Manteca City Council
September 19, 2023

City of Manteca Planning Commission

AGENDA REPORT

MEETING DATE: July 6, 2023
PROJECT NAME: Hat Ranch Annexation Project
PROJECT LOCATION: 21706 South Manteca Road- APN: 226-120-01 21712 South Manteca Road- APN: 226-120-11
9701 East Sedan Avenue- APN: 226-140-04
APPLICATION NUMBERS: ANX19-122, GPA19-124, PRZ19-123, PD19-126, SDJ19-125
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions:

1. Recommend that the City Council certify the Hat Ranch Project Environmental Impact Report and make certain findings concerning significant impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives, and adopt a statement of overriding consideration and mitigation and monitoring and reporting program; and

2. Recommend that the City Council approve the annexation of three parcels totaling 184.7 acres and authorize City Staff to make an application to LAFCo for annexation; and

3. Recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of CMU Commercial Mixed Use to the LDR Low Density Residential land use designation, and change a portion of the LDR Low Density Residential land use designation to the PQP Public/Quasi-Public land use designation for the Hat Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map area; and

4. Recommend that the City Council waive the first reading of the Ordinance approving the Pre-Zoning designations for the parcels to be annexed and the PD Planned Development Overlay for the Hat Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map area; and

5. Recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution recommending approval of the Hat Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map for 738 residential units, open space, and a public school.

ATTACHMENT 17

PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant: Kyle Masters, Richland Planned Communities, Inc.

Property Owner: Riverside LHC, LTD
Existing
GP Designation:

Urban Reserve-Low Density Family Residential (UR-LDR)
Park (P)
Commercial Mixed Use (CMU)
Proposed
GP Designation:

Low Density Residential (LDR)
Park (P)
Public/Quasi-Public (PQP)
Existing Zoning: No City Zoning District Designations
County Zoning: AU-20: Agriculture-Urban Reserve
Proposed
Pre-Zoning:

One-Family Dwelling (R-1)
Public/Quasi-Public (PQP)
Park (P)
Planned Development (PD) Overlay
Existing Use: Agriculture, Single-Family Residential
Proposed Use: Single-Family Residential, Park/Open Space/Basin, School Parcel Size Total Annexation Area:
- 184.7 Acres, 738 units total
Hat Ranch West:
- 81.1 acres, 331 units
- 6.9 acres of park/basin
- 6.8 acres of Pillsbury Road/Raymus Expressway Improvements Hat Ranch East:
- 102.9 acres, 407 units
- 9.3 acres of park/basin
- 16.1 acres of school site
- 6.2 acres of Atherton Drive/Raymus Expressway Improvements Adjacent Uses: North: Single-Family Residential
South: Agriculture
East: Agriculture
West: Single-Family Residential
CEQA Hat Ranch Environmental Impact Report

PROJECT DESCRIPTION & LOCATION
The Hat Ranch Project consists of an Annexation application for 184.7 acres of unincorporated land in San Joaquin County into the City of Manteca, the Pre-zoning of all 184.7 acres, a General Plan Amendment, a Planned Development Overlay, and a Tentative Subdivision Map for the Hat Ranch Subdivision Project. The subdivision will have 738 units,

16.2 acres of park/basin area, a 16.1-acre school site, and over 13 acres of public right-ofway improvements.

ATTACHMENT 17

The annexation area is located near the southeast edge of the City of Manteca, immediately south, west, and east of existing City limit lines. The site is bounded by the future southern extension of Atherton Drive and agricultural land to the east, single family residential uses to the north and west, and the future Raymus Expressway and agricultural uses to the south.

The project will be constructing the future extension of Atherton and an east/west portion of Raymus Expressway from Atherton to Main Street. The extension of South Pillsbury Road will bisect the annexation area,
essentially creating “Hat West”
and “Hat East”. A future Ripon
Unified School District site is
located on the Hat East side. Both
the East and West side will have a
public park/basin area. The West
Park will be an expansion of
Pillsbury Park and the East Park
will be adjacent to the school site
but not part of the school site.

There may be opportunities for
joint use/cross use of the Park and
school open space area, but that
will be determined at a later date.

Figure 1 identifies the annexation
area in red hashing in relation to
the current City boundary in blue.

Figure 1: Annexation Boundary

PROJECT SITE EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project site consists of three separate parcels that are planted with vineyards and contain a large barn, an office structure, a tree-lined driveway, and a 20,000 square foot residence (Hat House).

Figure 2: Existing Conditions
ATTACHMENT 17

ANNEXATION
The San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) controls the process of annexation. LAFCo is a regulatory agency with countywide jurisdiction, established by state law (the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg 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 into the City, it is the applicant asking the City to apply for annexation approval from LAFCo. As such, the annexation resolution not only supports the approval of the annexation, but is also authorizes staff to apply for annexation to LAFCo on behalf of the applicant.

Before the City is willing to apply 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 the specific criteria below:

1. Are contiguous with city boundaries and provide for a logical expansion of the city;
Analysis: The amount of development occurring in Manteca south of Highway 120 over the last five to ten years highlights the prevalent growth pattern occurring in the City at this time.

Three of the previous annexations pursued by the City were in this southern area of Manteca (Wackerly Annexation, Lumina Annexation, Dutra Annexation). Because of this growth pattern, it is logical that the proposed project site would be one of the next areas to be annexed into the City. The project site is currently located within the 10-year Planning Horizon of Manteca’s Interim Sphere of Influence, which is a LAFCo-approved boundary.

Projects within the 10-year planning horizon are expected to develop between the years of 2020 to 2030, as noted in the Municipal Service Review (MSR) report approved by LAFCo on July 14, 2022. The purpose of the 10-year Horizon is to delineate area that is anticipated for development in the near-term. Sites are logically included in the 10-year horizon because they are contiguous with existing urban uses where urban services are already available, allowing for well-planned expansion of services, consistent with good growth management practices. The project parcels meet the criteria for being in the 10-year horizon and making this annexation the next logical expansion of the City.

2. Create clear and reasonable boundaries;
Analysis: The proposed annexation area is surrounded on the north, east, and west boundary by existing City limit lines, making this site somewhat of an island. As shown in Figure 3 below, incorporating this area will start to even out the southern City boundary line and will bring the City limit closer to the edge of the City’s Sphere of Influence line, the City’s ultimate planning area limit (red line in Figure 3). The annexation area will have clear and logical boundary lines, with the southern expansion of Atherton on the east boundary, an east/west portion of Raymus Expressway to the south, and Evans Estates, Pillsbury Estates, and Woodward Park I and II to the north and west.

ATTACHMENT 17

Figure 3: Sphere of Influence Boundary

3. Ensure the provision of adequate municipal services; Analysis: The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed project indicates that there are adequate municipal services to serve the proposed annexation area.

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 deficit of approximately $206,300. The analysis estimated that the project would generate about $789,600 in net, new annual City General Fund revenues and would require about $992,900 in annual City General Fund service costs. This clearly represents a significant loss for the City under this tax sharing scenario. However, the City is currently negotiating a new tax sharing agreement with the County, and the likely outcome will be a 60/40 tax sharing split. As such, EPS analyzed a 60/40 split. Under this split, the project would generate a net annual General Fund surplus of approximately $42,300. With the 60/40 split, the project would generate about $1,035,200 in net, new City General Fund revenues and would require the same $992,000 in annual City General Fund service costs. Given the significant difference in net annual General Fund surplus, 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 for review. Also, it is important to note that the project will participate in the public safety CDF which will provide additional funds for public safety, streets, and landscaping.

5. Are consistent with State law and San Joaquin LAFCo standards; and ATTACHMENT 17

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

6. Are consistent with the General Plan.

Analysis: Based on the analysis of the above five items, this annexation is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-P-9. In addition to this policy, this annexation is consistent with the overall intent of growth expressed in the General Plan. The General Plan regulates development to preserve Manteca’s roots as an agricultural center and to ensure balanced growth. The General Plan acknowledges that agriculture plays a role in Manteca’s economy, but also understands that metered development will ensure economic growth and will allow the city to continue to provide for a quality of life for its current and future residents.

Land Use Goal LU-2 discusses the need to provide adequate land in a range of densities to meet the housing needs of income groups expected to reside in Manteca, and to regulate residential growth consistent with the capacities of City facilities and services. This annexation will allow for the construction of 738 units of varying size and housing type, creating more housing opportunities for current and future residents in Manteca. Without this annexation, these homes would not be constructed in the City. Further, as noted in the EIR, the City is able to provide the necessary services to accommodate these new housing units, making this annexation a logical expansion for the city and a project that is consistent with the General Plan’s goals and policies.

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

PRE-ZONING
Unincorporated land outside the City’s limits does not have a City Zoning District designation. Rather, the unincorporated land has a San Joaquin County zoning designation.

In this case, the County zoning designation is AU-20 Agricultural-Urban Reserve. This County zoning designation is reserved for land currently under production of agriculture, but is ultimately reserved for future development. This County zoning designation is consistent with the City’s 10-year horizon plan in that the area can be used for agricultural purposes now, but within the 2020-2030 timeline, development is expected. Having a county zoning designation that corresponds to the expectations of the City’s SOI further strengthens the argument that these parcels are prime for annexation at this time.

Per section 17.10.180 of the Manteca Municipal Code and California Government Code Section 65859, a pre-zone is required when annexing unincorporated property adjoining the city. 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 parcels in the annexation are R-1, P, and PQP with a Planned Development Overlay over the entire area other than the proposed school site. The various zoning designations are show in Figure 4 below:

ATTACHMENT 17

Figure 4: Proposed Pre-Zoning Map
In order to recommend approval of the Pre-Zoning designation to the City Council, the Planning Commission must make the following findings. The Planned Development findings are separate from the Pre-Zoning findings and are discussed further down in the staff report.

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 three pre-zoning designations of the Hat Ranch parcels match the land use designations for the proposed General Plan Update. These districts are consistent with the intent of the General Plan land use designations for LDR Low Density Residential, P Park, and PQP Public/Quasi-Public. The variety of housing types, the green space, and the future school site are all consistent with a multitude of General Plan goals and policies. The proposed uses and density of the project are also consistent with the General Plan.

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

Analysis: The proposed pre-zoning designations will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City, in that the proposed subdivision has been reviewed for environmental impacts and has been conditioned to mitigate those impacts. The City Council will be asked to make certain findings regarding these effects and adopt a mitigation and monitoring program and a statement of overriding consideration for any impact that may not be reduced to a less than significant level.

ATTACHMENT 17

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 Hat Ranch EIR. The EIR identified one or more significant and unavoidable environmental effects of the project.

However, the City Council will be asked to make certain findings regarding these effects and adopt a mitigation and monitoring program and a statement of overriding consideration for any impact that may not be reduced to a less than significant level.

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

Analysis: The project does not involve a map amendment. Rather, the pre-zoning is to give two unincorporated parcels zoning district designations upon annexation that will correspond to their given land use designations of LDR, P, and PQP.

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 designations to the City Council.

HAT RANCH SUBDIVISION ANALYSIS
The remaining entitlements of this application, the General Plan Amendment, the Planned Development Overlay, and Tentative Subdivision Map will facilitate the development of the Hat Ranch subdivision. These entitlements are analyzed with respect to conformance with:

1. Manteca General Plan

2. Manteca Zoning Ordinance

3. Manteca Climate Action Plan
The Environmental Analysis for the annexation and the above listed entitlements will be discussed together in the Environmental Clearance section below.

GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed subdivision has the existing General Plan Land use Designations of P Park, LDR Low Density Residential, CMU Commercial Mixed Use (Figure 5). The proposed General Plan designations are still LDR and P with the addition of PQP Public Quasi-Public (Figure 6). However, on the proposed project land use plan, the exact location and size of the park is different from the existing land use designation map.

ATTACHMENT 17

Figure 5: Existing Land Use Designation
Figure 6: Proposed Land Use Designation
The General Plan Update land use map matches the proposed land uses for the Hat Ranch development. At the time of application, it was uncertain if the current General Plan Update would be complete, establishing the preferred land uses for the subdivision shown in Figure

6. At this time, the project will be before the Planning Commission after the General Plan goes before the Planning Commission, but before the General Plan Update goes before the City Council for adoption. By the time this project goes before the City Council, the General Plan should be adopted by the Council. Adoption of the General Plan Update and associated land use map would make the need for the General Plan Amendment moot. However, out of caution, staff is presenting the General Plan Amendment and analyzing the findings for an Amendment in the event the General Plan Update is not adopted.

When a General Plan Amendment is requested by a property owner, the applicant shall demonstrate that there is a substantial benefit to be derived from such amendment. The City Council must find that the proposed amendment meets the letter and intent of the General Plan goals and policies.

