City Standards.

52.The storm drain system shall be oversized to allow for expansion/to accommodate future flows from 13856 S. Airport Way (APN 204-100-51). This includes, but may not be limited to, the basin, piping, pump station. The cost of these improvements can be put into an Area of Benefit to provide reimbursements to the Developer, in accordance with the City’s Area of Benefit Establishment Policy.

53.A preliminary storm drainage plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval concurrently with the first improvement plan submittal. The plan shall be accompanied by calculations for peak flows, total runoff, pipe sizes, detention basin volume and evidence of historical groundwater depth.

54.All storm drainage shall drain to the basin, then discharge into the South San Joaquin Irrigation District’s (SSJID) Lateral Rgc. Approval for the storm drain connection to Lateral Rgc is required by SSJID. The improvement plans shall also include a signature block for the SSJID Engineering Department Manager. No directly connected impervious areas (DCIA) shall be allowed to drain into the storm drain system downstream of the basin. The storm drain basin discharge facilities shall be designed as a controlled pump or gated discharge with positive shut-off control. Telemetry requirements at the pump station shall include installation of hardware and software to interface with the City’s Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system.

55.All SCADA programming shall be performed by Telstar, Inc.

56.All drain inlets shall be marked "No Dumping - Drains to River". Drain markers shall be purchased from the City of Manteca at cost plus 15% administrative charge, and installed by the Developer prior to acceptance of the improvements.

57.Developer shall construct the storm drain basin in accordance with the current Storm Drain Master Plan and the City’s Standards and Specifications for Landscape Development.

ATTACHMENT 13
18 58.Developer shall develop, at his expense, the storm drain basin area as a landscaped park area. The improvements shall include, but not be limited to: basin grading, telemetry controlled pump station and appurtenances, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lights, street trees, street paving irrigation system with automatic controllers and seeding of the basin lawn.

59.All storm drain piping shall be located within the paved street area.

60.Developer shall incorporate appropriate site design measure(s) and submit the results of the Post-Construction Runoff Standards Manual. The City of Manteca approval of the proposed measures is precedent to issuance of any building, grading or construction permits.

61.Developer shall develop and submit a Project Stormwater Plan that identifies the methods to be employed to reduce or eliminate stormwater pollutant discharges through the construction, operation and maintenance of source control measures, low impact development design, site design measures, stormwater treatment control measures, and hydromodification control measures. Design and sizing requirements shall comply with the 2015 Post-Construction Stormwater Standards Manual. City of Manteca approval of the Project Stormwater Plan is precedent to issuance of any building, grading, or construction permits. An electronic copy of the Project Stormwater Plan shall be provided to the City of Manteca

62.Developer shall develop a hydromodification management plan to ensure the postproject stormwater runoff flow rate shall not exceed estimated pre-project flow rate for the 2-year, 24-hour storm. The hydromodification management plan shall be incorporated into the Project Stormwater Plan.

63.Developer shall develop and submit an Operations and Maintenance Plan that identifies the operations, maintenance, and inspection requirements of all stormwater treatment and baseline hydromodification control measures identified in the approved Project Stormwater Plan. City of Manteca approval of the preliminary Operations and Maintenance Plan is precedent to issuance of any building, grading, or construction permits. An electronic copy of the Maintenance Plan shall be provided to the City of Manteca.

64.City of Manteca approval of the final Operations and Maintenance Plan and recordation of the Maintenance Access Agreement is precedent to first building final inspection for this project. Two paper copies and an electronic copy of the final Operations and Maintenance Plan shall be provided to the City of Manteca.

65.Post-Construction Management Practices shall conform to the City’s adopted Multi-Agency Post Construction Stormwater Standards Manual.

66.Where conflict between standards arises, the standard most-protective to water quality, to public health and safety, and against flooding shall be utilized.

67.Prior to any land disturbing construction activities occurring on a project, Developer shall meet the requirements of NPDES. For sites exceeding 1 acre of disturbance area that are deemed non-exempt, contractor shall prepare and submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and apply for a permit under the ATTACHMENT 13
19 California General Construction NPDES permit. SWPPP shall be prepared and signed by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) certified by the State Water Resources Control Board. All modifications to SWPPP shall be implemented by a QSD in responsible charge for the project. The SWPPP shall be implemented under the supervision of a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP). For permit information, contact the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) at:

26. State Water Resources Control Board
PO Box 1977, Sacramento, CA 95812-1977
Attn: Storm Water Permitting Section
Telephone: (916) 341-5537
To log in to the SWRCB Storm Water Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS) to enter site information and apply for permit, please contact the City of Manteca Engineering Department to establish a project and authorize data entry access.

All other sites shall conform to the City of Manteca Standards, the California Green Building Standards, and Section E.10 of the NPDES permit 2013-0001- DWQ. All construction involving land disturbing activities shall submit for approval an Erosion Control and Sedimentation Plan (ESCP) prepared and signed by a QSD. All ESCP treatment measures and BMPs must be maintained at all times until construction is completed and the site is stabilized as defined under the Construction General NPDES permit.

Prior to issuance of the first grading or building permit for a project, a copy of the SWPPP or ESCP shall be submitted by the developer and approved by Authorized Signatory or Legally Responsible Person (LRP) for the City’s NPDES program. Contact the City of Manteca Engineering Department to identify appropriate person for review and approval of plans and documents.

68.It is recognized that the design and calculations which have been submitted thus far to demonstrate this project’s compliance with the City’s Post-Construction Stormwater Standards Manual are approved for project entitlements but may require further refinement for final approval, which is precedent to issuance of any building, grading, or construction permits.

69.Bioretention areas which are adjacent to the City sidewalk shall include a one-foot (1’) wide flat area behind the sidewalk prior to the start of the bioretention area side slope.

70.Developer shall pay fair-share costs for storm drainage improvements, including improvements downstream to improve capacity or water quality treatments needed to conform to current Storm Drain Master Plan, City standards and support the development.

71.Developer shall complete the CDD development memorandum, required by Storm Drainage Agreement Amendment No. 1, and submit it to SSJID for review.

Sanitary Sewer
ATTACHMENT 13
20 72.Improvements shall be constructed in conformance with the latest version of the City Wastewater Collection System Master Plan and City Standards.

73.The City’s Sewer Master Plan and User Rate Charges are currently being analyzed and updated by Stantec. The update of the Master Plan is anticipated to be completed in late 2023. The Sewer Master Plan will identify improvement projects that need to be engineered and constructed for both the collection system and the Wastewater Quality Control Facility (WQCF). As the needed projects, both collection and at the WQCF are identified, and associated costs estimated, user rates, connection charges, and Public Facilities Implementation Plan (PFIP) fees will likely increase. New development projects will have to pay the following fees, as adopted by the City Council, that are in place at the time of development/permit issuance: (1) User Rate Charges, (2) Connection Charges, and (3) PFIP fees.

74.Developer shall install a thirty inch (30”) sanitary sewer main in the N. Airport Way right-of-way. The main shall be installed from the existing stub just south of the subdivision’s property to the northern limit of the property.

75.Any existing septic tank(s) on the property that will not be approved by the City shall be abandoned in accordance with the permitting requirements of the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department prior to issuance of the first building permit.

76.A preliminary sewer plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval concurrently with the first improvement plan submittal. The plan shall be accompanied by calculations for peak wet weather flows showing pipe sizes and slopes for the entire development.

77.The Wastewater Quality Control Facility (WQCF) sewer capacity may not be available to serve this development until construction completion of the WQCF Phase IV improvements. Sewer connections will not be allowed until such time there is sufficient capacity at the WQCF to serve this development.

Public Facilities Implementation Plan

78.Reimbursement shall be based on actual quantities installed. Developer is required to have a minimum of three (3) public sealed bids opened by the City Clerk for all reimbursable improvements. Bids for reimbursable items shall be included in the total subdivision bids, however, the unit bids received for reimbursable items will be considered as a bid separate from the rest of the subdivision contract items and reimbursement will be made based on the lowest responsible bid received for reimbursable items.

79.The City shall approve the bid sheet form, prior to bidding, and proof shall be provided that bids were solicited from a minimum of three qualified contractors.

80.Reimbursement shall be in the form of credit against applicable PFIP Sanitary Sewer, Water System, Storm Drain and Transportation fees. The credit will be given when building permits are issued for construction of residences within the subdivision. The amount of the reimbursements shall be based upon the low bid received from a minimum of three (3) sealed bids opened by the City Clerk. If the ATTACHMENT 13
21 cost to construct said improvements exceeds the value of PFIP credits, the remainder shall be reimbursed in accordance with the City Council adopted Public Facilities Implementation Plan in place on the effective date of the Improvement Agreement.

81.In the event Developer desires to exchange credits for cash reimbursement, the exchange must be approved by City Council.

City of Manteca Fire Department Conditions

1. Fire Department Access:
a. The entrances from N. Airport Way will need a minimum of 44’ external radius and internal radius of 25’ on all main entries, drive aisle and parking lot areas.