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

The project meets these density and land use requirements as the 738 units creates a density of 3.9 dwelling units per acre when the school site is included. With the school site excluded, the dwelling units per acre would be 4.6, still relatively low and well within the density range. The City typically calculates density using gross acres and does not remove acreage for parks and right-of-ways. Since a school site is not usually in the middle of a subdivision like it is here, it makes sense to exclude it form the density calculation to give a more accurate reflection of the density of the neighborhood. 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 ATTACHMENT 17

development anticipated in LDR includes small and clustered residential lots, as well as conventional large lot detached homes. The Hat Ranch Subdivision has a variety of housing types on a variety of different size lots, making the subdivision consistent with the intent of the LDR land use designation.

The Park (P) land use designation provides for neighborhood, community, and regional parks, golf courses, and other outdoor recreational facilities within urban development. The specific uses within the park can vary, but can include items like ball fields, tot lots, play apparatus’, community centers, meeting facilities, trails, benches, interpretive markers, picnic areas, and other amenities typically found in a park. The two parks in Hat Ranch total

16.2 acres. Hat Rach West has 6.9 acre park that will be a continuation of the existing Pillsbury Park, adding a plethora of amenities and added open space. The Hat Ranch East Park will be 9.3 acres and provide a second set of amenities for the east portion of the subdivision. The parks will have recreational areas, flexible use space, sports courts, and active play areas. These two parks clearly meet the intent of the Park land use designation and as defined in the General Plan.

The Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) land use designation provides for government owned facilities, public and private schools, institutions, civic uses, assembly uses, and public utilities, and quasi-public uses such as hospitals and churches. This designation also allows commercial recreation uses, including public and private parks, recreation fields, and other community-and visitor-oriented recreation, provided that the project includes a significant public benefit component. The 16.1 acres of PQP will be reserved for a Ripon Unified School District school on the Hat East side of the project. The addition of this school site will be the school site for the majority of the Hat Rach subdivision as well as homes in the surrounding subdivisions. This site provides a necessary site for the Ripon School District and will allow students who are currently being bused to Ripon to have a closer option. The site fills an important need for the community and meets the intent of the General Plan land use designation.

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

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

Community Design Implementation CD-I-3: Approve and apply neighborhood design standards.

Analysis: The Hat Ranch Subdivision project has detailed Planned Development Guidelines that have clear neighborhood design standards for the overall development of this project.

The Planned Development Guidelines provide the framework for a high-quality development that focuses on traditional neighborhood elements like enhanced visible edges, enhanced ATTACHMENT 17

project entries, ample community open space, and well-planned circulation for both pedestrians and vehicles.

The Hat Ranch Design Guidelines offer five different architectural styles: Traditional Spanish, Modern Farmhouse, Mid-Century Modern, California Ranch, and Prairie. These styles will be spread throughout the five different single-family detached lot types, including the unique district of half-plex units and half-plex clusters. The Design Guidelines ensure appropriate architectural elements are included for each architectural style so that the homes truly reflect a point of view. The Guidelines expertly detail out the development standards for each housing type, ensuring the homes are placed on site in the most appropriate manner. Chapter 3, Section 3.3 identifies appropriate garage treatment to deemphasize the visual prominence of the garage through setbacks, side-entry options, and articulated garage doors with windows or paneling. These Guidelines will ensure that the Hat Ranch Subdivision sets the standard for neighborhood development in the future.

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

Analysis: The Hat Ranch Subdivision is a unique Planned Development in that the subdivision offers traditional detached single family homes as well as half-plex and half-plex cluster units. The half-plex units and half-plex clusters are plotted on their own lots and share one wall with the adjacent unit and have walkways originating from the public right of way. The half-plex clusters are plotted in four-pack units with a shared drive aisle down the center, with entries on the front cluster units facing the public right of way. Both products have elevated front entries and porches providing a strong street presence with garages recessed or facing the drive aisle. These units will be unique to the Hat Ranch area, and will be appropriately placed mostly around the school site and the western park. These more efficient units give Mantecans, new and old, the opportunity to experience homeownership and become part of the Manteca community.

With two parks in the subdivision, there is also a distinct feeling of community and togetherness in this development. A majority of the homes will face the park, encouraging the “eyes on the street” concept that is so important in neighborhood planning. The west park more than doubles the size of Pillsbury Park, creating additional opportunities for the new and existing neighborhoods. The east park will be a dual use park for the school if they desire, allowing for greater recreational space for both students and residents.

To ensure the overall subdivision is cohesive, unique, and visually pleasing, Chapter 3, Section 3.3 touches on creating enhanced, high quality rear and side elevations along with the front elevations. These enhancements include accent trim and color, window details, architectural projections, rafters, and the like. This type of treatment guarantees that the community will not look monotonous or under designed not only to the internal eye, but to surrounding neighborhoods as well. Moving into the project, the project entries will have enhanced landscaping and defined entry features like diagonal wall sections, upgraded materials of stone, brick or tile, enhanced lighting and even trellis or pilasters to clearly indicate when individuals have entered the community. Smaller neighborhood signage is also possible to indicate you are indifferent areas of the overall Hat Ranch project. These ATTACHMENT 17

signs will be smaller than the main entries, but these signs could have enhanced landscaping, additional materials, and additional lighting.

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

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

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

Analysis: The two parks in Hat Ranch provide ample parks space and enhanced landscape design for the future and current residents in the area. Hat West will add 6.9 acres of park area and Hat East will provide 9.3 acres of new park area to the community, for a total of

16.2 acres of new park area for Manteca. The parks are centrally located on each side of the project, making them within reasonable walking distance of everyone in the new community, as well as those in the exiting community. The subdivision is required to provide one acre of upland area, which is more than covered in the proposed park. The overall 16.2 acres of park area also exceeds the three acres of required parkland per 1,000 people requirement. The joint development of park and drainage detention basin will provide the practical and required use to handle storm water, but in the dry season will serves as another green space for community recreation.

4. Street System Policy C-P-15: The City shall promote infill development that completes gaps in the circulation system.

Analysis: The project will develop the remaining portion of South Atherton Drive until it intersects with Raymus Expressway. Pillsbury will also be constructed to its terminus at Raymus Expressway. Most importantly, the project will be building a section of Raymus Expressway along the southern border of the project, across the Evan’s Estate project, connecting to Main Street.

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

Analysis: This subdivision is required to provide minimum levels of site lighting in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. The improvement plans showing lighting information will also be compliant with the regulations regarding nearby sensitive users and will avoid light-spillover onto the neighboring homes to the north and west. The lighting plan for the project will provide directional shielding for all exterior lighting to minimize the annoyance of direct or indirect glare, which will be an added benefit for the neighboring residences.

ATTACHMENT 17

6. LU-3.6 Encourage new neighborhoods to include a mix and distribution of land uses, including schools, parks, shopping, restaurants, and service, that reduce auto trips and support walking, biking, and transit use.

Analysis: This subdivision is providing a 16.1 acre school site for Ripon Unified School District. The school site will accommodate the new neighborhood school-age children as well as some of the existing students in surrounding Manteca neighborhoods. The site is also providing two parks in addition to the 738 units. The mix of units in this neighborhood is one of the first of its kind in Manteca, creating a diverse neighborhood in housing type and land use type.

Based on the above goals and policies, it is clear that the General Plan Amendment is a benefit to the City of Manteca. The increased unit count and larger park areas are important benefits to the City and its residents.

ZONING ORIDNANCE CONFORMANCE
Planned Development Overlay
In addition to the Pre-Zoning designations the site will also have a Planned Development (PD) Overlay. The PD Overlay will not cover the school site/PQP area so that side will development under the regular PQP development standards.

The purpose of the PD Overlay is to establish a process for the consideration and regulation of areas suitable for proposed comprehensive development with detailed development plans, and those areas that require special planning to provide for appropriate planned development in harmony with their natural features and other environmental considerations. In this instance, the Hat Subdivision offers unique housings types that can only be possible with deviation from the standard zoning district development standards. While the majority of the development within the subdivision will conform to the R-1 small lot development standards, the half-plex units and half-plex clusters housing typologies do not fit into the standard development parameters. In addition, providing this range of housing options is consistent with the State’s Environmental Justice requirements.

While the development standards may differ, the architecture of these homes will be of the same level of quality as the more traditional products, and will include full driveways, front doors that face the streets, and private yards. The greatest benefit of the half-plex and halfplex clusters is that they are more affordable by design and offer a unique housing type for the Manteca community. Additionally, their location in the overall subdivision, strategically placed near the school site and the park, make them perfect homes for newer homebuyers just starting their families or those with school-age children. The students will be within walking distance from the school and those homes with smaller private open spaces will have immediate access to the larger park areas.

Other reasons that the PD Overlay is needed is due to the deviation in garage setback from the standard R-1 district. Rather than a 20-foot setback, the setback of the garages will be ATTACHMENT 17

in a range of 18-20 feet to further encourage movement and variation along the streetscape.

Smaller driveways minimize front yard paving, which minimizes construction materials, costs and unnecessary impervious surfaces.

The Planning Commission must make the following findings in order to recommend approval of the Planned Development to the City Council:

1. The proposed project does not exceed the total density allowed under the base Zoning District or the General Plan land use designation.

Analysis: The density range for LDR/R-1 is 2.1 to 8.0 dwelling units per acre. The project’s proposed density is 3.9 dwelling units per acre, which complies with the land use designation and zoning density requirements. As discussed above, the majority of the development, with the exception of the half-plex development standards and the driveway lengths, implement the standard Small-Lot single-family development standards from Municipal code section 17.26.040. To the average person, this entire neighborhood will look and feel like a standard R-1 neighborhood in the City of Manteca. It will be the enhanced features required of the Planned Development that will set the development apart from a traditional neighborhood, not the requested deviations from the R-1 development standards. Figure 7 identifies the location of the half-plex units and half-plex clusters in the subdivision and Figures 8 identifies the typical site layout for the half-plex and half-plex clusters. What is significant in this layout is that the front doors and porches of the front two units face the street but the garages are tucked behind the units. This already makes for a better streetscape by eliminating the presence of garages on the street frontage.

Figure 7: Proposed Half-Plex and Half-Plex Cluster Locations ATTACHMENT 17

Figure 8: Proposed Half-Plex and Half-Plex Cluster site layouts

2. The proposed project is superior to
development that could occur under the
development standards of the base district in
the following ways:
a. Greater open space and common areas than
required;
Analysis: The City requires three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, and one acre of those three acres needs to be upland. Based on the number of units in this
subdivision, the project would have to provide 6.9 acres of park area with 1 acre of that being upland. The project is providing 16.2 acres of parkland and reserving 2 acres of that area for upland use. The upland is distributed to have one acre of upland in both parks, and both parks
then have the required detention basin and water quality basin. In wet events, the detention basins and water
quality basins will retain water, but for the majority of the year, the basins will be available for public use. This useable park acreage will allow for a variety of activities Figure 9: Hat West Park
ATTACHMENT 17

in the park that can, and will, bring residents from all over the City together. The Hat West Park (Figure 9) will be an extension of Pillsbury Park. Additional amenities proposed in the new park area include: basketball courts, pickleball courts, volleyball courts, multi-use play area, shade structures, a gathering plaza with shade trees, a small dog park, meandering walking trails, park furniture such as tables, benches, grills, and trash cans, seat walls to frame the functional areas of the park, and during good weather, sports fields.

The Hat East Park will be directly adjacent to
the future school site, offering expanded open
space and recreational opportunities for both
the school and the community. The East Park
will have a more sports-oriented focus with a
large field play areas and practice fields and
public bathrooms, and off-street parking
spaces. There will also be play equipment for
two age groups, a water activity zone, shade
structures, picnic tables, benches, grills, and
seat walls with landscaping to frame the
functional use area. The larger event gathering
area will be secure and be access controlled for
rented functions, but there will still be nonaccess controlled areas that will be open at all times for open use.

The landscaping of both parks will be designed
to support the recreation and storm water
function of the dual-use areas and shall be designed to provide an attractive, long-lasting low maintenance and low water use landscape. The irrigation of the parks will be designed to relay as little as possible potable water, mostly pulling from the non-domestic irrigation well on side of the East Park.
b. Greater landscaping than required that enhances the public street appearance (including street trees, benches, lights, special paving, water fountains, etc.) or increases in landscape buffers with adjacent properties;
Analysis: The landscaping provided in the Hat Subdivision meets and exceeds the expectations of landscaping in a new subdivision. The overall planned landscape features soften the built environment and provide a needed respite from the day-to-day grind of indoor work and life tasks.

As with all subdivisions, there will be a community entry designed to have a special statement that reflects the project’s character. There will likely be a monument sign with some sort of landscape feature like a trellis and pilasters. There will be flowering trees, lighting, and signage that will be included for nighttime wayfinding. There will also be enhanced neighborhood entries that will give each area of the subdivision their own sense of identity.

Figure 10: Hat East Park
ATTACHMENT 17

The materials and overall appearance will complement the small niche neighborhoods with signs or elements that are harmonious to the larger Hat Ranch Neighborhood.

Figures 11 and 12: Project Entry Examples

Figures 13 and 14: Neighborhood Entry Examples
The landscaping chapter also discusses the importance of planting trees throughout the subdivision. The developers will be required to plant a tree in every front yard, and multiple trees on corner lots if necessary. Street trees will come in a variety of species and will contribute to the urban forest. All trees will come from the City’s approved plant palette. c. Superior subdivision design. Utilization of the applicable residential design standards to achieve a superior subdivision design; Analysis: Chapter 3 of the Design Guidelines is dedicated to discussing the specific design expectations for the Hat subdivision. Throughout the document, there is discussion on varied lot sizes, streetscape enhancements, and purposeful architecture. Chapter 2 provides the proposed development standards for each housing product type, ensuing that each home is placed on each lot appropriately. Chapter 6 details out the creation of the Hat Ranch Design Review Board (HRDRB) and its role in ensuring that any developer who purchases units with the Hat Ranch subdivision have a clear understanding of the Design Guidelines and is applying the standards correctly before the project even reaches the City. The HRDRB has to recommend approval of any proposed units prior to that developer being able to present ATTACHMENT 17

any concept designs to the City. This first step of review ensures that these Guidelines are implemented and that any homes coming forward to the City truly embody the expectations of quality set for the Hat Ranch Subdivision.
d. Greater connectivity to surrounding public streets, bike paths, pedestrian walkways, and public open spaces than required by zoning or subdivision regulations;
Analysis: The Hat Ranch subdivision is intended to be cohesive with the existing community fabric, providing a circulation design that connects to adjacent neighborhoods and street networks. Access to Hat Rach from the North will come from the extension of South Atherton Way, Veramonte Avenue, the extension of Pillsbury Road, Jigsaw Avenue and Inyo Avenue will continue around the park, and Buena Vista Way. From the west, Polk Street will continue into Hat Ranch and continue all the way through to the Hat East Park, allowing a direct to the school site. The project will also be constructing a portion or Raymus Expressway, and will provide four outlets onto the Expressway from inside Hat. These connections will encourage the new residents to exit out of the neighborhood toward Raymus Expressway, rather than go north on those other connector streets. The External Connectivity diagram below shows the major streets being extended into the subdivision and how the new major street construction will really connect the overall area of the City.

Figure 15: External Connectivity
Internally, the street network of Hat is intended to contribute to the aesthetic of the community, with residents’ experiencing varied streetscapes and thoughtful street design.

The internal sidewalks will all be five feet wide, with eight foot sidewalks along Pillsbury. The wider sidewalks facilitate strollers, scooters, dogs, and any toy people want to use to get outside and be active. Figure 16 below highlights the extensive internal network envisioned for the subdivision.

ATTACHMENT 17

Figure 16: Internal Circulation
e. Reduced impacts on surrounding properties, in terms of privacy, access to sunlight, shadow, views, building bulk, noise, or other types of negative impacts, beyond what would be achieved under existing requirements.

Analysis: All of the heights are consistent with the R-1 Zoning designation, so no homes will be towering over neighboring communities, preserving existing privacy. More importantly, the new homes that abut existing single story homes in Evans Estates, Pillsbury Estates, and Woodward Park I and II will be required to be single-story as well. Figure 17 notes those homes that will be required to be single story. Additional the diagram denotes those homes that will be required to have enhanced rear elevations so that which will positively impact those properties on the southern and eastern border of the site.

The noise has been analyzed through the CEQA process, and there is no significant impact on the environmental related to noise. Along with no impact related to noise, no impact was identified related to sunlight. While there is a permanent change in the existing views, development of this site was always intended, so it should not be a shock to existing neighbors. Finally, as discussed below, the building bulk will be minimized through design and architectural elements.

Figure 17: One-Story Homes/Enhanced Elevations
ATTACHMENT 17

3. The proposed project incorporates best site planning practices for quality design and compatibility with surroundings.

Analysis: The aerial in Figure 2 shows that this subdivision is consistent with surrounding development to the west and north of the site. An R-1 subdivision completes this missing puzzle piece in this area of the City, and the extension of Pillsbury Road and Atherton and construction of Raymus Expressway enables better circulation for the surrounding area.

Chapter 1 of the Design Guidelines reinforces to the reader that the Hat Ranch subdivision is meant to be one of high quality design that promotes both visual compatibility and variety in the neighborhood. The Guidelines ensure that the City can expect a cohesive, unique, and visually pleasing subdivision that incorporates best site planning practices. The framework of the community provides for visible edges, so that the community is pleasing to the outside viewers of the subdivision, and does not look monotonous or drab from the outside. The project entries are intended to be robust with landscaping with an entry detail to establish a strong impression of the neighborhood. The two large community parks full of desirable amenities highlights the importance of public space in a post pandemic world, and encourage a walkable community.

Chapter 2 of the Guidelines identifies the land use plan, which highlights the variety of lot sizes within the subdivision. A larger variety in lot sizes provides more options for a larger pool of homeowners. The lots range in size from 45’ x 100’ to 70’ x 100’.

The half-plex lots are 63’ x 100’ with two homes and the half-plex clusters are 137’ x 105’ for four units. The variety in size allows the developer to maximize housing and open space opportunities. Further, the five product types for these homes will allow for a variety in architectural design. While the overall subdivision is under a single development umbrella, the mix of lots in designated areas throughout the subdivision essentially create micro subdivisions, allowing each area to grow and develop an identity of its own over time. Figure 7 above highlights all of the different housing products and their placement in the subdivision. What is most notable with the placement of the different types of homes is the placement of the half-plex clusters around the school site as shown in Figure 18 below. The smaller half-plex cluster units are two-story units that have up to three bedrooms and are between 1,500 and 1,700 square feet in size. This type of house, based on overall size and bedroom count, is meant to target the new homebuyer who has just started their family. With easy access to the school and park, this home product is ideal for those individuals who are new to the housing market. The placement of these units by the school will encourage students to walk to school, creating less traffic around drop off and pick up time. The cluster housing type only makes up 64 out of 738 or .08%of the total units in the Hat Ranch subdivision. These types of units are unique to Manteca and will be an asset to those individuals who are ready to move out of the rental market but maybe can’t afford the large homes on the larger lots in the average subdivision in Manteca.

ATTACHMENT 17

Figure 18: Half-plex Cluster Location

4. The proposed project incorporates high quality architectural design and durable materials.

Analysis: The Hat Ranch Subdivision consists of a well thought-out and high quality design aesthetic based on five distinct architectural styles. Chapter 3 of the Design Guidelines sets the expectation of neighborhood design for any home builder wishing to construct homes within the subdivision. This chapter encourages innovation, character, and superior design techniques by providing guidance on type of material, architectural elements that are prominent with a specific style, materials and colors.

The Residential Design Elements in Section 3.3 encourage appropriate placement of garage, garage treatments, and requirements for property edge conditions. Section

3.4 provides guidance on the half-plexes and identifies how the units should be sited, how to park them, and provides other requirements for elevations, lot coverage, and dimensions. These requirements will ensure that these homes are designed to fit seamlessly into a traditional R-1 neighborhood. From stepped massing, enhanced garage features, and a required front door presence, the half-plexes will require a level of design that creates a pleasing streetscape.

The variety in floor plans and elevations will inherently provide a variation in massing and will provide visual interest to the streetscape. In order to ensure architectural diversity, like elevations will not be allowed to be plotted adjacent to or immediately ATTACHMENT 17

across the street from one another. Chapter 3 notes that neighborhoods with up to 119 units of similar lot types are required to have a minimum of three plan types and three elevations per plan. Neighborhoods with 120 or more units of similar lot types are required to have a minimum of four plan types and three elevation styles per plan.

The Guidelines discuss the different architectural styles that the builders of any portion of this project must adhere to. The suggested style shave been thoughtfully selected to be compatible with each other, but offer enough variety to avoid the monotony of a traditional track subdivision. The chosen styles have unique characteristics that will naturally create an interesting streetscape and roofline. The Guidelines encourage authentic adaptations of each style, meaning that builders must focus on traditional form and detailing, but infuse modern materials, colors, and interpretation to the style to create a contemporary, yet recognizable expression of each architectural style.

Builders may suggest other styles than the approved five to the Hat Ranch Design Review Board, but the styles must be approved by the Board prior to being submitted to the City.

5. The proposed project shall not be substantially detrimental to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of this Title or the public interest.

Analysis: The Hat Ranch Subdivision has been reviewed by internal departments and external agencies, and it has been determined that the project will not materially impair the purposes of this Title or the public interest. The project is governed by a set of conditions that will ensure compatibility with adjacent properties. The Engineering conditions of approval will benefit the public interest by requiring the installation of public improvements beyond the project boundaries of the site. From completed right of ways in missing sections, to new traffic calming measures, the proposed project will help facilitate better circulation for the south east area of the City. The General Plan designated the Project site for low density residential since 2003, signaling a general understanding to local residents that a future neighborhood would be located here. A neighborhood that conforms to the land use and density requirements of this designation is thus inherently compatible with the surrounding single-family residential uses. The Planned Development Overlay rules and guidelines ultimately hold this neighborhood to a higher standard than most R-1 developments, ensuring that the public interest is preserved and this Title intact.

Based on the extensive detailed found in the Planned Development Guidelines, staff feels that the Planning Commission is able to recommend approval of the Planned Development to the City Council.

Tentative Subdivision Map
The subdivision of land is governed by the Subdivision Map Act and Title 16 of the Manteca Municipal Code. The Planning Commission may recommend approval for a Tentative Subdivision Map if the Subdivision Map Act findings from Section 66474 of the Map Act can’t be made. In addition to the Title 16 findings, four more findings found in Chapter 16.09.040 ATTACHMENT 17

of the Municipal Code must be made. The Subdivision Map Act findings and the additional findings in Chapter 16.09.040 of the Municipal Code are discussed below:

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

Analysis: This project is consistent with the General Plan land use designations of LDR and Park in that the entire density of the site is 4.6 du/a, which is between the minimum density of 2.1 and maximum density of 8.0 du/a. The applicant is also providing more park acreage than is required in the General Plan. The design guidelines identified in the PD also ensure that future homes will comply with the LDR land use regulations. This project is not a part of a Specific Plan.
b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.

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

Analysis: The site is physically suitable for this type of development. It is relatively flat with no physical impediments or restrictive easements. Road infrastructure and services are already available to this site, and more will be constructed with this project, 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 4.6 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 Hat Ranch Annexation project, the City prepared a Project-level EIR pursuant to and in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). While some significant and unavoidable impacts were identified by the EIR, ATTACHMENT 17

the substantial economic and social benefits of the Project outweigh and override the significant unavoidable environmental effects that would result from the Project. There will be no injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat.
f) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.

Analysis: As approved and conditioned, the design of this project will not cause serious health problems. This development will be required to comply with all standards, including performance standards, and regulations pertaining to health and safety found in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

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

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

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

Analysis: As the lead agency for the Hat Ranch Annexation project, the City prepared a Project-level EIR pursuant to and in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). While some significant and unavoidable impacts were identified by the EIR, the substantial economic and social benefits of the project outweigh and override the significant unavoidable environmental effects that would result from the Project.

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

ATTACHMENT 17

Analysis: The project will provide the opportunity to create a significant amount of new housing in the City of Manteca. The 738 homes will provide a variety of lot sizes and housing types to ensure full access to housing to the public. While the site is technically outside of City limits until the annexation is approved, City services are near the project site and can be easily accessed for the new community. The project is estimated to generate a total of approximately $42,300 in revenue for the City’s General fund at buildout. This is a fiscal benefit to the City. Additionally, the project will participate in the city-wide CFD which will aid in providing more protective services to the City. While there are some significant an unavoidable impacts, the economic and social benefits of the Project outweigh and override the significant unavoidable environmental effects that would result from the Project.

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

Analysis: All floor plans have windows on all facades on both stories, to optimize the potential for passive cooling. This project will also be required to comply with any applicable California Building Code requirements that may promote passive and natural heating or cooling.

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

Analysis: As discussed in this staff report, the project is consistent with the General Plan land use designations of LDR and P, and supports many General Plan goals and policies.

It is also mostly consistent with the Zoning Code Requirements for One-Family Dwelling zoning but has a Planned Development Overlay to provide for the creativity to build a unique project.

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

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:

ATTACHMENT 17

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

Analysis: This project is consistent with the development density allowed in the LDR land use designation, and it is contiguous to existing residential development to the west and north.

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

Analysis: As part of the amenities of this project, the community will have enhanced landscaping and wider sidewalks. These walkways will encourage walking and other forms of recreation and community interaction. The project will also be providing public improvements on Atherton, Pillsbury, and Raymus Expressway, where there are currently gaps in the network.

3. CAP Strategy: Water Conservation (WC) WC-1: The City shall continue to implement water conservation measures to comply with the Model Water Efficient Landscape requirements that implement the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 1881, Laird).