The main drive aisle shall be designated Emergency Vehicle Access Lane and be a minimum of 26’ wide.
b. All Cul-de-Sac dimensions need to be a minimum diameter of 96 feet. c. A diagram showing proposed “Fire Lane” shall be submitted for approval to the Office of the Fire Marshal. Fire Lanes shall be marked in accordance with California Fire Code (Appendix D103.6 SIGNS and Manteca Fire Code

15.24 2. Fire Hydrants: Plans and specifications for fire hydrant systems shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. a. Fire hydrants shall be installed on a minimum 8-inch looped water main. b. Fire hydrants shall be installed around all buildings at a maximum spacing of 300 feet in accordance with the City of Manteca Standards and California Fire Code. Corners should be utilized for hydrant locations when possible. c. Hydrants subject to vehicular damage shall be protected in an approved manner and not be obstructed by vehicles or other obstructions. d. Provide 15 feet of clearance on either side of fire hydrant from stopped or parked vehicles.
e. Additional fire hydrants may be required to meet the minimum spacing requirement of hydrants within 90 feet of Fire Department Connections, (FDC) for Fire Sprinkler Systems.
f. The on-site fire protection system (fire hydrants and associated water mains) shall be installed prior to the issuance of building permits. g. Total Fire Flow (appendix B of CFC) shall be calculated and submitted as part of the permit submittal.

3. Underground piping for the fire sprinkler shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to permit issuance.

ATTACHMENT 13
22 4. All above ground gas meter, regulators, and piping exposed to vehicular damage shall be protected in an approved manner.

5. Fire Suppression Systems: All buildings must be protected by an approved monitored automatic sprinkler system in accordance to NFPA 13, CFC, CBC, and Manteca Municipal Code Section 15.24.
a. Fire Alarm/Sprinkler monitoring shall be point ID.

6. Fire Suppression Approval. Plans and specifications for fire suppression systems shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If work differs from approved plans, a set of “as built” shall be submitted to the Fire Department prior to final inspection.

7. Plans proposed to be listed as deferred submittals shall be clearly labeled on the cover building permit plan submittal cover sheet.

8. Inspections. Fire protection systems (fire hydrants, water mains, etc.) shall be installed, tested and approved by the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. The Fire Department shall witness all system and acceptance tests.

Please provide 24-hour notice prior to any system or acceptance tests. 209-456- 8340

9. All above ground gas meters, regulators, and piping exposed to vehicular damage shall be protected in an approved manner.

10. Operations that require operational permits (High Piled Storage, Hot Work, Compressed Gas, Battery Storage and all others listed in CFC 105) shall be identified on the plan submittal.

11. All above comments shall be listed in the Building Permit Plan Submittal in a section designated for Fire Comments. Additionally, the Authority Having Jurisdiction should be listed as:
a. Authority having Jurisdiction:

City of Manteca Fire Department,
Office of the Fire Marshal
Fire Inspector II
Luis “Art” Salas
1154 S. Union Road, Manteca CA 95337
[email protected]
City of Manteca Parks Department Conditions
General Conditions

1. Current City of Manteca Standards and Specifications for Landscape Development shall be followed.

2. Developer shall prepare construction plans and specifications for any streetscape, bike path and basin improvements for Public Works Department – Parks Division approval, at developer’s expense.

ATTACHMENT 13
23 3. The Developer shall be required to pay Fees as specified in the current Park Acquisition and Improvement Fee Policy.

4. Any landscape needs to comply with current Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) requirements.

5. Developer shall submit a final subdivision map with recommended street trees for each street within the development to the City Arborist for review and approval in tandem with the streetscape and basin construction plans.

6. Developer shall provide design and installation of concrete masonry walls to separate all public park and landscape facilities and residential lots. Height shall be as required by Engineering Department.

Low Impact Development:

7. Low Impact Development (LID) improvements, locations and details shall be reviewed and be approved by Engineering and Public Works – Park Planning and Projects Division to determine impact on overall area to be maintained within the Community Facilities District (CFD). Maximum side slopes shall be 4:1 for shrubs and 6:1 for turf.

8. LID improvements shall be continuous if LID treatment includes landscaping and irrigation. Irrigation lines shall not be under private property or within street/sidewalk improvements without sleeving.

9. No Joint Trench Utilities shall be allowed within LID areas.

10. Low Impact Development (LID) improvements shall be included in the Community Facilities District (CFD), or other funding mechanism, to provide resources for landscape and park maintenance costs as per the requirements listed under the formation requirements. Developer shall be responsible for maintenance of improvements until sufficient funding is available/collected for City to maintain.

11. Developer shall provide soil analysis/documentation on infiltration rate and soil fertility testing of soil after mass grading and show it complies with City and State regulations per the Post-Construction Storm water Standards Manual.

12. Low Impact Design (LID) improvements shall have a one-year warranty period.

General Park/Storm Basin:

13. Provide minimum of 1 acre of upland area per basin (above the stormwater 48 hour/10-year flood line) for parks and recreation amenities/improvements, with shape and dimensions acceptable to the Public Works Department – Parks Division.

14. Park/basin improvements and design shall follow the City of Manteca Standards and Specifications for Landscape Development and shall be approved by the Public Works Department – Parks Division.

ATTACHMENT 13
24 15. Design with the goal of engineering and physical solutions to treating storm water as to not diminish the recreational function or net useable park space within the park/basin.

16. Basin configuration shall be shaped to maximize sports fields shape and sizes (full size preferable).

17. If Basin includes LID improvements, location of treatment areas are subject to approval with the Parks department prior to construction documents. LID along with side slopes if provided in basin shall be excluded from parkland acreage.

18. Sidewalks leading into the park shall be a minimum of 10 feet in width with a flush entrance and bollard.

19. Bench minimum at top of Storm Basin shall be 8 feet per current Landscape Development Standards and Specifications.

20. Basin bottom elevation shall be a minimum of two feet above the seasonal high groundwater elevation to prevent groundwater intrusion. The addition of permanent subsurface dewatering systems may also be required, if needed.

21. Basin shall have a maximum water depth of five feet.

22. Locations of in-ground and above-ground utility structures within park/basin are subject to prior review and approval of Public Works Department – Parks Division. Above ground utilities shall be kept clear of picnic and play areas as to maintain visibility from street.

23. Locations of storm drain lift stations and future potable well sites shall follow the City of Manteca Standards and Specifications for Landscape Development and shall be approved by the Public Works Department – Parks Division

24. Basin improvements shall be included in the Community Facilities District (CFD), or other funding mechanism, to provide resources for landscape and park maintenance costs as per the requirements listed under the formation requirements. Developer shall be responsible for maintenance of improvements until sufficient funding is available/collected for City to maintain.

25. Park improvements and maintenance funding mechanism shall be governed by the City of Manteca Parkland Construction Policy.

26. Developer shall provide 6” sewer stub, electrical and potable water stub to a location for future restroom when Park expands. Area shall be planned for in current design.

Streetscapes/Medians/Landscape areas:

27. Streetscape, medians, park basin and bike path landscape improvements shall be included in the Community Facilities District (CFD), or other funding mechanism, to provide resources for landscape and park maintenance costs as per the requirements listed under the formation requirements. Developer shall be responsible for maintenance of improvements until sufficient funding is available/collected for City to maintain.

ATTACHMENT 13
25 28. In areas where South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID) pipeline easements are located within the boundaries of streetscape, medians or landscape areas, SSJID and the City of Manteca Public Works Department – Parks Division shall both approve landscape plans including tree variety, setbacks, root protection methods, etc. The landscape plans shall not be considered approved until they are signed by the Public Works Department – Parks Division.

29. No turf grass is permitted in any streetscapes, unless approved by the Public Works Department – Parks Division.

30. Developer shall be responsible for maintenance of improvements until sufficient funding through the collection of full special tax revenue is available/collected for City to maintain. This may be accomplished through a maintenance agreement, direct payment to City or other means.

City of Manteca Information Technology Department Conditions

1. Send GIS staff the proposed street name list, CAD file, and exhibit when available.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

1. This project shall comply with all applicable requirements from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation & Open Space Plan (SJMSCP)

1. This Project is subject to the SJMSCP and is required to comply with the SJMSCP permitting process.

San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department

1. Any existing wells or septic systems to be abandoned shall be destroyed under permit and inspection by the EHD (San Joaquin County Development Title, Section 9-1110.3 & 9-1110.4).

2. Any geotechnical drilling shall be conducted under permit and inspection by The Environmental Health Department (San Joaquin County Development Title, Section 9- 1115.3 and 9-1115.6).

Manteca Unified School District

1. Developer shall contact Manteca Unified School District Facilities Planning regarding school fees and requirements and shall provide proof of payment or waiver of such fees to the Development Services Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.

ATTACHMENT 13
26 ACKNLOWLEDGEMENT OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS

MUST BE CERTIFIED BY A NOTARY PUBLIC
The City reserves the right to withhold the finalization of the structure(s) and/or terminate City utilities (i.e., shut off water and sewer) until all conditions of the City-approved site plan have been completed. Please contact the Development Services Department if you are unable to complete the site plan improvements prior to occupancy of the project.

The fees associated with this project are payable at the time of building permit issuance.

For information on fees associated with the project, please contact the Building Safety Division at 209-456-8550.

I, as the site plan applicant, or authorized agent for the site plan applicant, have read and understand the conditions of approval and requirements for this development project. I, further, understand that this site plan runs with the ownership of the land and any transfer of ownership must include all uncompleted site plan requirements. I hereby acknowledge all conditions and requirements of the site plan approval.