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

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

ENVIRONEMNTAL CLEARANCE
As the lead agency for the Hat Ranch Annexation project, the City prepared a Project-level EIR pursuant to and in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Project EIR is an EIR which examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project. This type of EIR focuses primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the project. A Project EIR examines all phases of a project including planning, ATTACHMENT 17

construction, and operation. The Project EIR allows for comprehensive consideration of the reasonably anticipated scope of the Project, including development and operation of the Project. The EIR is available for review on the City’s website here:
https://www.manteca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/planning-divisiondocuments/-folder-328 The EIR determined that there were several significant and unavoidable environmental impacts produced by the project. CEQA Guidelines § 15091 states that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects. As such, along with the certification of the EIR, the Council is being asked to make specific findings of overriding considerations. The statement of overriding considerations attached to Planning Commission Resolution identifies the economic, social, technical, and other benefits of the Project that the City Council can consider if they choose to override these significant environmental impacts that would result from the Project.

The significant and unavoidable impacts for the project are identified below:
 Impacts related to the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance Farmland to non-agricultural use.  Impacts related to compliance with the policies of San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) pertaining to the conversion of agricultural land.  Generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
 Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), during Existing Plus Project Conditions.
 Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), during Cumulative Plus Project Conditions.

The adverse effects listed above are substantive issues of concern to the City. However, the Manteca General Plan provides for an array of land uses throughout the City that are intended to accommodate the City’s needs for growth over the foreseeable future. In addition, the identified impacts above are typical of all new suburban development. The CEQA EIR process allows the City to examine these impacts against the benefits the Project provides to the City and determine if the benefits outweigh the impacts.

Rewards of the Project include, but are not necessarily limited to, additional tax revenue for the City, while providing recreational facilities and housing opportunities for current and future Manteca residents. Implementation of the Project would increase and diversify the housing supply in the City, which could spur development, economic growth, and property tax generation within the area. Moreover, the increased housing supply helps meet the evergrowing demand of housing within California. The Project also helps the City meet mandated housing production by the State of California.

ATTACHMENT 17

Based on the entire record and the FEIR, the Planning Commission and City Council should determine that the economic and social benefits of the Project outweigh and override the significant unavoidable environmental effects that would result from the Project. Any environmental detriment caused by the proposed Project has been minimized to the extent feasible through the mitigation measures identified in the EIR and, where mitigation is not feasible, the impact can be outweighed and counterbalanced by the significant social, environmental, and land use benefits to be generated within the region.

A Notice of Preparation for the EIR was circulated on January 22, 2021 to the State Clearinghouse, State Responsible Agencies, State Trustee Agencies, other public agencies, and interested parties around the project site. A public scoping meeting was held on February 10, 2021 to present the project description and to receive comments from the public and interested groups regarding the scope of the environmental analysis to be included in the Draft EIR. The City received 20 comment letters and emails during the comment period. The comments provided are presented in Appendix B of the Draft EIR.

The City provided a public notice of availability for the Draft EIR and invited comment on the completed document from September 8, 2022 to October 24, 2022. The City received seven comment letters regarding the Draft EIR, three from State agencies and four from interested individuals. These comment letters are addressed within the FEIR.

Based on the facts and finding presented in this staff report, staff believes that the Planning Commission can make the necessary recommendation to the City Council to certify the FEIR and make the necessary findings of overriding consideration, and approve the Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Pre-Zoning, Planned Development, and Tentative Subdivision Map.

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

Attachment 2- Planning Commission Resolution No. 1634
Attachment 3- Exhibit A Annexation Map
Attachment 3a- Exhibit A1 Legal Description
Attachment 4- Exhibit B Fiscal Analysis
Attachment 5- Exhibit C Pre-Zoning Map
Attachment 6- Exhibit D Planned Development Design Guidelines Attachment 7- Exhibit E Tentative Subdivision Map
Attachment 8- Exhibit F Conditions of Approval for the Hat Subdivision Map Attachment 9- Exhibit G Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Maps Attachment 10- Exhibit H Statement of Overriding Considerations Attachment 11- Exhibit I MMRP
Attachment 12- EIR Comments
Reviewed and Approved by:
_______/s/_________________________ 06/29/2023
Chris Erias, Development Services Director Date
ATTACHMENT 17
July 6, 2023
City of Manteca
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1634

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

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MAKING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING THE CITY

COUNCIL CERTIFY THE HAT RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPT THE MMRP, AND MAKE FINDINGS OF OVERIDING CONSIDERATION;

APPROVE THE ANNEXATION AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO SUBMIT AN ANNEXATION APPLICATION TO LAFCO; APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT; APPROVE THE PRE-ZONING DESIGNATIONS AND A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY; AND APPROVE A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP,

FOR THE HAT RANCH SUBDIVISION
(FILE NOS. ANX19-122, PRZ19-123, GPA19-124,
PD19-126, SDJ19-125) (SCH#2013112049)
WHEREAS, the Manteca Planning Commission, at its duly noticed public hearing on July 6, 2023, considered an Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Pre-Zoning, Planned Development, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Final Environmental Impact Report for the Hat Ranch Subdivision, filed by Kyle Masters with Richland Communities, Inc.; 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 plat map attached as Exhibit A with a legal description attached as Exhibit A1, and identifies the annexation of the 184.7 acres of property; and
WHEREAS, the project area is developed with vineyards and contains a large barn, office structure, a tree-lined driveway, and a 20,000 square foot residence known as Hat House; and
WHEREAS, the 184.7 acres has the APN number of 226-120-01, 226-120-11, and 226-140-04; and
WHEREAS, in order to consider an application for annexation, the City must be able to determine that the project boundary is contiguous and that the annexation is a logical expansion of the city, the annexation creates clear an reasonable boundaries, there are adequate municipal services, the annexation reflects a long-term fiscal balance to the City, the annexation is consistent with State law and the San Joaquin Local Agency ATTACHMENT 17
July 6, 2023
Formation Commission (LAFCO), and the annexation is consistent with the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the proposed annexation is contiguous and logical in that the annexation area is immediately adjacent to the current city limits to the north, east, and west of the site and the annexation of this area will fill in a missing gap in annexed land and, as detailed in the Final Environmental Impact Report, there are sufficient municipal services available to the annexation area; and
WHEREAS, there will be a long term fiscal benefit of the annexation with a proposed 60/40 tax sharing split with the County as analyzed in the Fiscal Analysis attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B, and the annexation of the site will not be permitted until the new Master Tax Sharing Agreement between the County and City is in place; and
WHEREAS, 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 2020-2030; and WHEREAS, the project area is currently located within the unincorporated area of San Joaquin County within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Manteca and, as required by the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission for annexations, will be annexed into the City with a pre-zoning district designation; and WHEREAS, the proposed Pre-Zoning Designations are One-Family Dwelling (R1), Park (P), and Public/Quasi Public (PQP) with a Planned Development Overlay (PD) over the site other than the 16.1 acres reserved for the school site, all of which are shown on the zoning map attached as Exhibit C; and
WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting that the site have a Planned Development Overlay, which must be filed concurrently with the rezoning, which will establish development standards to allow for flexibility in development standards for the half-plex homes and half-plex clusters homes and reduced driveway setbacks; and these Design Guidelines are attached as Exhibit D; and
WHEREAS, in order to develop the 738-unit subdivision known as the Hat Ranch Subdivision, the project applicant filed a Tentative Subdivision Map, which is attached as Exhibit E with Conditions of Approval, which are attached as Exhibit F; and
WHEREAS, the current General Plan land use designations for the project site are Low Density Residential (LDR), Park (P), and Commercial Mixed Use (CMU), and since the General Plan Update has not been approved, the applicant is seeking a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designations to LDR, P and PQP to match the preferred land use diagram, and the existing and proposed land uses designations maps are attached as Exhibit G, and the uses of the project are ATTACHMENT 17
July 6, 2023
consistent with the LDR, P, and PQP land use designations in that the uses and density of the proposed project match the preferred land use map in the General Plan Update which reflect the desired land uses; and
WHEREAS, the City, as the lead agency for the Project, has prepared an Environmental Impact Report for the project pursuant to and in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was made available for the statutory 45-day public review from September 8, 2022 to October 24, 2022, and public comments received were posted and responded to in the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, the EIR identified one or more significant and unavoidable environmental effects of the project, however the certain findings have been made and a statement of overriding consideration for any impact that may not be reduced to a less than significant level has been prepared, attached as Exhibit H, and a mitigation and monitoring program, attached as Exhibit I, has been established to mitigate those impacts which can be mitigated to a less than significant level; and WHEREAS, the entire 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 July 6, 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 the certification of the Final EIR (comprised of the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments Document) and the approval of the Annexation, Pre-zoning, Planned Development, General Plan Amendment, and Tentative Subdivision Map for the Hat Ranch project, File Nos. ANX19-122, PRZ19-123, GPA19-124, PD19-126, and SDJ19-125.

Certification of the EIR

1. The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA.

2. The Final EIR was presented to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to making a recommendation on the Project.

3. The Final EIR reflects the lead agency’s independent judgement and analysis.

General Plan Amendment Findings

1. The General Plan Amendment produces a benefit to the City in that the added LDR area allows for more housing, which is a state priority, the PQP area allows ATTACHMENT 17
July 6, 2023
for the construction of a necessary school, and the increase in park area provides greater benefit to the community.

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, P and PQP zones are consistent with the LDR, P, and PQP land use and density requirements of the preferred General Plan Update Land Use Map, and the and the PD Overlay Zone is consistent with the LDR and P land use requirements and as the majority of the subdivision will develop based on the small-lot subdivision standards.

2. The proposed amendments would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City, in that the Planned Development Design Guidelines and zoning ordinance will ensure superior design and quality for this subdivision, and 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 Final Environmental Impact Report, and the statement of overriding considerations, along with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will mitigate all impacts where feasible.

4. The project 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.

Planned Development Findings

1. The proposed project does not exceed the total density allowed under the base Zoning District or the General Plan land use designation, in that the density range for LDR and R-1 is 2.1 to 8.0 dwelling units per acre. The project’s proposed density is 3.9 dwelling units per acre, complying with the land use designation and zoning density requirements.

2. The proposed project is superior to development that could occur under the development standards of the base district in the following ways:
a) The project provides more green space and park area than required for the proposed development.
b) The landscaping provided in the Hat Subdivision meets and exceeds the ATTACHMENT 17
July 6, 2023
expectations of landscaping for a new subdivision in that the entry features will be enhanced and there will be enhanced landscaping throughout the entire subdivision.
c) The project has superior subdivision design in that the Planned Development details standards for housing product type, architectural style, and park design. d) There is greater connectivity to the surrounding public streets, bike paths, pedestrian walkways, and public open space in that the overall subdivision is connected to adjacent neighborhoods in multiple locations and three major streets are being extended due to the project, creating overall better connectivity for the city. The internal community is also connected through a network of large sidewalks with ample landscaping.
e) The project reduces the impact on surrounding properties in terms of privacy, access to sunlight, shadow, views, noise, and other negative impacts in that the subdivision is developing under the majority of the standards of the R-1 zoning district and all impacts are being mitigated to the extent possible through the MMRP program.

3. The proposed project incorporates best site planning practices for quality design and compatibility with surroundings through the implementation of the guidelines and standards detailed in the PD Guidelines. The Guidelines include strong urban design principles, which will ensure a quality design at a pedestrian-friendly scale.

4. The proposed project incorporates high quality architectural design and durable materials, in that the Hat Ranch Subdivision consists of a well thought-out and high quality design aesthetics that will be regulated by the Design Guidelines which detail out key style-identifying components. The Guidelines establish clear expectations as to form and material for any development within the subdivision.

5. The proposed project shall not be substantially detrimental to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of this Title or the public interest, in that the project was reviewed and has been conditioned to not be detrimental to adjacent property owners. The project will meet the City’s rear yard setback standards and will provide the amount of landscaping required by City code. This project will be required to maintain all other standards, including performance standards, to ensure there is no detriment to adjacent properties and will not materially impair the purposes of this Title or the public interest.

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 PD development is an allowed use in the LDR, P, and PQP land use designations and the project meets the density ATTACHMENT 17
July 6, 2023
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 will have access to city services, commercial centers, and community amenities.

5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is unlikely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or 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 mitigated 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 on site, and any future right of dedication being required has been incorporated into the land plan.

8. The the City prepared a Project-level EIR pursuant to and in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). While some significant and unavoidable impacts were identified by the EIR, the substantial economic and social benefits of the project outweigh and override the significant unavoidable environmental effects that would result from the Project.

9. The housing needs have been considered and the need for housing has been balanced against the public service needs of the residences and available fiscal and environmental resources in that the project will provide the opportunity to create a significant amount of new housing in Manteca, and the environmental impact of these homes has been evaluated as discussed above. Further, the fiscal implications of the added homes has been shown to be a benefit to the City upon annexation at a 60/40 tax-sharing agreement, and public services will be provided for through the payment of impact fees and by the requirement to join the CFD for additional public safety services in the City.

ATTACHMENT 17
July 6, 2023

10.The design of the subdivision provides for future passive and natural heating or cooling opportunities in that there are window on all facades to optimize the potential for passive cooling. The project will also comply with applicable California Building Code requirements that promote passive and natural heating and cooling.

11.The proposed land decision is consistent with the general plan as discussed above.

I hereby certify that Resolution No. 1634 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Manteca at a regularly scheduled public hearing held on July 6, 2023, by the following vote:

Roll Call:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Ron Laffranchi, Chairman Date
Exhibits:

Exhibit A Annexation Map
Exhibit A1 Annexation Legal Description
Exhibit B Fiscal Analysis
Exhibit C Pre-Zoning Map
Exhibit D Planned Development Design Guidelines
Exhibit E Tentative Subdivision Map
Exhibit F Conditions of Approval for the Hat Ranch Subdivision Map Exhibit G Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Maps Exhibit H Statement of Overriding Considerations
Exhibit I MMRP
ATTACHMENT 17
226-140-06 226-140-08 226-140-16 226-140-07 226-140-05 #7 N89°39'18"W 2651.90' #1 N89°31'42"W 2644.57' #2 N0°04'57"W
1323.41' #3 S89°30'54"E 2640.37' #4 N0°15'53"W 386.81'#5 S89°39'50"E 2651.47' #6 S0°16'44"E
1710.07' 226-140-04 226-140-12 226-120-10 226-120-11
226-120-17
226-120-18
226-120-19
226-120-20
226-120-21
226-120-22
226-140-11 226-120-16 PROPOSED ANNEXATION 184± AC MAP OF HAT RANCH DEVELOPMENT ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF MANTECA SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIAHIGHWAY 99

AUSTIN ROAD
MAIN ST. SEDAN AVE. VICINITY MAP
UNION RD. MOFFAT BLVD. HIGHWAY 99 N.T.S. WOODWARD AVE. STATE ROUTE 120 SEDAN AVE.

PILSBURY

RD SITE
ATTACHMENT 17
25224
7/26/2019

P:\25224\SRV\Mapping\Desc\Hat Ranch Annexation.doc

DESCRIPTION OF HAT RANCH DEVELOPMENT ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF

MANTECA, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 16 AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 2S, RANGE 7E, MOUNT DIABLO BASE

AND MERIDIAN, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 16,

THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER SECTION, COURSE #1. NORTH 89°31’42” WEST, 2644.57 FEET, TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID

NORTHEAST QUARTER SECTION,

THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE,
COURSE #2. NORTH 0°04’57” WEST, 1323.41 FEET,

THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE AND ENTERING SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 16,
COURSE #3. SOUTH 89°30’54” EAST, 2640.37 FEET, TO THE SECTION LINE COMMON TO SECTION 15 AND 16,

THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID SECTION LINE,
COURSE #4. NORTH 0°15’53” WEST, 386.81 FEET,

THENCE LEAVING SAID SECTION LINE AND ENTERING SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15,
COURSE #5. SOUTH 89°30’50” EAST, 2651.47 FEET, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID

NORTHWEST QUARTER SECTION,

THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE,
COURSE #6. SOUTH 0°16’44” EAST, 1710.07 FEET, TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID

NORTHWEST QUARTER SECTION,

THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE,
COURSE #7. NORTH 89°39’18” WEST, 2651.90 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

CONTAINING 184 ACRES, MORE OR LESS

END OF DESCRIPTION
ATTACHMENT 17
25224
7/26/2019

P:\25224\SRV\Mapping\Desc\Hat Ranch Annexation.doc
PREPARED BY:
______________________________ _____________________

IAN BRUCE MACDONALD DATE
LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR NO. 8817
(EXP. 12/31/19)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPROVED AS TO DESCRIPTION:

COUNTY SURVEYOR
_______________________________
JAMES E. HART, L.S. 8657
ATTACHMENT 17
Discussion Materials
Manteca Hat Ranch
Fiscal Impact Analysis —
City of Manteca
Prepared for:

City of Manteca
Prepared by:

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
August 31, 2021
EPS #202113
ATTACHMENT 17
List of Tables
Table 1 Summary of Annual Surplus/Deficits................................................................ 1 Table 2A Estimated Annual Revenues and Expenditures –
Base Property Tax Allocation Scenario ............................................................. 2 Table 2B Estimated Annual Revenues and Expenditures -
Master Tax Sharing Allocation Scenario............................................................ 3 ATTACHMENT 17
DRAFT
Table 1
Manteca Hat Ranch
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Summary of Annual Surplus/Deficits (2020$)
Item
Annual Fiscal Impact
Annual General Fund Revenues $1,035,000
Annual General Fund Expenditures $993,000
Net General Fund Surplus/(Deficit) $42,000
Estimated Surplus/(Deficit) per Unit
Single Family Residential $18
sum
Source: EPS.

Estimated Annual
Revenues/Expenditures
(Rounded)
Base Allocation Scenario
Prepared by EPS 8/30/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202113 Manteca Hat Ranch Fiscal FIA\Models\202113 Manteca Fiscal m1 08.26.21 ATTACHMENT 17
DRAFT
Table 2A
Manteca Hat Ranch
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Estimated Annual Revenues and Expenditures (2020$)
Item
Annual General Fund Revenues
Property Taxes $497,300
Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fees $290,700
Real Property Transfer Tax $29,400
Sales and Use Taxes $129,600
Public Safety Sales and Use Tax $3,700
Transient Occupancy Tax $25,600
Licenses and Permits -
Business Licenses $16,100
Franchise Fees $42,800
Total General Fund Revenue $1,035,200
Annual General Fund Expenditures
General Government
Legislation and Policy $18,900
Legal Services $11,100
City Administration $9,600
Public Works Administration $1,900
Non Departmental $110,500
Human Resources $19,800
Fiscal and Revenue Management $10,700
Economic and Community Development $4,400
Fleet Maintenance $5,400
Subtotal General Government $192,300
Public Safety
Police Protection $447,500
Animal Services $4,800
Fire Protection $219,000
Subtotal Public Safety $671,300
Parks, Recreation, and Community Services
Parks Maintenance $79,300
Library $3,600
Recreational and Senior Services $26,900
Subtotal Parks, Recreation, and Community Svcs $109,800 Public Utilities
Storm Drainage $8,100
Subtotal Public Utilities $8,100
Transportation
Streets $11,400
Subtotal Transportation $11,400
Total General Fund Expenditures $992,900
Net General Fund Surplus/(Deficit) $42,300
det sum
Source: EPS.

Estimated Annual
Revenues / Expenditures
(Rounded)
Base Allocation Scenario
Prepared by EPS 8/30/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202113 Manteca Hat Ranch Fiscal FIA\Models\202113 Manteca Fiscal m1 08.26.21 ATTACHMENT 17
DRAFT
Table 2B
Manteca Hat Ranch
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Estimated Annual Revenues and Expenditures (2020$)
Item
Annual General Fund Revenues
Property Taxes $248,700
Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fees $290,700
Real Property Transfer Tax $29,400
Sales and Use Taxes $129,600
Public Safety Sales and Use Tax $3,700
Transient Occupancy Tax $25,600
Licenses and Permits -
Business Licenses $16,100
Franchise Fees $42,800
Total General Fund Revenue $786,600
Annual General Fund Expenditures
General Government
Legislation and Policy $18,900
Legal Services $11,100
City Administration $9,600
Public Works Administration $1,900
Non Departmental $110,500
Human Resources $19,800
Fiscal and Revenue Management $10,700
Economic and Community Development $4,400
Fleet Maintenance $5,400
Subtotal General Government $192,300
Public Safety
Police Protection $447,500
Animal Services $4,800
Fire Protection $219,000
Subtotal Public Safety $671,300
Parks, Recreation, and Community Services
Parks Maintenance $79,300
Library $3,600
Recreational and Senior Services $26,900
Subtotal Parks, Recreation, and Community Svcs $109,800 Public Utilities
Storm Drainage $8,100
Subtotal Public Utilities $8,100
Transportation
Streets $11,400
Subtotal Transportation $11,400
Total General Fund Expenditures $992,900
Net General Fund Surplus/(Deficit) ($206,300)
det sum
Source: EPS.

Estimated Annual
Revenues / Expenditures
(Rounded)
Master Tax Sharing
Agreement Allocation
Scenario
Prepared by EPS 8/30/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202113 Manteca Hat Ranch Fiscal FIA\Models\202113 Manteca Fiscal m1 08.26.21 ATTACHMENT 17
APPENDICES:

Appendix A: General Assumptions
Appendix B: General Fund Revenue Analysis
Appendix C: General Fund Expenditure Analysis
Appendix D: Supporting Tables for
Revenue and Expenditure Analysis
ATTACHMENT 17
APPENDIX A:

General Assumptions
Table A-1 General Assumptions ........................................................ 4 Table A-2 Total and Occupied Project Land Uses ................................. 5 Table A-3 Estimated Persons Served ................................................. 6 Table A-4 Land Use Assumptions ...................................................... 7 ATTACHMENT 17
DRAFT
Table A-1
Manteca Hat Ranch
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, 2020.
[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 2020 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 202113 Manteca Fiscal m1 08.26.21 8/30/2021 ATTACHMENT 17
DRAFT
Table A-2
Manteca Hat Ranch
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Total and Occupied Project Land Uses
Land Use Acres
Total
Dwelling
Units
Vacancy
Rate
Occupied
Dwelling
Units
Development Projections in Current City Limits
Residential Land Uses
Single Family Detached 93 635 6.0% 597
Single Family - Half Plex 4 104 6.0% 98
Subtotal Residential 97 739 695
Total All Land Uses 97 739 695
lu
Source: J.B. Anderson Land Use Planning; EPS.

Project Land Uses
Prepared by EPS 8/30/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202113 Manteca Hat Ranch Fiscal FIA\Models\202113 Manteca Fiscal m1 08.26.21 ATTACHMENT 17
DRAFT
Table A-3
Manteca Hat Ranch
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Estimated Persons Served
Assumption
Land Use [1]
Project Residents
Residential Land Uses PPH
Single Family Detached 3.30 1,970
Single Family - Half Plex 3.30 323
Subtotal Residential Land Uses 1,970
Total Resident Population 2,294
Project Persons Served 2,294
pop
Source: California Department of Finance; EPS.

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

Prepared by EPS 8/30/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202113 Manteca Hat Ranch Fiscal FIA\Models\202113 Manteca Fiscal m1 08.26.21 ATTACHMENT 17
DRAFT
Table A-4
Manteca Hat Ranch
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Land 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
Single-Family Residential per Unit
Single Family Detached $515,000 14.30% 6.0% 3.30
Single Family - Half Plex $450,000 14.30% 6.0% 3.30
lu assum
Source: J.B. Anderson Land Use Planning; US Census; California Department of Finance; EPS. [1] Assessed value based on the rounded estimated average market value per unit for similar projects within the area. Due to the unavailability of comparable prototype data, half plex assessed value is an initial value assumption. [2] Owner-occupied residential assumed to turn over once every 7 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 California Department of Finance Table E-5, current as of 01-01-2021.

Prepared by EPS 8/31/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202113 Manteca Hat Ranch Fiscal FIA\Models\202113 Manteca Fiscal m1 08.26.21 ATTACHMENT 17
APPENDIX B:

General Fund Revenue Analysis
Table B-1 Revenue-Estimating Procedures Based on
City of Manteca FY 2020-21 Budget .................................... 8 Table B-2 Estimated Annual General Fund Revenues ........................... 9 Table B-3 Estimated Annual Property Tax Revenues .......................... 10 Table B-4 Real Property Transfer Tax .............................................. 11 Table B-5 Estimated Annual Taxable Sales and Use Tax Revenue ........ 12 Table B-5A Estimated Annual Taxable Sales from Proposed Development, Market Support Method............................... 13 ATTACHMENT 17
DRAFT
Table B-1
Manteca Hat Ranch
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Revenue-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 8/30/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202113 Manteca Hat Ranch Fiscal FIA\Models\202113 Manteca Fiscal m1 08.26.21 ATTACHMENT 17
DRAFT
Table B-2
Manteca Hat Ranch
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Estimated Annual General Fund Revenues (2020$)
Case Study
Revenue Category Reference
General Fund Revenues
Property Taxes Table B-3 $497,300
Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fees Table B-3 $290,700 Real Property Transfer Tax Table B-4 $29,400
Sales and Use Taxes Table B-5 $129,600
Public Safety Sales and Use Tax Table B-5 $3,700
Transient Occupancy Tax - $25,600
Licenses and Permits - -
Business Licenses - $16,100
Franchise Fees - $42,800
Fines and Forfeitures - -
Total General Fund Revenue $1,035,200
rev
Source: City of Manteca FY 2020-21 Adopted Budget; EPS.