Date Authorized Signature
Date Authorized Signature
ATTACHMENT 13
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
for the
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
City of Manteca, San Joaquin County, California
State Clearinghouse No. 2023040168
Prepared for:

City of Manteca
Community Development Department
1215 W. Center St., Suite 201
Manteca, CA 95337
209.456.8516
Contact: Lea Simvoulakis, Deputy Director-Planning
Prepared by:

De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
916.580.9818
Contact: Steve McMurtry, Principal
May 15, 2023
ATTACHMENT EXHIBIT G13
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 2023
Indelicato Property Subdivision 2
This document is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Indelicato Property Subdivision Project (Project). This MMRP has been prepared pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code, which requires public agencies to “adopt a reporting and monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” A MMRP is required for the proposed Project because the MND has identified significant adverse impacts, and measures have been identified to mitigate those impacts.

The numbering of the individual mitigation measures follows the numbering sequence as found in the Initial Study.

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The MMRP, as outlined in the following table, describes mitigation timing, monitoring responsibilities, and compliance verification responsibility for all mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study.

The City of Manteca will be the primary agency responsible for implementing the mitigation measures and will continue to monitor mitigation measures that are required to be implemented during the operation of the proposed Project.

The MMRP is presented in tabular form on the following pages. The components of the MMRP are described briefly below:
• Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures are taken from the Initial Study in the same order that they appear in that document.
• Mitigation Timing: Identifies at which stage of the project mitigation must be completed. • Monitoring Responsibility: Identifies the agency that is responsible for mitigation monitoring.
• Compliance Verification: This is a space that is available for the monitor to date and initial when the monitoring or mitigation implementation took place.

ATTACHMENT EXHIBIT G13
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 2023
Indelicato Property Subdivision 3
TABLE 1: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
Mitigation Measure AG-1: Prior to the conversion of important farmland on the Project site, the Project applicant shall participate in the City’s agricultural mitigation fee program and the SJMSCP by paying the established fees on a per-acre basis for the loss of important farmland. Fees paid toward the City’s program shall be used to fund conservation easements on comparable or better agricultural lands to provide compensatory mitigation.

City of Manteca
Community
Development
Department
Prior to the
conversion of
important
farmland on the
Project site

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Prior to commencement of any grading activities, the Project proponent shall seek coverage under the SJMSCP to mitigate for habitat impacts to covered special status species. Coverage involves compensation for habitat impacts on covered species through implementation of incidental take and minimization Measures (ITMMs) and payment of fees for conversion of lands that may provide habitat for covered special status species. These fees are used to preserve and/or create habitat in preserves to be managed in perpetuity. Obtaining coverage for a Project includes incidental take authorization (permits) under the Endangered Species Act Section 10(a), California Fish and Game Code Section 2081, and the MBTA. Coverage under the SJMSCP would fully mitigate all habitat impacts on covered special-status species.

City of Manteca
Community
Development
Department
SJCOG
Prior to
commencement
of any grading
activities

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to
Section15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: The Project applicant shall ensure that a training session for all workers is conducted in advance of the initiation of construction activities at the site. The training session will provide information on recognition of artifacts, human remains, and cultural deposits to help in the recognition of potential issues.

City of Manteca
Community
Development
Department
In advance of
the initiation of
construction
activities at the
site
ATTACHMENT EXHIBIT G13
2023 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
4 Indelicato Property Subdivision

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: The Project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to observe initial ground disturbance activities, during initial grading. If artifacts, exotic rock, shell or bone are uncovered during the construction, the archaeologist will be able to document the finding, and determine if additional work is necessary to excavate or remove the artifacts or feature.

Mitigation Measure CUL-3: If cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric sites, historic sites, isolated artifacts/features, and paleontological sites) are discovered during construction, work shall be halted immediately within 50 meters (165 feet) of the discovery, the City of Manteca shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology (or a qualified paleontologist in the event paleontological resources are found) shall be retained to determine the significance of the discovery. The City of Manteca shall consider recommendations presented by the professional for any unanticipated discoveries and shall carry out the measures deemed feasible and appropriate. Such measures may include avoidance, preservation in place, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures. Specific measures are developed based on the significance of the find.

Mitigation Measure CUL-4: If any human remains are found during grading and construction activities, all work shall be halted immediately within 50 meters (165 feet) of the discovery and the County Coroner must be notified, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined to City of Manteca
Community
Development
Department
Qualified
archaeologist
City of Manteca
Community
Development
Department
Qualified
archaeologist
City of Manteca
Community
Development
Department
If cultural
resources (i.e.,
prehistoric sites,
historic sites,
isolated
artifacts/feature
s, and
paleontological
sites) are
discovered
during
construction
If cultural
resources (i.e.,
prehistoric sites,
historic sites,
isolated
artifacts/feature
s, and
paleontological
sites) are
discovered
during
construction
If any human
remains are
found during
grading and
construction
ATTACHMENT EXHIBIT G13
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 2023
Indelicato Property Subdivision 5

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
be Native American, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission, and the procedures outlined in CEQA Section 15064.5(d) and (e) shall be followed. Additionally, if the Native American resources are identified, a Native American monitor, following the Guidelines for Monitors/Consultants of Native American Cultural, Religious, and Burial Sites established by the Native American Heritage Commission, may also be required and, if required, shall be retained at the applicant’s expense.

County coroner
Native American
Heritage
Commission
activities

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:

Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Prior to issuance of any building permits, the Project applicant shall be required to submit building plans to the City of Manteca for review and approval. The building plans shall also comply with all applicable requirements of the most recent California Building Standards Code. All on-site soil engineering activities shall be conducted under the supervision of a licensed geotechnical engineer or certified engineering geologist.

City of Manteca
Community
Development
Department
Certified
engineering
geologist
Prior to issuance
of any building
permits
Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil?
Mitigation Measure GEO-2: The Project applicant shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the RWQCB in accordance with the NPDES General Construction Permit requirements. The SWPPP shall be designed to control pollutant discharges City of Manteca
Community
Development
Prior to
earthmoving
activities
ATTACHMENT EXHIBIT G13
2023 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
6 Indelicato Property Subdivision

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
utilizing Best Management Practices (BMPs) and technology to reduce erosion and sediments. BMPs may consist of a wide variety of measures taken to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff from the Project site. Measures shall include temporary erosion control measures (such as silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps, check dams, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary revegetation or other ground cover) that will be employed to control erosion from disturbed areas. Final selection of BMPs will be subject to approval by the City of Manteca and the RWQCB. The SWPPP will be kept on site during construction activity and will be made available upon request to representatives of the RWQCB.

Department
Regional Water
Quality Control
Board

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: The Project applicant shall hire a qualified consultant to perform soil and site testing to check whether hazardous conditions are present, prior to any grading activities. The soil sampling shall address the presence/absence of hazardous substances in the soils, including agrichemicals and/or petroleum products. A soil sampling and analysis workplan shall be shall be prepared and meet the requirements of the Department of Toxic Substances Control Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (2008). The soils in the area where farming equipment and/or tanks have been stored should be included in the soil sampling and analysis workplan.

If the sampling results indicate the presence of agrichemicals that exceed commercial screening levels, a removal action workplan shall be prepared in coordination with San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department. The removal action workplan shall include a detailed engineering plan for conducting the removal action, a description of the on-site contamination, the goals to be achieved by the removal action, and any alternative removal options that were considered and rejected and the basis for that rejection. A no further action letter shall be issued by San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department upon completion of the removal action. The removal action shall be deemed complete when the confirmation samples exhibit concentrations below the commercial screening levels, which will be San Joaquin
County
Department of
Environmental
Health
City of Manteca
Community
Development
Department
Prior to any
grading
activities
ATTACHMENT EXHIBIT G13
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 2023
Indelicato Property Subdivision 7

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
established by the agencies.

If asbestos-containing materials and/or lead are found in the buildings, a California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) certified asbestos containing building materials (ACBM) and lead based paint contractor shall be retained to remove the asbestos-containing materials and lead in accordance with EPA and Cal/OSHA standards. In addition, all activities (construction or demolition) in the vicinity of these materials shall comply with Cal/OSHA asbestos and lead worker construction standards. The ACBM and lead shall be disposed of properly at an appropriate offsite disposal facility.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Prior to initiation of any ground disturbance activities within 50 feet of a well, the Project applicant shall hire a licensed well contractor to obtain a well abandonment permit from San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department, and properly abandon the on-site wells, pursuant to review and approval of the City Engineer and the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department.

San Joaquin
County
Department of
Environmental
Health
City of Manteca
Engineer
Prior to
initiation of any
ground
disturbance
activities within
50 feet of a well
NOISE
Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other
agencies?
Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: Construction activities shall adhere to the requirements of the City of Manteca Municipal Code with respect to hours of operation. This requirement shall be noted in the improvements plans prior to approval by the City’s Public Works Department.

All equipment shall be fitted with factory equipped mufflers, and in good working order. This requirement shall be noted in the improvements plans prior to approval by the City’s Public Works Department.

Mitigation Measure NOISE-2: A 10-foot-tall barrier shall be constructed along the Airport Way frontage, adjacent to proposed Project residential uses, in order to achieve the City’s exterior noise standards. Noise barrier walls shall be constructed of concrete panels, concrete masonry units, earthen berms, or any combination of these materials that achieve the required total height.

City of Manteca
Public Works
Department
City of Manteca
Public Works
Department
Prior to
approval of
improvements
plans
Prior to
approval of
improvements
plans
ATTACHMENT EXHIBIT G13
2023 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
8 Indelicato Property Subdivision

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Wood is not recommended due to eventual warping and degradation of acoustical performance. These requirements shall be included in the improvements plans prior to their approval by the City’s Public Works Department. Figure 3.11-3 in the Noise Study shows the recommended sound wall locations.

Mitigation Measure NOISE-3: For the first rows of lots adjacent to the Airport Way right of way, second floor exterior facades with a view of Airport Way would need the following noise control measures:
• Windows shall have a sound transmission class (STC) rating of 38. • Interior gypsum at exterior walls shall be 5/8” hung on resilient channels;
• Ceiling gypsum shall be 5/8”;
• Exterior finish shall be stucco, fiber cement lap siding, or system with equivalent weight per square foot;
• Mechanical ventilation shall be installed in all residential uses to allow residents to keep doors and windows closed, as desired for acoustical isolation.
• As an alternative to the above-listed interior noise control measures, the applicant may provide a detailed analysis of interior noise control measures once building plans become available. The analysis should be prepared by a qualified noise control engineer and shall outline the specific measures required to meet the City of Manteca 45 dB Ldn interior noise level standard.

City of Manteca
Community
Development
Department
Prior to
approval of
improvements
plans
Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Mitigation Measure NOISE-4: Any compaction required less than 26 feet from the adjacent residential structures shall be accomplished by using static drum rollers which use weight instead of vibrations to achieve soil compaction. As an alternative to this requirement, pre-construction crack documentation and construction vibration monitoring could be conducted to ensure that construction vibrations do not cause damage to any adjacent structures.

City of Manteca
Public Works
Department
Prior to
approval of
improvements
plans
ATTACHMENT EXHIBIT G13
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 2023
Indelicato Property Subdivision 9

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)

PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for
any of the public services:

Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Mitigation Measure PUBLIC-1: The Project applicant shall pay applicable park in-lieu fees or dedicate parkland in accordance with the City of Manteca Municipal Code standards outlined in Chapter 3.20. Proof of payment of the in-lieu fees shall be submitted to the City Engineer.

City of Manteca
Engineer
Prior to
approval of
improvements
plans

UTILITIES
Require or result in the relocation
or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater or
storm water drainage, electric
power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of
which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: Prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit, the Project applicant shall submit a drainage plan to the City of Manteca for review and approval. The plan shall include an engineered storm drainage plan that demonstrates attainment of pre-Project runoff requirements prior to release at the outlet canal and describes the volume reduction measures and treatment controls used to reach attainment consistent with the Manteca Storm Drain Master Plan.

City of Manteca
Public Works
Department
Prior to the
issuance of a
building or
grading permit
ATTACHMENT EXHIBIT G13
2023 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
10 Indelicato Property Subdivision

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry
and multiple dry years?
Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the projects
projected demand in addition to
the providers existing
commitments?
ATTACHMENT EXHIBIT G13
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 2023
Indelicato Property Subdivision 11
This page left intentionally blank.

ATTACHMENT EXHIBIT G13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 1

LIST OF COMMENTERS
Table 1 lists the comments on the Draft IS/MND that were submitted to the City of Manteca (City) during the public review period for the proposed Indelicato Property Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). CEQA statutes do not require a formal response to comment for an IS/MND; however, the City has chosen to provide formal responses to all comment letters for informational purposes. The assigned comment letter or number, letter date, letter author, and affiliation, if presented in the comment letter or if representing a public agency, are also listed. Letters received are coded with letters (A, B, etc.).

TABLE 1 LIST OF COMMENTERS ON DRAFT IS/MND

RESPONSE
LETTER

INDIVIDUAL OR SIGNATORY AFFILIATION DATE
A Richard and Marilyn Armstrong Resident 4-12-23
B Group Letter with the following 43
Signatories from the Del Webb
Neighborhood/Woodbridge:

1. Nancy Behney

2. Deborah L. De La Cruz

3. Joy Hurlbut

4. Robert and Shirley Reynolds

5. Cheryl Grady

6. John Green

7. Robert and Marlyn Armstrong

8. Pat Wolfe

9. Donald Harris

10. Michael and Debra Machado

11. Cindy Jackson

12. Edwina and Michael Rich

13. Chalres and Nacy Pew

14. Bill and Linda Miller

15. Ed and Marietta Araya

16. Roger Gibson

17. Cynthia Thompson (2)

18. Patrick McDonald

19. Mariana Wilson

20. Anita Snyder

21. James Germaine

22. Jo Ann Germaine

23. Randall William

24. Maggie William

25. Ben and Margaret Kimura

26. Perry Gibson

27. Deanna Langworthy

28. Santi Afrolan

29. Mercedes Foote

30. Frank Lucerno

31. John and Diane Lennert
Del Webb Neighbors 4-26-23
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project

RESPONSE
LETTER

INDIVIDUAL OR SIGNATORY AFFILIATION DATE

32. Julie Verduzco

33. Ronald and Nancy Berger

34. Jon and Deborah Ford

35. Rodger and Judith Goodnow

36. Irma Lewis

37. Andrew Edmanor

38. David and Carolyn Bray

39. Bob and LaVerne Onorato

40. Judith Legos

41. Mike and Sandra Raubenher

42. Yolanda Rodelander

43. Joseph Relks
C Mike Spence Resident 4-27-23
D Bill Barnhart Resident 4-30-23
E Mark Voss Resident 4-30-23
F Terry Voss Resident 4-30-23
G Zach Kearns California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife 5-3-23 H HJ Heaney Resident 5-5-23
I Phyllis McDonald Resident 5-7-23
J Phyllis McDonald Resident 5-8-23

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
The lead agency is evaluating and responding to all comments on the that regard an environmental issue.

The written response addresses the environmental issue raised and provides a detailed response. The written response is a good faith and reasoned analysis. It is noted that lead agencies need only to respond to significant environmental issues associated with the proposed Project and do not need to provide all the information requested by the commenter, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure.

RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
Written comments on the CEQA document are reproduced on the following pages, along with responses to those comments. To assist in referencing comments and responses, the following coding system is used:
• Each letter is lettered or numbered (i.e., Letter A) and each comment within each letter is numbered (i.e., comment A-1, comment A-2).

ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 3
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
4 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 5
Response to Letter A: Richard and Marilyn Armstrong
Response A-1: The commenter expresses concerns related to privacy and states that their biggest concern is the two-story homes proposed along the south perimeter of their community.

While the comment does not address the environmental concerns, adequacy of the IS/MND, or compliance with CEQA, this comment is noted for its design concerns and has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration of topics beyond the adequacy of the IS/MND.

It is noted that, in response to the design concerns of this commenter and other Woodbridge residents, the Project proponent met with various Woodbridge representatives to discuss their design concerns and to compromise on key issues. As part of this dialogue, Project proponent has agreed that all lots immediately adjacent to the existing Woodbridge development shall be restricted to single-story homes. This agreement was not warranted to mitigate a CEQA impact, but instead represents the Project proponent’s good faith effort to respond to design concerns of neighbors.

ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
6 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 7
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
8 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 9
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
10 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 11
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
12 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 13
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
14 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 15
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
16 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 17
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
18 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 19
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
20 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 21
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
22 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 23
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
24 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 25
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
26 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 27
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
28 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 29
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
30 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 31
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
32 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 33
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
34 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 35
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
36 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 37
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
38 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 39
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
40 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 41
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
42 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 43
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
44 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 45
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
46 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 47
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
48 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 49
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
50 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 51
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
52 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
Response to Letter B: Del Webb Neighbors
Response B-1: The commenter includes an introduction page to the attachment. The attachment includes a form letter which was duplicated and signed by the following members of the Del Webb community:

1. Nancy Behney

2. Deborah L. De La Cruz

3. Joy Hurlbut

4. Robert and Shirley Reynolds

5. Cheryl Grady

6. John Green

7. Robert and Marlyn Armstrong

8. Pat Wolfe

9. Donald Harris

10. Michael and Debra Machado

11. Cindy Jackson

12. Edwina and Michael Rich

13. Charles and Nacy Pew

14. Bill and Linda Miller

15. Ed and Marietta Araya

16. Roger Gibson

17. Cynthia Thompson (2)

18. Patrick McDonald

19. Mariana Wilson

20. Anita Snyder

21. James Germaine

22. Jo Ann Germaine

23. Randall William

24. Maggie William

25. Ben and Margaret Kimura

26. Perry Gibson

27. Deanna Langworthy

28. Santi Afrolan

29. Mercedes Foote

30. Frank Lucerno

31. John and Diane Lennert

32. Julie Verduzco

33. Ronald and Nancy Berger

34. Jon and Deborah Ford

35. Rodger and Judith Goodnow

36. Irma Lewis

37. Andrew Edmanor

38. David and Carolyn Bray

39. Bob and LaVerne Onorato

40. Judith Legos

41. Mike and Sandra Raubenher

42. Yolanda Rodelander

43. Joseph Relks
The responses to the listed concerns in the form letter are included in Responses B-2 through B-6.

ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 53
Response B-2: The commenter provides an introductory statement, questions if existing fences will be a common fence for the new residences, and questions if homes along the perimeter will be single-story.