Estimated
Annual Revenue
(Rounded)
Prepared by EPS 8/30/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202113 Manteca Hat Ranch Fiscal FIA\Models\202113 Manteca Fiscal m1 08.26.21 ATTACHMENT 17
DRAFT
Table B-3
Manteca Hat Ranch
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Estimated Annual Property Tax Revenues (2020$)
Assumption/
Item Source Formula
Assessed Value of Project Table D-2 a $373,825,000
Property Tax Revenue (1% of Assessed Value) 1.0000% b = a * 1.00% $3,738,250 Estimated Property Tax Allocation [1]
City of Manteca General Fund 13.3035% c = b * 13.30% $497,317 Other Agencies/ERAF 86.6965% d = b * 86.70% $3,240,933
Total City of Manteca General Fund Property Tax e = c $497,317 Property Tax In-Lieu of Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fee Revenue (VLF) Total Citywide Assessed Value [2] l $9,295,356,393
Total Assessed Value of Project m $373,825,000
Total Assessed Value n = l + m $9,669,181,393
Percent Change in AV o = m / l 4.02%
Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF [3] $7,228,240 p = o * $7,228,240 $290,693 prop tax
Source: City of Manteca; San Joaquin County Auditor-Controller; EPS. [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.

Estimated
Property Tax
Revenues
Prepared by EPS 8/30/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202113 Manteca Hat Ranch Fiscal FIA\Models\202113 Manteca Fiscal m1 08.26.21 ATTACHMENT 17
DRAFT
Table B-4
Manteca Hat Ranch
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 $373,825,000
Total Assessed Value $373,825,000
Turnover Rate
Single Family Residential 14.30%
Annual Transfer Tax Revenue [1]
Single Family Residential $29,401
Total Annual Transfer Tax Revenue $29,401
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 8/30/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202113 Manteca Hat Ranch Fiscal FIA\Models\202113 Manteca Fiscal m1 08.26.21 ATTACHMENT 17
DRAFT
Table B-5
Manteca Hat Ranch
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 $12,957,750 Annual Taxable Sales from New Development b = a $12,957,750 Annual Sales Tax Revenue
Bradley Burns Local Sales Tax Revenue c = b * 1.0000% 1.0000% $129,578 City of Manteca Prop 172 Public Safety Sales Tax Revenue [1] d = c * 2.8912% 2.8912% $3,746 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 8/30/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202113 Manteca Hat Ranch Fiscal FIA\Models\202113 Manteca Fiscal m1 08.26.21 ATTACHMENT 17
DRAFT
Table B-5A
Manteca Hat Ranch
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 Detached 597
Single Family - Half Plex 98
Total Residential Development 695
Taxable Retail Expenditures per Household [1] Taxable Retail Expenditures Single Family Detached $25,000 $14,925,000
Single Family - Half Plex $24,000 $2,352,000
Total Taxable Retail Expenditures $17,277,000
Estimated Citywide Capture from New Households [2] 75% $12,957,750 Total Annual Taxable Sales from Market Support $12,957,750 sales a
Source: Costar; Gregory Group; Bureau of Labor Statistics; City of Manteca; EPS. [1] For details pertaining to resident and employee 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 8/30/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202113 Manteca Hat Ranch Fiscal FIA\Models\202113 Manteca Fiscal m1 08.26.21 ATTACHMENT 17
APPENDIX C:

General Fund Expenditure Analysis
Table C-1 Expenditure-Estimating Procedures Based on
City of Manteca FY 2020-21 Budget .................................. 14 Table C-2 Estimated Annual General Fund Expenditures ..................... 15 ATTACHMENT 17
DRAFT
Table C-1
Manteca Hat Ranch
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Expenditure-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 50% $8.23 Legal Services Persons Served $920,326 - $920,326 95,300 $9.66 50% $4.83 City Administration Persons Served $1,276,411 ($475,458) $800,953 95,300 $8.40 50% $4.20 Public Works Administration Persons Served $1,709,398 ($1,554,893) $154,505 95,300 $1.62 50% $0.81 Non Departmental Persons Served $9,181,518 - $9,181,518 95,300 $96.34 50% $48.17 Human Resources Persons Served $1,644,221 - $1,644,221 95,300 $17.25 50% $8.63 Fiscal and Revenue Management Persons Served $1,713,751 ($822,631) $891,120 95,300 $9.35 50% $4.68 Economic and Community Development Persons Served $365,978 - $365,978 95,300 $3.84 50% $1.92 Fleet Maintenance Persons Served $450,675 - $450,675 95,300 $4.73 50% $2.36 Subtotal 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 $195.13 100% $195.13 Animal Services Persons Served $450,319 ($252,635) $197,684 95,300 $2.07 100% $2.07 Fire Protection [3] [4] Persons Served $10,890,170 ($1,792,064) $9,098,106 95,300 $95.47 100% $95.47 Subtotal 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 $34.59 100% $34.59 Library Per Capita $133,160 - $133,160 84,800 $1.57 100% $1.57 Recreational and Senior Services Per Capita $996,298 - $996,298 84,800 $11.75 100% $11.75 Subtotal 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 50% $3.52 Subtotal Public Utilities $671,420 - $671,420
Transportation
Streets Persons Served $474,170 - $474,170 95,300 $4.98 100% $4.98 Subtotal 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. [2] An adjustment factor may be used to reflect the fact that new employees may not increase certain General Fund department expenditures at a 1:1 ratio. This analysis does not assume an adjustment at this time. [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).

Prepared by EPS 8/30/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202113 Manteca Hat Ranch Fiscal FIA\Models\202113 Manteca Fiscal m1 08.26.21 ATTACHMENT 17
DRAFT
Table C-2
Manteca Hat Ranch
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Estimated Annual General Fund Expenditures (2020$)
Expenditure Category
General Fund
General Government
Legislation and Policy $18,884
Legal Services $11,074
City Administration $9,638
Public Works Administration $1,859
Non Departmental $110,482
Human Resources $19,785
Fiscal and Revenue Management $10,723
Economic and Community Development $4,404
Fleet Maintenance $5,423
Subtotal General Government $192,272
Public Safety
Police Protection $447,521
Animal Services $4,757
Fire Protection $218,956
Subtotal Public Safety $671,234
Parks, Recreation, and Community Services
Parks Maintenance $79,341
Library $3,601
Recreational and Senior Services $26,946
Subtotal Parks, Recreation, and Community Svcs $109,888 Public Utilities
Storm Drainage $8,079
Subtotal Public Utilities $8,079
Transportation
Streets $11,411
Subtotal Transportation $11,411
Total Annual General Fund Expenditures $992,885
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 8/30/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202113 Manteca Hat Ranch Fiscal FIA\Models\202113 Manteca Fiscal m1 08.26.21 ATTACHMENT 17
APPENDIX D:

Supporting Tables for
Revenue and Expenditure Analysis
Table D-1 Preliminary Property Tax Allocations ................................. 16 Table D-2 Cumulative Assessed Valuation ........................................ 17 Table D-3 Estimated Average Annual Household Income .................... 18 ATTACHMENT 17
DRAFT
Table D-1
Dutra Property
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Preliminary Property Tax Allocations for Annexation Areas Tax Code Entity 113-007 113-004 TRA 113-007 TRA 113-004 Total Formula a b e f g = e + f h i = h * $325,751 j = i / $979,447 Subject to Detachment
10001 County General 24.1396% 23.2717% $11,448 $216,897 $228,345 60% $195,451 19.95521% 10527 Road District 5 4.7286% 4.5630% $2,242 $42,529 $44,771 - $0 0.00000% 14901 Lathrop-Manteca Rural Fire 2.8380% 5.5030% $1,346 $51,289 $52,635 - $0 0.00000% 40200 City of Manteca 0.0000% 0.0000% - - - 40% $130,300 13.30347% Subtotal 31.7062% 33.3377% $15,036 $310,715 $325,751 100% $325,751 33.25868% Not Subject to Detachment
10618 County Library 1.9481% 1.8799% $924 $17,521 $18,445 - $18,445 1.88323% 12701 Ripon Unified Schools 20.2586% 19.5775% $9,607 $182,467 $192,074 - $192,074 19.61048% 13101 Yosemite Junior College 5.6653% 5.4767% $2,687 $51,044 $53,731 - $53,731 5.48581% 13201 County Office of Education 1.7727% 1.7161% $841 $15,994 $16,835 - $16,835 1.71882% 16001 Sjc Flood Control 0.1897% 0.1834% $90 $1,710 $1,800 - $1,800 0.18373% 21901 Sjc Mosquito Abatement 0.8531% 0.8233% $405 $7,673 $8,078 - $8,078 0.82475% 24601 South San Joaquin Irrigation 6.4382% 6.2124% $3,053 $57,901 $60,955 - $60,955 6.22336% 41100 ERAF 31.1681% 30.7930% $14,781 $286,998 $301,779 - $301,779 30.81114% Subtotal 68.2938% 66.6623% $32,387 $621,308 $653,696 0% $653,696 66.74132% Total 100.00000% 100.00000% $47,424 $932,023 $979,447 100% $979,447 100.00000% TRA
Source: San Joaquin County Auditor-Controller; EPS.
[1] Provided by the San Joaquin County Auditor-Controller. [2] Based on the most recent tax-sharing agreement between San Joaquin County and the City of Manteca dated November 2018 related to annexed areas to the City.

Base Allocation Scenario
Existing Tax Rate Area (TRA)
Post-ERAF Distribution [1]
Gross Revenue
(FY 2019-20) [1]
Property Tax
Sharing
Agreement [2]
Post Annexation Average
Base
Revenue
Post-ERAF
Distribution
Prepared by EPS 8/30/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202113 Manteca Hat Ranch Fiscal FIA\Models\202113 Manteca Fiscal m1 08.26.21 ATTACHMENT 17
DRAFT
Table D-2
Manteca Hat Ranch
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Project Assessed Valuation (2020$)
Item
Development Projections in Current City Limits
Residential Land Uses per Unit
Single Family Detached $515,000 $327,025,000
Single Family - Half Plex $450,000 $46,800,000
Subtotal Residential $373,825,000
Total All Land Uses $373,825,000
av
Source: J.B. Anderson Land Use Planning; EPS.
[1] Refer to Table A-4 for details.

Rounded
Value per
Unit/Sq. Ft.
[1]
Total Assessed
Value (2020$)
Prepared by EPS 8/30/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202113 Manteca Hat Ranch Fiscal FIA\Models\202113 Manteca Fiscal m1 08.26.21 ATTACHMENT 17
DRAFT
Table D-3
Manteca Hat Ranch
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Estimated Average Annual Household Income (2020$)
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 Detached $515,000 $36,840 $110,000 23% $25,000 Single Family - Half Plex $450,000 $32,191 $90,000 26% $24,000 income
Source: J.B. Anderson Land Use Planning; 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. [2] Based on a 5%, 30-year fixed-rate mortgage with a 20% down payment, $150 monthly Homeowner's association dues and 2% [3] Assumes 35% of income dedicated to housing costs (mortgage, taxes, insurance, and HOA dues) or rent payments. Rounded City of
Manteca
Prepared by EPS 8/30/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\202000\202113 Manteca Hat Ranch Fiscal FIA\Models\202113 Manteca Fiscal m1 08.26.21 ATTACHMENT 17
Exhibit C
Pre-Zoning Map
ATTACHMENT 17

HAT RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

DESIGN GUIDELINES
PREPARED FOR:

The City of Manteca
PREPARED BY:

Bassenian Lagoni- Architect
MacKay & Somps- Civil Engineer & Planning
KLA, Inc.- Landscape Architect
SUBMITTED BY:

Richland Communities
April 2022
ATTACHMENT 17
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................. 2

1.1 Purpose and intent................................................................................................................................................. 2

1.2 Vision Statement And Objectives........................................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Plan Area and Community Connectivity ................................................................................................................ 2

1.4 Project Description................................................................................................................................................. 3 Chapter 2 Land Use.......................................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Existing Land Use Designations.............................................................................................................................. 5

2.2 Proposed Land Use Designations........................................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Development Standards......................................................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Shared park uses.................................................................................................................................................... 9 Chapter 3 Architecture Guidelines................................................................................................................................. 10

3.1 Purpose and Intent...............................................................................................................................................10

3.2 Residential elevations..........................................................................................................................................10

3.3 Residential design elements ................................................................................................................................16

3.4 Half Plex................................................................................................................................................................19 Chapter 4 Circulation .....................................................................................................................................................20

4.1 Circulation Narrative............................................................................................................................................20

4.2 Street Types .........................................................................................................................................................20

4.3 Traffic Calming .....................................................................................................................................................21 Chapter 5 Landscape......................................................................................................................................................23

5.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................................23

5.2 Parks and Open Space..........................................................................................................................................24

5.3 Streetscape...........................................................................................................................................................29

5.4 Community Gateway Entries ...............................................................................................................................30

5.5 neighborhood Entries...........................................................................................................................................32 Chapter 6 Implementation.............................................................................................................................................33

6.1 Purpose ..........................................................................................................................................................33

6.2 Exceptions and Revisions...............................................................................................................................33

6.3 Consistency Requirements.............................................................................................................................33

6.4 Design Review Process...................................................................................................................................33

6.5 Construction Implementation / Involvement................................................................................................35 Chapter 7 Exhibits..........................................................................................................................................................36 ATTACHMENT 17
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT
The following design guidelines provide the framework for future development within the Hat Ranch development area. The overall goal of these Guidelines is high-quality home design that promotes both visual compatibility and variety. These guidelines express the desired character of future development and address the opportunities of site planning, architecture, and landscaping. These Guidelines are intended to be flexible and illustrative in nature. The flexibility provided is meant to be able to respond to unanticipated conditions such as changes in community desire and the marketplace.