While the comment does not address environmental concerns, adequacy of the IS/MND, or compliance with CEQA, this comment is noted for its design concerns and has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration of topics beyond the adequacy of the IS/MND.

It is noted that, in response to the design concerns of this commenter and other Woodbridge residents, the Project proponent met with various Woodbridge representatives to discuss their design concerns and to compromise on key issues. As part of this dialogue, Project proponent has agreed that all lots immediately adjacent to the existing Woodbridge development shall be restricted to single-story homes. This agreement was not warranted to mitigate a CEQA impact, but instead represents the Project proponent’s good faith effort to respond to design concerns of neighbors.

Response B-3: The commenter questions if grading and construction would be planned to avoid drainage flowing into their back yards and homes in adjacent communities.

Impacts associated with stormwater and drainage are discussed in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, on pages 64 and 65 of the IS/MND. As discussed, drainage improvements associated with the Project site would be located on the Project site, and the proposed Project would not alter or adversely impact offsite drainage facilities. The proposed Project would increase impervious surfaces throughout the Project site from new concrete and paved surfaces, as well as the residences. The proposed Project would require the installation of storm drainage infrastructure to ensure that storm waters properly drain from the Project site. The proposed storm drainage plan includes an engineered network of storm drain lines, manholes, inlets, and a water quality basin. The storm drainage plan was designed and engineered to ensure proper construction of storm drainage infrastructure to control runoff and prevent flooding, erosion, and sedimentation. The City Engineer reviews all storm drainage plans, including the calculations that are generated as part of the engineering of the planned infrastructure, as part of the improvement plan submittal to ensure that all facilities are designed to the City’s standards and specifications. The City Engineer also reviews all storm drainage plans to ensure that post-project runoff does not exceed pre-project runoff. The City Engineer’s review of pre- and post-project runoff is intended to ensure that the capacity of the existing storm drainage system is not exceeded. This determination is ultimately made by the City Engineer during the improvement plan review and approval. The City Engineer has been involved in the review of all project plans and calculations from project inception.

Additionally, the proposed Project is subject to the requirements of Chapter 13.28 of the Manteca Municipal Code – Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. The purpose of these requirements is to “establish minimum storm water management requirements ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
54 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
and controls to protect and safeguard the general health, safety and welfare of the public residing in watersheds within the city of Manteca”. These requirements are intended to assist in the protection and enhancement of the water quality of watercourses, water bodies, and wetlands in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act, 33 USC Section 1251 et seq.), Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code Section 13000 et seq.) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) Permit No. CAS000004, as such permit is amended and/or renewed.

Stormwater infrastructure is also discussed in Section XIX, Utilities and Service Systems, on pages 109 and 110 of the IS/MND. As discussed, because the Project site could increase runoff significantly, and create downstream drainage problems, Project impacts to stormwater were considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measures UTIL-1 was developed to address this potentially significant impact. This measure requires the Project applicant to submit a drainage plan to the City of Manteca for review and approval. The plan must include an engineered storm drainage plan that demonstrates attainment of pre-Project runoff requirements prior to release at the storm drainage outlet and describes the volume reduction measures and treatment controls used to reach attainment consistent with the Manteca Storm Drain Master Plan. With the implementation of a storm drainage that meets all city standards as outlined in the measure, the impact would be reduced to an insignificant level.

Response B-4: The commenter questions what the rules and regulations will be for landscaping. The commenter also discusses tree planting methods to ensure concrete and underground infrastructure is maintained.

As discussed in the IS/MND, landscaping would be provided as part of the Project. The Project would be subject to the City’s Landscaping Ordinance (Chapter 17.48 of the Municipal Code). Section 17.48.040 of the Code outlines planting size, spacing, and widths, including provisions for trees which abut residential property. This ordinance as designed to regulate landscaping in the city and effectively addresses concerns raised by the commenter.

Response B-5: The commenter questions if the property will be watered down during construction to limit dust and dirt.

As discussed in Section III, Air Quality, of the IS/MND, construction would result in numerous activities that would generate dust. The fine, silty soils in the project area and often strong afternoon winds exacerbate the potential for dust, particularly in the summer months. Impacts would be localized and variable. Construction impacts would last for a period of several months to several years. The initial phase of project construction would involve grading and site preparation activities, followed by building construction. Construction activities that could generate dust and vehicle emissions are primarily related to grading, soil excavation, and other ground-preparation activities, as well as building construction.

ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 55
Control measures are required and enforced by the SJVAPCD under Regulation VIII. The SJVAPCD considers construction-related emissions from all projects in this region to be mitigated to a less than significant level if SJVAPCD-recommended PM10 fugitive dust rules and equipment exhaust emissions controls are implemented. The proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable measures from SJVAPCD Rule VIII. This rule includes measures that may include watering the soils, and other soil stabilizing methods. Watering the soil is the most common and economically feasible soil stabilizing method used by contractors in Manteca and is the method anticipated for the proposed Project.

Response B-6: This comment serves as a conclusion to the letter and does not warrant a response.

This comment is noted. No further response is necessary.

ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
56 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 57
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
58 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
Response to Letter C: Mike Spence
Response C-1: The commentor states background information regarding the design of the Project and discussions between the nearby neighbors, the Project applicant, and the City. The commenter also discusses the Union Ranch Specific Plan design. The commenter concludes by requesting mitigation of vision trespass from second stories vantages by either (or combinations of) requiring only single-story homes, insertion of an open-space corridor along the Woodbridge boundary, installation of an eight-foot concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall along project’s permitter with Woodbridge, if two-story homes are allowed and adjacent to Woodbridge, minimize the quantity and size, as well as, maximizing the floor to bottom edge of the window distance.

The comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND, or compliance with CEQA.

Instead, this comment expresses design concerns from the potential visibility of new residents in second stories having visibility into the existing resident’s yards/homes.

These concerns along with the recommendations for ameliorating the concerns are noted and have been forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration of topics beyond the adequacy of the IS/MND.

It is noted that, in response to the design concerns of this commenter and other Woodbridge residents, the Project proponent met with various Woodbridge representatives to discuss their design concerns and to compromise on key issues. As part of this dialogue, Project proponent has agreed that all lots immediately adjacent to the existing Woodbridge development shall be restricted to single-story homes. This agreement was not warranted to mitigate a CEQA impact, but instead represents the Project proponent’s good faith effort to respond to design concerns of neighbors.

ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 59
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
60 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 61
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
62 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 63
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
64 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 65
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
66 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 67
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
68 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 69
Response to Letter D: Bill Barnhart
Response D-1: This comment is noted. This comment is an email with an attached letter. It serves as an introduction to the letter and does not warrant a response. No further response is necessary.

Response D-2: This comment is noted. This comment serves as an introduction to the letter. See Responses D-3 through D-7.

Response D-3: The commenter states that Pulte was required to place 8-foot to 12-foot block walls around most of Woodbridge and place greenbelts along the various site boundaries. The commenter states that the proposed Project does not include greenbelts, and concludes by requesting that the same fencing/wall requirements be levied on abutting developments that were required of the Woodbridge development, and that residential heights for homes backing their residential area be considered.

While the comment does not address environmental concerns, adequacy of the IS/MND, or compliance with CEQA, this comment is noted for its design concerns and has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration of topics beyond the adequacy of the IS/MND.

It is noted that, in response to the design concerns of this commenter and other Woodbridge residents, the Project proponent met with various Woodbridge representatives to discuss their design concerns and to compromise on key issues. As part of this dialogue, Project proponent has agreed that all lots immediately adjacent to the existing Woodbridge development shall be restricted to single-story homes. This agreement was not warranted to mitigate a CEQA impact, but instead represents the Project proponent’s good faith effort to respond to design concerns of neighbors. Upon receipt of Developer’s letter, the commenter withdrew the statements made in Response D-3.

Response D-4: The commenter states that bus pullout areas are included for Woodbridge and a development on Airport Way between Louise and the railroad tracks. The commenter concludes by stating that a safety impact could occur if a pullout is not provided.

As noted on page 84 of the IS/MND, the Project would generate approximately 57 K-6 students, 16 7-8 students, and 35 9-12 students (for a total of 108 students). It is anticipated that between five to ten percent of the students would utilize public transportation, and that the school transit would establish several pickup/drop-off locations within the subdivision, as opposed to on Airport Way. Additionally, school kids walking or riding a bike to school would be anticipated to utilize the sidewalk improvements that would be constructed along the project frontage, travel south on the already developed sidewalk along Airport Way, and then utilize the walking path/trail along the southside of Woodbridge to ultimately connect to Lathrop Road near the London Road intersection. This intersection has an existing signal and crosswalk to ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
70 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
facilitate safe travel. From that intersection there is existing sidewalk and crosswalks to George McParland Elementary School. Alternatively, from Lathrop Road kids could travel eastbound along the existing sidewalks to Union Road, then south to East Union High School. This path has existing signals, crosswalk, and sidewalks to facilitate safe travel.

Any need for a bus turnout along Airport Way would be specifically identified by Manteca Transit. The closest bus stop to the Project site is served by Manteca Transit Route 3 and located at Chadwick Park approximately 1 and ¼ miles away. The traffic report addresses existing transit on page 10 of the traffic report. Generally, curbside transit stops in the study area are identified with posted signs and do not include passenger amenities such as a shelter, seating, landscaping, bicycle parking, or pedestrian-scale lighting. The Manteca Transit does not currently have plans for a route along Airport Way north of Northgate (Route 4). As Manteca Transit considers expanding their current routes, or adding new routes, the existing and planned residences along Airport Road north of Lathrop Road would benefit from a transit route, however, there is not currently any plans.