1.2 VISION STATEMENT AND OBJECTIVES
The objectives of these guidelines are to:
• Provide the City of Manteca with the assurance that the development area shall develop in accordance with the quality and character proposed in this document.
• Serve as design criteria to developers, builders, engineers, architects, landscape architects, and other design professionals to maintain the quality of the community
• Lend guidance to the City in review of future development of Hat Ranch • Provide guidance in the formulation of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for the use of land in Hat Ranch

1.3 PLAN AREA AND COMMUNITY CONNECTIVITY
The project site is comprised of four parcels in San Joaquin County in the City’s sphere of influence, and the LathropManteca Fire District service area. It is currently farmed with vineyards and is improved with a large barn, office, a tree-lined driveway, and a 20,000 square foot residence constructed in the middle of the project site. It is bordered by low density residential development to the north (Pillsbury Estates and Woodward Park) and west (Evans Estates), and orchards to the south and east. The land directly south and east of the project site are designated in the City’s General Plan as low density residential. Additionally, the future Antone Raymus Parkway is proposed along the southern boundary of the project site, and the future East Atherton Drive is proposed along the eastern boundary of the project site. Pillsbury Road will continue through the project site from the north to connect to the future Antone Raymus Parkway.

ATTACHMENT 17
Vicinity Map

1.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Hat Ranch Design Guidelines outline the standards for development within the Hat Ranch project site. The project is a proposed master planned residential community located on approximately 184 acres in unincorporated San Joaquin County, within the City of Manteca’s 20-year of Sphere of Influence (SOI). The project will include up to 738 dwelling units, two neighborhood parks, and an elementary/middle (K-8) school site.

To provide a variety of housing options, the project proposes 5 different single-family detached lot types, and a unique district of “half-plex” units and “half-plex clusters”. The Site Plan Exhibit in Chapter 7 (Exhibit C.4) provides additional detail on the location of the various lot sizes and products. As the project is developed over time, the location of these home types and lot sizes may be adjusted and relocated based on demand and market conditions.

ATTACHMENT 17
The Applicant has submitted one tentative subdivision map (TSM). As part of the TSM application, the project includes the following offsite improvements:
• The extension of sewer and water mains from the project site to existing facilities located within Manteca Road and/or East Atherton Drive.
• The extension of one or more storm drain force mains to SSJID Lateral “X” located north of the project site. • Construction of the following street frontage surface improvements:
• Antone Raymus Parkway from Manteca Road to East Atherton Drive (including 27 feet of travel way, 7 feet of the ultimately 14-foot-wide median, and 20-feet of sidewalk and landscaped area); • East Atherton Drive from Antone Raymus Parkway to the end of the existing street improvements north of the project site (including 27 feet of travel way, 7 feet of the ultimately 14-foot-wide median, and 22- feet of sidewalk and landscaped frontage area).

ATTACHMENT 17
Chapter 2 Land Use

2.1 EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
The project site is currently designated Urban Reserve- Low Density Family Residential, Park and Commercial Mixed Use.

Existing Land Use

2.2 PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
The Applicant proposes a General Plan Map Amendment to change the land use designations to Low Density Residential, add a PQP designation site for the school, relocate the Park designations, and eliminate the Commercial Mixed Use designation.

Proposed Land Use
ATTACHMENT 17
The project site will also need to be prezoned for purposes of annexation through LAFCO from AG-40 to Planned Development Low Density Residential (PD-R-1), Public/Quasi Public (PQP), and Park (P).

Proposed Zoning
Table 1 provides the land use summary.

TABLE 1
Land Use Number of Units Acreage Gross Density
Low Density Residential 738 152.3± 5.0 du/ac
School Site (K-8) N/A 16.1±
Parks N/A 16.2±
TOTAL 738 184.6± 4.0 du/ac
To provide a variety of housing options, the project proposes traditional single-family detached homes and a unique district of duplex or “half-plex” units. Table 2 below summarizes the lot sizes and housing product to be included in the project.

TABLE 2
Lot Type/Use Number of Units Acreage Net Density
70’x100’ (Min) 27
126.1± 5.0 du/ac
60’x100’ (Min) 131
55’x110’ (Min) 103
50’x100’ (Min 214
45’x100’ (Min) 159
Half-Plex 40 5.0 8.0 du/ac
Half-Plex Cluster 64 8.3 7.7 du/ac
TOTAL 738 139.4 5.3 du/ac
ATTACHMENT 17
Site Plan
ATTACHMENT 17

2.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The following development standards were prepared to guide the future residential design and development at Hat Ranch. The exhibits in Chapter 7 provide additional information on lot coverage, dimensions, and elevations.

Development Standard Single Family Standards (1) Half Plex Half Plex Cluster Density (2)
Minimum 2.1 du/ac
Maximum 8.0 du/ac
Dimensions
Minimum Lot Width 45’ 50’ 46’
Minimum Lot Depth (6) 100’ 63’ 68.5’
Maximum Stories 2 2 2
Frontage along Cul-De-Sac or Knuckle 30’ 30’ 30’
Minimum Setback (8)(4)
Front(11) 18' 15' 15'
Front Porch 10' 10' 10'
Garage 20' 20' 20'
Side Loaded Garage 15’ (10) N/A N/A
Side 5' 5'/0' (5) 5'/0' (5)
Street Side 10' 10' 10'
Rear(6) 15' 10'/5' (3) 10'/5' (3)
Outdoor Living/Patio Rear-Single Story 8' - -
2nd Story Encroachments(8) (9) (9) (9)
Building Height
Maximum Height 30' 30' 30'
Lot Coverage (4)
Maximum Lot Coverage 70% 1-Story\65% 2-Story 50% 50%
(1) Single Family Standards shall apply to the following products: 70’x100’, 60’x100’, 55’x100’, 50’x100’, 45’x100’ (2) Density is averaged for entire project (less lands dedicated for public uses and ROW dedicated for arterial roads) (3) 10' Setback for Living Space & 5' Setback for Garages (4) Lot Coverage includes building area covered under a roof (includes Covered Outdoor Patios) (5) 0' Setback at Attached Unit Only
(6) At Cul-de-sacs bulbs and knuckles where single-family lot depths are less than the standards depth, minimum rear yard setback requirements may be reduced by an amount equal to the standard depth minus the actual depth of the lot (i.e., 100’- 90’=10’) In no case will the rear yard setback be reduced to less than 5’. (7) Accessory Dwelling Units and JADUs shall follow standards as provided in the Manteca Municipal Code Chapter 17.40.040 (8) Non-Livable Architectural Pop-Outs Allowed to Encroach by 1'-0" Dimension (9) Second Story overhangs may encroach the yard setbacks if fire access and California Residential Code (CRC) requirements are met. Maximum 3’ cantilever with 2’ eave encroachment is allowed. (10) Side Loaded garages are allowed on lots 55’ wide or greater (11) Front Yard setback has been adjusted from Table 17.26.020-1 of the Manteca Development standards to provide flexibility in the architecture design and create a superior street scene aesthetic.

ATTACHMENT 17

2.3 SHARED PARK USES
The project will include approximately 16.2 total acres of neighborhood park area. Specifically, there will be two public neighborhood parks, one east and one west of Pillsbury Road. The park on the east side of the project is proposed to be adjacent to the approximately 16.4-acre school site, encouraging a shared use of the park with the school. Stormwater detention and stormwater quality basins would be incorporated into both park designs for dual usage. The West Neighborhood Park is proposing to connect to and expand the existing Pillsbury Estates Park to create one large park to serve both communities. The park expansion area within the Hat Ranch project will include amenities that differ from what is currently installed and would create more outdoor activities within the park area, including pickle ball courts, gathering plazas, water activity zone, etc.

The table and images below provide a summary of the proposed park acreages. Additional park details are provided in Chapter 5.2.

EAST PARK

WEST PARK
ATTACHMENT 17
Chapter 3 Architecture Guidelines

3.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT
These guidelines in this chapter are graphic representations that address site, building, and landscape design elements. They are intended to guide development towards a unique community and a consistent quality, while allowing for diversity and variation throughout the neighborhoods.

3.2 RESIDENTIAL ELEVATIONS
Variation
The intended architectural character for Hat Ranch draws from the architectural character of the region and timeless design. The following proposed architectural styles will offer variation and create interesting streetscapes throughout Hat Ranch:
• Transitional Spanish
• Modern Farmhouse
• Mid-Century Modern
• California Ranch
• Prairie
An important goal in this community is to develop varied and interesting street scenes. In order to achieve this, the follow architectural style and plan requirements must be met:
• Neighborhoods with up to 119 units of similar lot types are required to have a minimum of 3 plan types and 3 elevation styles per plan.
• Neighborhoods with 120 or more units of similar lot types are required to have a minimum of 4 plan types and 3 elevation styles per plan.

In addition to the five styles provided, future builders of Hat Ranch may choose to use additional styles, subject to approval by the Hat Ranch Design Review Board discussed in Chapter 6.

ATTACHMENT 17
Transitional Spanish
Borrowing on this familiar and traditional style, this architecture honors the precedent while updating it to reflect modernized style. The basic design elements that identify Spanish architecture - simple, asymmetrical forms, arched entries, stucco wall finishes and gable, hipped and sometimes shallow-sloped roofs – animate the elevation.

Similarly, grouping of small accent windows and the vertical form of other openings, reinforce the character.

Material choices blend the traditional and modern in a way that enhances the overall design character.

ATTACHMENT 17
Modern Farmhouse
Farmhouses became a symbol of the rural agrarian style, its simplicity, and functionality. Originating during colonial times, early examples of the farmhouse style borrowed design elements from Cape Cod and other Colonial Styles including broad and wrapped front porches, and symmetrical massing. The farmhouse remained a popular choice due to its simplicity and ease of construction. Modification to the style over time reflected advancements in construction techniques and the availability of local materials. Symmetry became less important, and elevations included less ornamentation. Today there exists a resurgence in the popularity of this style expressed in the Modern Farmhouse, which combines the predominant design features expressed with simplified, contemporary lines and minimal but thoughtful detailing that is rustic and utilitarian in appearance.

ATTACHMENT 17
Mid-Century Modern
The Modern Style began to emerge as early as the 1930s and reflects a forwardthinking approach to design. Architects such as Frank Lloyd Wright, Richard Neutra and Rudolph Schindler believed that architecture could be a catalyst for social change by creating architecture that reflects refined simplicity and integrates with nature. By creating flexible, comfortable, and simple yet striking living spaces that focused on function and connectivity to the outdoors, residents could be influenced to interact with and better appreciate the natural spaces that surround them. The clean lines and minimal ornamentation that characterize this style allow modern homes to blend with the natural landscape and provide strong indoor-outdoor connectivity. Floor plans are spacious and open to maximize views throughout the home and fill the interior spaces with natural light. These open designs also allow multi-functional interior spaces that can be used in variety of ways and encourage families to gather and connect with one another.

ATTACHMENT 17
California Ranch
The Ranch style originated in the mid-1930s by several
California architects. It gained popularity during the 1940s to become the dominant style throughout the country during the decades of the 50s and 60s. Popularity of the “rambling” Ranch houses was made possible by the country’s increasing
automobile dependence. In the decades following World War II, the automobile replaced streetcars and buses as the principle means of personal transportation and compact
houses could be replaced by sprawling designs on much larger lots in outlying areas. The rambling form of the ranch house emphasizes this with single story floor plans and maximizing the home width. The style is loosely based on Spanish Colonial precedents of the American Southwest, modified by influences borrowed from Craftsman and Prairie modernism of the 20th century.

ATTACHMENT 17
Prairie
One of the few indigenous American styles, the Prairie style originated in Chicago in the early 1900s. A group of young architects, including one of the most notable, Frank Lloyd Wright, developed Prairie-style architecture as a reaction to the overly ornate Victorian architecture of the late 19th century. This movement distinctly defined a new architecture rooted in nature that integrates horizontal planes and simple ornamentation.