Response D-5: The commenter states that the nearest recreational area will be Woodbridge parks and that the students generated by the Project will need recreational areas immediately. The commenter concludes by stating that the proposed park needs to be completed before the first home sales to help mitigate what they feel would be a very significant impact on our private parks here in Woodbridge.

Impacts associated with recreational facilities are discussed in Section XVI, Recreation, on page 87 of the IS/MND. As discussed, the proposed Project would result in the construction of up to 173 single-family residential homes, which would result in up to an estimated 513 individuals. The City of Manteca General Plan Policy PF-P-49 calls for city park acquisition efforts to be based on the goal of 5 acres of developed neighborhood and community parkland per 1,000 residents within the City parks. Therefore, the estimated new demand for parks generated by the proposed Project is approximately

2.69 acres of new parks. The proposed Project includes the construction of 3.03 acres of new parks, which satisfies the City of Manteca General Plan Policy PF-P-49. However, the City reviews each proposed Project and assigns park credit based on its function and design (i.e. dual use basins do not receive full credit). Park in-lieu fees ultimately fund the construction of new park land to offset the increased demand for these facilities, as required by Mitigation Measure PUBLIC-1.

It is noted that, in response to the design concerns of this commenter and other Woodbridge residents, the Project proponent met with various Woodbridge representatives to discuss their design concerns and to compromise on key issues. As part of this dialogue, Project proponent has agreed that all lots immediately adjacent to the existing Woodbridge development shall be restricted to single-story homes. This agreement was not warranted to mitigate a CEQA impact, but instead represents the Project proponent’s good faith effort to respond to design concerns of neighbors. Upon ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 71
receipt of Developer’s letter, the commenter withdrew the statement made in Response D-5.

Response D-6: The commenter states that the main entrance/exit of the proposed Project should have both right and left access to avoid traveling north to make a U-turn at Lovelace Road/Airport Way.

Impacts associated with traffic hazards are discussed on pages 103 and 104 of the IS/MND. No traffic hazards were identified. This comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration of topics beyond the adequacy of the IS/MND.

Response D-7: The commenter urges the City to have a master plan for developing the area near Woodbridge. This comment serves as a conclusion to the letter.

While the comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND, or compliance with CEQA, this comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration of topics beyond the adequacy of the IS/MND.

It is noted that, in response to the concerns of this commenter and other Woodbridge residents, the Project proponent met with various Woodbridge representatives to discuss their concerns and to compromise on key issues. As part of this dialogue, Project proponent has agreed that all lots immediately adjacent to the existing Woodbridge development shall be restricted to single-story homes. This agreement was not warranted to mitigate a CEQA impact, but instead represents the Project proponent’s good faith effort to respond to design concerns of neighbors. Upon receipt of Project proponent’s response letter, the commenter withdrew the statements made in Response D-7.

ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
72 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 73
Response to Letter E: Mark Voss
Response E-1: The commenter expresses general concerns regarding children walking to and from school through the community relating to litter, loiter, smoke, and noise.

Noise impacts are discussed in Section XIII, Noise, of the IS/MND. The noise levels will not exceed noise levels established by the City’s Noise Ordinance. The other concerns presented (loitering, smoking, etc.) are not environmental concerns addressed under CEQA and do not address the adequacy of the IS/MND, or compliance with CEQA.

Nevertheless, this comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration of topics beyond the adequacy of the IS/MND.

ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
74 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 75
Response to Letter F: Terry Voss
Response F-1: The commenter provides background information regarding why they chose to move to the Del Webb Community and concerns regarding homes built north of Del Webb.

While the comment does not address environmental concerns, adequacy of the IS/MND, or compliance with CEQA, this comment is noted for its concerns and has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration of topics beyond the adequacy of the IS/MND.

It is noted that, in response to the concerns of this commenter and other Woodbridge residents, the Project proponent met with various Woodbridge representatives to discuss their concerns and to compromise on key issues. As part of this dialogue, Project proponent has agreed that all lots immediately adjacent to the existing Woodbridge development shall be restricted to single-story homes. This agreement was not warranted to mitigate a CEQA impact, but instead represents the Project proponent’s good faith effort to respond to design concerns of neighbors.

Response F-2: The commenter discusses traffic concerns near Chick-Fil-A and states that they would not like to see the traffic or children in Del Webb, at their parks, or passing through.

Traffic is addressed within the Traffic Report, as well as the traffic section of the IS/MND.

The traffic does not exceed thresholds of significance established for the City. The other concerns presented (kids) are not environmental concerns addressed under CEQA and do not address the adequacy of the IS/MND, or compliance with CEQA. Nevertheless, this comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration of topics beyond the adequacy of the IS/MND.

ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
76 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 77
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
78 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 79
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
80 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 81
Response to Letter G: California Department of Fish and Wildlife Response G-1: The commenter summarizes the responsibilities of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and summarizes the proposed Project details.

This comment is noted. This comment serves as an introduction to the letter and does not warrant a response. No further response is necessary.

Response G-2: The commenter states that white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) has the potential to occur within or adjacent to the Project area. The commenter also states that Project activities should be designed to completely avoid any fully protected species that have the potential to occur within or adjacent to the Project site.

Impacts associated with special-status species, including white-tailed kite, are discussed in Section IV, Biological Resources, of the IS/MND. As stated on pages 30 and 38 of the IS/MND, white-tailed kite is a commonly observed raptor species in the region and is protected from take pursuant to the Fish and Game Code of California Section 3503.5, and the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, among other federal and State regulations.

According to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), there is one documented occurrence of this species within 15 miles of the Project site. The occurrence is located approximately 6.55 miles north of the site and was documented in 2002. This species, however, is very common and the one occurrence does not represent the abundance of this species throughout the region.

White-tailed kite is a covered species under the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP). As required by Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the Project would be required seek coverage under the SJMSCP, which involves compensation for habitat impacts on covered species through implementation of incidental take and minimization Measures (ITMMs) and payment of fees for conversion of lands that may provide habitat for covered special status species.

The Project site is in the SJMSCP Central Zone. Chapter 5 of the SJMSCP includes ITMMs for Project Proponents to implement. ITMMs shall be completed prior to Site Disturbance (normally prior to grading) as indicated in the conditions of project approval. Some ITMMs will be carried out during project construction. The cost of implementing ITMMs is the responsibility of the Project Proponent. The SJMSCP Joint Powers Authority (JPA) is responsible for costs and implementation of relocation efforts as approved by the Permitting Agencies and as determined necessary through preconstruction surveys.

It is noted that, in response to Comment G-3, white-tailed kite was added to the specialstatus wildlife species table (Table BIO-2) of the Final IS/MND.

Response G-3: The commenter states that Table BIO-2 should be updated and verified, and lists three species (tricolored blackbird, California tiger salamander, and American peregrine falcon) that need updating.

ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
82 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
To address this comment, the Initial Study was revised to update and verify the species listed in this comment as well as other species documented in the region. See the Final IS/MND for the changes to the table.

Response G-4: The commenter discusses and summarizes Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the Fish and Game Code. The commenter then recommends that a pre-construction nesting bird survey if vegetation removal or earthwork is scheduled during the nesting season, typically February 1 through August 31. Additionally, the commenter states that CDFW typically recommends surveying a minimum of a 500-foot radius for migrating birds, and a ½-mile radius for nesting raptors.

As discussed in Chapter 5 of the SJMSCP, there are four categories of preconstruction surveys necessary to the implementation of the SJMSCP:

A. Preconstruction surveys to verify vegetation types affected by the project and to determine if SJMSCP Covered Species are present and, if present, attaching Incidental Take Minimization Measures as conditions of project approval for individual projects (see Section 5.2.2.5 [of the SJMSCP] for survey methodologies and Section 5.2.2.4 [of the SJMSCP] for special provisions for conducting plant surveys). These preconstruction surveys shall be conducted in the field when a project is located on suitable habitat for one or more of the SJMSCP Covered Species;
B. Preconstruction surveys conducted prior to (or, for some Incidental Take Minimization Measures, during) ground-disturbing activities to determine if SJMSCP Covered Species have been successfully relocated and/or to determine if other Incidental Take Minimization Measures have been implemented, as specified in the conditions of project approval; and
C. Preconstruction surveys, conducted in compliance with current U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service protocols, to determine the presence or absence of Conservancy and/or longhorn fairy shrimp within vernal pools or other wetlands located southwest of I-580 in the Southwest Zone unless complete avoidance of vernal pools and/or wetlands is achieved in compliance with SJMSCP Section 5.5.9.

D. Preconstruction surveys conducted pursuant to the protocol established in Section 5.2.2.5(AC) of the SJMSCP for:
• Large-flowered fiddleneck southwest of the 900 foot contour line in the Southwest Zone southwest of I-580;
• Showy madia in the Southwest Zone;
• Hospital canyon larkspur in the Southwest Zone;
• Diamond-petaled poppy in the Southwest Zone;
• Greene's tuctoria in the Vernal Pool Zone;
• Succulent owl's clover in the Vernal Pool Zone;
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 83
• Legenere in the Vernal Pool Zone;
• Delta button celery in the Central Zone in S(Scrub) vegetation types; • Sanford’s arrowhead in the Central Zone in W3, W4 and all I and R vegetation types; and
• Slough thistle in the Central and Central/Southwest Transition Zones in W4, R, R2, R3, R4 or R5 vegetation types–in particular where R touches or transitions to W.

The costs of conducting preconstruction surveys described in paragraphs A, B, and D, above, are calculated in the administrative costs for the SJMSCP and are included in funding estimates. The JPA shall conduct preconstruction surveys described in the paragraphs A, B, and D, above, at no additional cost to the Project Proponent. Preconstruction surveys required pursuant to paragraph C, above, are the responsibility of the Project Proponent.

The proposed Project would be subject to the preconstruction survey requirements in paragraph A above.

Response G-5: The commenter state that the proposed project is anticipated to result in disturbances to natural habitats that support native species. The commenter suggests that a qualified biologist who is approved by CDFW to handle special-status species should be retained to be onsite prior to and during all project-related activities. The commenter further states that movement of wildlife out of harm’s way should be limited to only those individuals that would otherwise be injured or killed, and individuals should be moved only as far a necessary to ensure their safety. The commenter concludes by describing the incidental take permit (ITP) requirements as they relate to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and associated listed species.

Please see Response G-2.

Response G-6: The commenter states that the trees on the Project site may provide habitat for tree roosting bats, and includes recommendations for tree removal to avoid potential impacts stated by the commenter to such species. The commenter further states that, if bats must be captured or relocated, a qualified biologist should capture injured bats by handcapture or other methods approved by CDFW. The commenter concludes by stating that CDFW does not authorize the use of mist nets or harp traps as capture techniques.

As discussed on pages 38 and 39 of the IS/MND, the Project site provides potential habitat for several special-status bats, including: Greater western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus), western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), small-footed myotis/bat (Myotis ciliolabrum), long-eared myotis/bat (Myotis evotis), fringed myotis/bat (Myotis thysanodes), long-legged myotis/bat (Myotis volans), and Yuma myotis/bat (Myotis yumanensis). These species are not federal, or state listed; however, they are tracked by the CNDDB. Greater western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus) has been documented in the 12-quadrangle radius for the Project site. The nearest occurrence to ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
84 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
the site is located approximately 18.6 miles southwest of the site near the Carnegie State Vehicular Area in the hills west of Interstate 580. Western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), small-footed myotis/bat (Myotis ciliolabrum), long-eared myotis/bat (Myotis evotis), fringed myotis/bat (Myotis thysanodes), long-legged myotis/bat (Myotis volans), and Yuma myotis/bat (Myotis yumanensis) have not been documented in the 12-quadrangle radius of the Project site.

As discussed on page 39 of the IS/MND, development of the Project site would eliminate foraging habitat for special status bats by removing the agricultural areas. Additionally, special status bats can establish roosts within the structures and/or trees located on the Project site. Bats can establish roosts even when absent in prior years. There has been no evidence of bat roosts on the project site (i.e. guano, bat sounds, etc.). These special status bat species are covered by the SJMSCP.

The following bat species are covered by the SJMSCP: Greater western mastiff bat aka California mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus), red Bat (Lasiurus blossevilli), smallfooted myotis/bat (Myotis ciliolabrum), long-eared myotis/bat (Myotis evotis, fringed myotis/bat (Myotis thysanodes),long-legged myotis/bat (Myotis volans), Yuma myotis/bat (Myotis yumanensis), and Pale big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii pallescens aka Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens) aka Pacific western big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii townsendii aka Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii).

As discussed in the SJMSCP, prior to the nursery seasons indicated in Table 5.2-2 of the SJMSCP for bat species discussed above, nursery sites shall be sealed. Sealing of the hibernation sites shall occur prior to the hibernation season (November through March) when hibernation sites are identified on the project site. Alternatively, grating may be installed as described in 5.5.9(E)(1) of the SJMSCP. Additionally, when colonial roosting sites which are located in trees or structures must be removed, removal shall occur outside of the nursery and/or hibernation seasons and shall occur during dusk and/or evening hours after bats have left the roosting site unless otherwise approved pursuant to Section 5.2.3.2 of the SJMSCP.

Response G-7: The commenter states that occurrences of Swainson’s hawk (Bueto swainsoni) have been documented within five miles of the Project site, and the site may have suitable nesting and foraging habitat. The commenter suggests that, if participation in the SJMSCP is not feasible, an ITP should be obtained if the Project would result in a “take”. The commenter also recommends a qualified biologist conduct a SWHA survey within a minimum ½-mile radius around the project area. Further, if an occupied nest is found and may be impacted by project activities, the commenter suggests that the project proponent should consult with CDFW and demonstrate compliance with CESA.

It is noted that Swainson’s hawk is well documented in the region. The site survey did not reveal any active or remnant nest site. The open land would be foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk. Participation in the SJMSCP is required by Mitigation Measure BIO-1 of the IS/MND. The City of Manteca is a permit holder and plan participant for the SJMSCP.

ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 85
As stated previously, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 of the IS/MND requires the Project proponent to seek coverage under the SJMSCP to mitigate for habitat impacts to covered special status species. Coverage involves compensation for habitat impacts on covered species through implementation of incidental take and minimization measures (ITMMs) and payment of fees for conversion of lands that may provide habitat for covered special status species. These fees are used to preserve and/or create habitat in preserves to be managed in perpetuity. Obtaining coverage for a Project includes incidental take authorization (permits) under the Endangered Species Act Section 10(a), California Fish and Game Code Section 2081, and the MBTA. Coverage under the SJMSCP would fully mitigate all habitat impacts on covered special-status species.

Response G-8: The commenter states that occurrences of burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) have been documented within five miles of the Project site, and suggests that a survey for this species be completed within one to two weeks prior to the start of construction. If burrowing owls are observed within 500 feet of the project area, the commenter suggests that the project proponent should develop an Impact Assessment consistent with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and submit the Impact Assessment to CDFW prior to construction work.

As discussed in Chapter 5 of the SJMSCP, the presence of ground squirrels and squirrel burrows are attractive to burrowing owls. There was no evidence of active or remnant burrows on the project site, although there is a potential for foraging. The SJMSCP requires a Project Proponent to prevent ground squirrels from occupying the project site early in the planning process by employing one of the following practices:

A. The Project Proponent may plant new vegetation or retain existing vegetation entirely covering the site at a height of approximately 36" above the ground.

Vegetation should be retained until construction begins. Vegetation will discourage both ground squirrel and owl use of the site.

B. Alternatively, if burrowing owls are not known or suspected on a project site and the area is an unlikely occupation site for red-legged frogs, San Joaquin kit fox, or tiger salamanders:

The Project Proponent may disc or plow the entire project site to destroy any ground squirrel burrows. At the same time burrows are destroyed, ground squirrels should be removed through one of the following approved methods to prevent reoccupation of the project site. Detailed descriptions of these methods are included in Appendix A, Protecting Endangered Species, Interim Measures for Use of Pesticides in San Joaquin County, dated March, 2000:

1. Anticoagulants. Establish bait stations using the approved rodenticide anticoagulants Chlorophacinone or Diphacinone. Rodenticides shall be used in compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency label standards and as directed by the San Joaquin County Agricultural Commissioner.

ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
86 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project

2. Zinc Phosphide. Establish bait stations with non-treated grain 5-7 calendar days in advance of rodenticide application, then apply Zinc Phosphide to bait stations. Rodenticides shall be used in compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency label standards and as directed by the San Joaquin County Agricultural Commissioner.

3. Fumigants. Use below-ground gas cartridges or pellets and seal burrows.

Approved fumigants include Aluminum Phosphide (Fumitoxin, Phostoxin) and gas cartridges sold by the local Agricultural Commissioner's office. NOTE: Crumpled newspaper covered with soil is often an effective seal for burrows when fumigants are used. Fumigants shall be used in compliance with U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency label standards and as directed by the San Joaquin County Agricultural Commissioner.

4. Traps. For areas with minimal rodent populations, traps may be effective for eliminating rodents. If trapping activities are required, the use of, shall be consistent with all applicable laws and regulations.

If the measures described above were not attempted or were attempted but failed, and burrowing owls are known to occupy the project site, then the following measures shall be implemented:

C. During the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31) burrowing owls occupying the project site should be evicted from the project site by passive relocation as described in the California Department of Fish and Game’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owls (Oct., 1995)
D. During the breeding season (February 1 through August 31) occupied burrows shall not be disturbed and shall be provided with a 75 meter protective buffer until and unless the TAC, with the concurrence of the Permitting Agencies’ representatives on the TAC; or unless a qualified biologist approved by the Permitting Agencies verifies through non-invasive means that either: 1) the birds have not begun egg laying, or 2) juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. Once the fledglings are capable of independent survival, the burrow can be destroyed.

These Incidental Take Minimization Measures are consistent with the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as described in Section 5.2.3.1(G).

Response G-9: The commenter states that escape ramps for wildlife should be placed at each end of any open excavation at the end of each workday, and a qualified biologist or construction monitor should survey the project area to ensure wildlife incidentally trapped due to project activities are allowed to escape prior to project commencement.

Please see Response G-2.

ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 87
Response G-10:The commenter states that there may be drainage features on-site which appear to be hydrologically connected to other waterbodies. The commenter summarizes Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code and defines “river, stream, or lake” as it pertains to this Section of the Code. The commenter also describes the Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Agreement requirements and procedures.

As discussed on page 40 of the IS/MND, the Project site does not contain protected wetlands or other jurisdictional areas and there is no need for permitting associated with the federal or state Clean Water Acts. The irrigation ditches are man-made isolated facilities with the sole purpose of agricultural irrigation. These ditches are exempt from permitting and are not considered a river, stream, or lake.

Response G-11:The commenter states that, if participation in the SJMSCP is not approved for any reason, early consultation with CDFW is recommended to ensure CESA compliance and avoid project delays due to the permitting process.

As noted in Response G-7, the City of Manteca is a permit holder and plan participant for the SJMSCP. As stated previously, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 of the IS/MND requires the Project proponent to seek coverage under the SJMSCP to mitigate for habitat impacts to covered special status species. Coverage involves compensation for habitat impacts on covered species through implementation of incidental take and minimization measures (ITMMs) and payment of fees for conversion of lands that may provide habitat for covered special status species. These fees are used to preserve and/or create habitat in preserves to be managed in perpetuity. Obtaining coverage for a Project includes incidental take authorization (permits) under the Endangered Species Act Section 10(a), California Fish and Game Code Section 2081, and the MBTA. Coverage under the SJMSCP would fully mitigate all habitat impacts on covered special-status species.

Response G-12:The commenter requests written notification of proposed actions and pending decisions regarding the Project.

This comment is noted. The commenter has been included in the City’s notification list for this Project. This comment serves as a conclusion to the letter.

ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
88 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 89
Response to Letter H: HJ Heaney
Response H-1: The commenter provides an introductory statement, questions if the site is zoned residential, questions if existing fences will be a common fence for the new residences and who will be responsible for maintenance of the fences, and states that homes along the perimeter should be single-story.

As discussed on page 4 of the IS/MND, the Project site is designated LDR (Low Density Residential) by the Manteca General Plan land use map. There is also a small silver of Public Quasi Public (PQP) land use designated along the northern boundary of the Project site. Because the site is not located within the City of Manteca, the site does not have a City zoning designation. The current zoning for the site is Agriculture Urban Reserve (AU 20). As also discussed in the IS/MND, the San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) will require the project site to be pre-zoned by the City of Manteca in conjunction with the proposed annexation. The City’s pre-zoning for the entire site will be R-1 (One Family Dwelling), which is consistent with the LDR (Low Density Residential) land use designation of the Manteca General Plan.

Beyond the land use and zoning questions discussed above, this comment does not present environmental concerns, and does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND, or compliance with CEQA. Nevertheless, this comment is noted and has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration of topics beyond the adequacy of the IS/MND.

It is noted that, in response to the concerns of this commenter and other Woodbridge residents, the Project proponent met with various Woodbridge representatives to discuss their concerns and to compromise on key issues. As part of this dialogue, Project proponent has agreed that all lots immediately adjacent to the existing Woodbridge development shall be restricted to single-story homes. This agreement was not warranted to mitigate a CEQA impact, but instead represents the Project proponent’s good faith effort to respond to design concerns of neighbors.

Response H-2: The commenter questions who would be responsible for any damage done to existing grades and drainage in backyards during grading and construction.

Impacts associated with stormwater and drainage are discussion in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, on pages 64 and 65 of the IS/MND. As discussed, drainage improvements associated with the Project site would be located on the Project site, and the proposed Project would not alter or adversely impact offsite drainage facilities. The proposed Project would increase impervious surfaces throughout the Project site. The proposed Project would require the installation of storm drainage infrastructure to ensure that storm waters properly drain from the Project site. The proposed storm drainage plan includes an engineered network of storm drain lines, manholes, inlets, and a water quality basin. The storm drainage plan was designed and engineered to ensure proper construction of storm drainage infrastructure to control runoff and prevent flooding, erosion, and sedimentation. The City Engineer reviews all storm drainage plans ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
90 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
as part of the improvement plan submittal to ensure that all facilities are designed to the City’s standards and specifications. The City Engineer also reviews all storm drainage plans to ensure that post-project runoff does not exceed pre-project runoff. The City Engineer’s review of pre- and post-project runoff is intended to ensure that the capacity of the existing storm drainage system is not exceeded. This determination is ultimately made by the City Engineer during the improvement plan review and approval.

Additionally, the proposed Project is subject to the requirements of Chapter 13.28 of the Manteca Municipal Code – Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. The purpose of these requirements is to “establish minimum storm water management requirements and controls to protect and safeguard the general health, safety and welfare of the public residing in watersheds within the city of Manteca”. These requirements are intended to assist in the protection and enhancement of the water quality of watercourses, water bodies, and wetlands in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act, 33 USC Section 1251 et seq.), Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code Section 13000 et seq.) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) Permit No. CAS000004, as such permit is amended and/or renewed.

Stormwater infrastructure is also discussed in Section XIX, Utilities and Service Systems, on pages 109 and 110 of the IS/MND. As discussed, because the Project site could increase runoff significantly, and create downstream drainage Problems, Project impacts to stormwater are considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measures UTIL-1 requires the Project applicant to submit a drainage plan to the City of Manteca for review and approval. The plan will include an engineered storm drainage plan that demonstrates attainment of pre-Project runoff requirements prior to release at the storm drainage outlet and describes the volume reduction measures and treatment controls used to reach attainment consistent with the Manteca Storm Drain Master Plan.

During construction, as discussed on page 57 of the IS/MND, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with Best Management Practices (BMPs) related to prevention of soil erosion during construction would be required. As stated in Mitigation Measure GEO-2, the SWPPP shall be designed to control pollutant discharges utilizing Best Management Practices (BMPs) and technology to reduce erosion and sediments. BMPs may consist of a wide variety of measures taken to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff from the Project site. Measures shall include temporary erosion control measures (such as silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps, check dams, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary revegetation or other ground cover) that will be employed to control erosion from disturbed areas. Final selection of BMPs will be subject to approval by the City of Manteca and the RWQCB. The SWPPP will be kept on site during construction activity and will be made available upon request to representatives of the RWQCB.

ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 91
Response H-3: The commenter states that removing trees will generate significant dust and first, and questions how dust and dirt will be mitigated.

As discussed in Section III, Air Quality, of the IS/MND, construction would result in numerous activities that would generate dust. The fine, silty soils in the project area and often strong afternoon winds exacerbate the potential for dust, particularly in the summer months. Impacts would be localized and variable. Construction impacts would last for a period of several months to several years. The initial phase of project construction would involve grading and site preparation activities, followed by building construction. Construction activities that could generate dust and vehicle emissions are primarily related to grading, soil excavation, and other ground-preparation activities, as well as building construction.

Control measures are required and enforced by the SJVAPCD under Regulation VIII. The SJVAPCD considers construction-related emissions from all projects in this region to be mitigated to a less than significant level if SJVAPCD-recommended PM10 fugitive dust rules and equipment exhaust emissions controls are implemented. The proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable measures from SJVAPCD Rule VIII.

Response H-4: The commenter questions what improvements to Airport Road will be contemplated.

As described on pages 3 and 4 of the IS/MND, residences would back on Airport Way, consistent with the existing residential orientation along the street. Access to the subdivision will occur from two locations on the west site of the subdivision along Airport Way. The internal circulation design includes roadway stubs to access the property to the north in accordance with the City’s requirements. These are the only proposed improvements to Airport Way.

Response H-5: This comment is noted. This comment serves as a conclusion to the letter and does not warrant a response. No further response is necessary.

ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
92 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 93
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
94 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
Response to Letter I: Phyllis McDonald
Response I-1: This comment is noted. This comment serves as an introduction to the letter and does not warrant a response. No further response is necessary.

Response I-2: The commenter states that not having a school bus pullout is a safety issue for students and requests one be added.

As noted on page 84 of the IS/MND, the Project would generate approximately 57 K-6 students, 16 7-8 students, and 35 9-12 students (for a total of 108 students). It is unknown how many of those students would take public school buses. It is also noted that street safety issues were not identified in the IS/MND.

While the comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND, or compliance with CEQA, this comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration of topics beyond the adequacy of the IS/MND.

Response I-3: The commenter discusses the proposed access points and turning movements for the Project, and states that the main entrance/exit of the proposed Project should have both right and left access to avoid traveling north to make a U-turn at Lovelace Road/Airport Way.

Impacts associated with traffic hazards are discussed on pages 103 and 104 of the IS/MND. No traffic hazards were identified. This comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration of topics beyond the adequacy of the IS/MND.

Response I-4: The commenter urges the Planning Department to have a master plan for developing the area north of Woodbridge. This comment serves as a conclusion to the letter.

While the comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND, or compliance with CEQA, this comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration of topics beyond the adequacy of the IS/MND.

ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Indelicato Property Subdivision Project 95
ATTACHMENT 13

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
96 Indelicato Property Subdivision Project
Response to Letter J: Phyllis McDonald
Response J-1: The commenter provides concerns regarding Lovelace MRF and Transfer Station workers who drive along Lovelace Road.

While the comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND, or compliance with CEQA, this comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration of topics beyond the adequacy of the IS/MND.

ATTACHMENT 13