Married to the ground, the Prairie home celebrates long, low profiles and discourages vertical proportions. Spreading out over lots, these homes historically featured shallow hipped roof lines, rows of windows, deep overhangs, and bands of stone, wood or brick wrapping the facades. Yearning for simplicity and a profound relationship to the landscape, Prairie architecture endures with its clean lines and strong presence.

ATTACHMENT 17

3.3 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS
Garages
Garages provide a sheltered space for vehicles and can add to the articulation of the overall building form. All homes within Hat Ranch are required to have a 2-car garage, although some may have a 3-car garage. Architecture forward design is encouraged where garage doors and placement are located behind habitable spaces. For wider lots that allow for 3-car garages, it is encouraged that the third garage is side-swing or recessed toward the back of the lot.

A minimum 6” recess at all garage doors will be required. All garage doors will be “roll-up” with a minimum of 4-panelzied rows and style appropriate.

Property Edge Conditions
The Hat Ranch site plan proposes lots with highly visible rear and side elevations from Antone Raymus Parkway, Atherton Drive, and Pillsbury Road. These lots will be required to provide enhanced, high quality material and detailing on the sides of the homes most visible by the public. These enhancements may include, but are not limited to, accent trim and color, window details, architectural projections, rafters, etc. These details shall be designed to be proportional to the element they are enhancing.

ATTACHMENT 17
The Hat Ranch site plan proposes a variety of lot sizes to encourage diversity in product type and provides
opportunities for single story and 2-story homes. When new homes within the community are plotted adjacent (rear yard to rear yard) to existing single story homes, the new home shall be either a single story or pop-top and have no windows above the first story facing the rear yard. A pop-top home has a second floor that is typically under the roof starting from the first story. Architecture and windows may protrude above the roof plane to the front of the home.

The following diagram illustrates the lots required to have Single Story/Pop Top floorplans or enhanced elevations:

ATTACHMENT 17
Materials and Colors
The materials and colors of the community have direct impacts on the streetscape and neighborhood. The following guidelines shall be referenced when selecting materials and colors for each architectural style:
• Material and colors shall be of high-quality to reflect the home’s architectural style and durability so they will weather well.
• A minimum of three different color schemes per elevation is required. Each color scheme shall consist of one body color, one trim color, and two accent colors
• Material and color shall wrap to appropriate transition points of the building façade. With the exception of Spanish elevation, 2 building materials will be required for each building façade. Below are examples of materials that could be used per style:
o Transitional Spanish – predominantly stucco with metal or decorative tile accents o Modern Farmhouse – predominantly stucco with stone and/or brick veneer and board & batten siding accents
o Mid-Century Modern - predominantly stucco with stone veneer and cementitious horizontal or vertical siding accents
o California Ranch - predominantly stucco with limited use of brick veneer and cementitious horizontal or vertical siding accents
o Prairie - predominantly stucco with limited use of brick veneer and cementitious horizontal or vertical siding accents
• Adjacent houses and facings across a street must use different color schemes for street scene variation.

The future builder(s) of Hat Ranch will propose the materials and color palettes for each product. The proposed palettes are subject to approval by the Design Review Board described in Chapter 6.

HOA
The Hat Ranch development will have a Homeowner’s Association for the entire property. The HOA will maintain community signage and common landscaping that is not maintained by the city. The HOA will maintain the private shared drive of the Half Plex Cluster Units and common landscaping along the court (Half Plex Cluster details are shown in Chapter 3.4). Front yard landscaping, private driveways, and building exterior shall be maintained by the owner unless the future builder decides otherwise. The CC&Rs and HOA will require and enforce all Hat Ranch residents utilize private garages for owner parking rather than storage, allowing the driveways and streets to remain open for visitors.

ATTACHMENT 17

3.4 HALF PLEX
Concept
The Hat Ranch project is proposing two-for-sale small lot products: Half-Plex and a Half Plex Cluster. The half plex products are plotted on their own lots and share one wall with the adjacent unit and walkways originating from the Public ROW. The Half Plex Clusters are plotted in 4-packs with a shared drive aisle down the center, and with the entries on the front cluster units facing the public street. The other Half Plex products are plotted on corner lots.

Both products elevate front entries and porches forward toward the streets, with garages recessed or facing the drive aisle. Additional details regarding lot coverage, elevations, and dimensions can be found in Chapter 7 (Exhibits A.1-A.15).

Parking
All Half Plex units will incorporate private 2-car garages as well as a full 20-foot long driveway for each unit for onlot guest parking. The Half Plex and Half Plex Cluster products may also utilize on-street parking for additional visitor parking. No parking will be allowed within the 24-foot private drive aisle of the Half Plex Cluster. A preliminary parking plan has been provided in Chapter 7 (Exhibit C.5).

HALF PLEX CLUSTER- 4 PACK

HALF PLEX
ATTACHMENT 17
Chapter 4 Circulation

4.1 CIRCULATION NARRATIVE
Existing Pillsbury Road is proposed to be extended south, through the Hat Ranch site, and connect to Future Antone Raymus as part of the Hat Ranch development. The Primary access to both east and west sides of the site will come from the future Antone Raymus Parkway through Pillsbury Road. Additional secondary access points are located directly off of the Antone Raymus and Atherton Drive. Vehicular and pedestrian connections to the adjacent residential neighborhoods are provided to the north (Pillsbury Estates and Woodward Park) and to the west (Evans Estates) to complete the circulation throughout all of the neighborhoods.

Internal street circulation incorporates a series of loops, cul-de-sacs, and through streets. Access points to Antone Raymus and Atherton Dr have been located near the school site for easy access to major thoroughfares by future students and parents outside of the Hat Ranch community. The site plan provides an east-west street that links both sides of the site plan and creates a direct route for vehicles and pedestrians of Hat Ranch to access the school site.

4.2 STREET TYPES
All residential streets within the Hat Ranch are proposed to be public and follow the City of Manteca’s street standards found on Sheet ST.2 of the Standard Street Cross Sections. Most internal streets are proposed Residential Streets and utilize the 50’ ROW Neighborhood Street standard. The central East-West Street will act as a Minor Collector and serve as a small-scale backbone road. This Street utilizes the 60’ Minor Collector standard street section. The Pillsbury Road extension is categorized as a Major Collector, and provides 2 travel lanes, a median, and sidewalks on both sides, matching the existing condition to the north of the Hat Ranch Project.

Antone Raymus and Atherton Dr are proposed Arterial Streets. The street sections of these streets are proposed to adhere to previous approvals and are important circulation segments of the City of Manteca’s street network.

The drive aisles within the Half Plex Cluster product will be privately owned and HOA maintained.

ATTACHMENT 17
The following Street Sections Exhibit illustrates the width of each street. Further details regarding street design are included within Chapter 7 (Exhibit C.6-7).

Street Widths

4.3 TRAFFIC CALMING
The proposed Hat Ranch street layout has been designed to reduce and discourage vehicle speeding through site while increasing pedestrian and bike safety. A series of stop signs, and other traffic calming features will be incorporated at key intersections to help slow down traffic. Preliminary Stop Sign locations have been provided on Exhibit C.4 in Chapter 7. Final locations of traffic calming features will be determined by the City of Manteca and the traffic analysis.

ATTACHMENT 17
Enhanced crosswalks may also be used at intersections anticipated to have higher levels of traffic and pedestrians.

Textured paving, such as stamped asphalt or pavers, could be utilized for crosswalks at key intersections to visually enhance the pedestrian path of travel.

ATTACHMENT 17
Chapter 5 Landscape

5.1 PURPOSE
The open space portion of Hat Ranch is a critical component for creating the livable and functional community and neighborhoods, and is one of the critical components that sets the character and style of Hat Ranch. Open space in the form of park and streetscape landscape is integrated throughout the plan area to provide recreational opportunities, aesthetic value, protection of non-vehicular pathways, and offer pleasant locations for non-vehicular pathways. The open space is proposed to be landscaped with native plantings grouped according to their water needs and acceptable to the City of Manteca Parks Dept.

Open space in Hat Ranch consists of:
• Parks and dual-use park basins
• Neighborhood park play areas
• Streetscape
Landscape Plant Palette
To reduce water consumption, the use of lawn grass shall be allocated only for active use recreation areas (i.e. soccer fields) and the immediate surrounding areas and access. Shrubs and low-water using plants shall be used for perimeter and non-recreation areas.

Trees shall be selected to be hardy, grow well in the climate, soil conditions, and to not require excessive maintenance. Groundcover plantings shall have similar watering requirements as the trees they are planted near. A tree plan and plant list has been provided in Chapter 7.

Plant species are to be selected based on the size of the area and space they are to be planted. Once mature they should not require more than 25% of their full size to be pruned in order to maintain the desired size.

Non-irrigated/non-living ground covering is encouraged to further reduce water demand. However, non-planted areas are to be integrally designed with the landscape and are to use appropriate materials such as decomposed granite, gravel, cobble, boulders, bark, recycled tires, etc. Large areas of bark with no plants are not allowed unless it serves a specific and justifiable purpose.

A variety of plant species shall be utilized to provide layers of landscape with a diversity of leaf color, form, and texture. Ornamental grasses, groundcover, shrubs, and vines are to be used creatively to provide for functional, easy-to-maintain, and aesthetically pleasing landscape areas.

Walls are to be planted with vines to discourage graffiti.

ATTACHMENT 17

5.2 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
The design guidelines in this chapter are intended to provide a conceptual vision and character for the two parks provided in the site plan. The parks are located within the community where they provide the greatest value for the community: one east of Pillsbury and the other west of Pillsbury. The westerly park will connect to the existing Pillsbury Park, north of Hat Ranch. This connection will double the size of the park, creating an opportunity for diverse recreational uses for both communities. The easterly park shall have shared use with the school site. In the event the school district does not proceed with acquiring the site, the park will act as a standalone neighborhood park.

The two parks in Hat Ranch are the focus of the community and they are located to provide ease of access for each side of Hat Ranch. Pedestrian access is convenient through the sidewalks on the residential streets and via the streetscape provided with the collectors and arterials. The parks are designed to provide a wide range of amenities and activities for the residents of Hat Ranch and Manteca. They will also have a dual use for storm water storage and treatment. The designs are consistent with the Standards and Requirements of the Parks Department and no deviations are required.

Park Design Goals
• Amenities shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the City of Manteca Parks Dept. and the current Parks Master Plan/Landscape Standards and Specifications for Landscape Development at the time of park plan submittal.
• Construct dual-use parks that allow for recreation as well as storm water retention and filtration. Size of park shall be determined by the storm water storage and treatment requirements of the neighborhood. • Maximize recreation opportunities for residents through the use of passive and active recreation facilities.
• Easy access from all homes to the neighborhood parks. • Parks and amenities shall be accessible.
• Provide park space within 2500 feet of each home within the plan area. • Locate sidewalks, paths, and trails above high-water levels around the dual-use basin parks. Walks may dip below and into the high-water level if there is a conveniently located alternate route that remains above the water level.

ATTACHMENT 17
• Most park amenities shall be provided in an upland portion of the park that is roughly at the same grade as the adjacent streets. Some amenities may be provided in lower portions of the park that are periodically flooded with the approval of the Parks Dept. • Provide a variety of play/exercise opportunities for all residents. All facilities are to be compliant with ADA and current codes at the time of installation.
• Each park within Hat Ranch shall have one or two amenities and an overall style that is different and unique from the other parks. It is encouraged to create a reason for residents to go to different parks for different reasons/amenities.

ATTACHMENT 17
West Park
The West Park is an addition to the existing park that was built with Pillsbury Estates. Play equipment for two different age groups was installed. Additional amenities proposed with the West Park include:
• Basketball court
• Pickleball court
• Volleyball and/or additional
pickleball courts
• Multi-use active play
surfacing court
• Shade structures
• Gathering plaza with shade
trees and park furnishings
• Multi-use lawn for lawn
recreation activities (lawn
bowling and events)
• Small dog park
• Meandering walking trail
• Park Furnishings such as
picnic tables, benches, grills,
trash receptacles
• Seat walls and landscape to
frame the functional use
areas
• Lawn in the basin bottom
designed as efficiently as
possible to allow for sport
recreation such as baseball,
softball, soccer, etc.

A more detailed West Park Concept
plan is provided in Chapter 7.

ATTACHMENT 17
East Park
The East Park is directly adjacent to a future school site, offering expanded open space and recreation for both the school and the community. The East Park is a more active sport-oriented park. The park amenities have been designed into a tiered slope. While most activities will occur on the street level portion, large lawn sports, such as soccer, will occur at basin bottom. Park Amenities include:
• Restroom and concession stand building
• Off-Street parking
• Large event gathering space with
perimeter fence, shade structures and
lighting (access control for rented
functions)
• Additional group gathering spaces that are
not access-controlled
• Play equipment for two different age
group users (i.e. tot lot, monkey bars, etc.)
• Water activity zone with fountains,
sprayers, pop-jets, etc. (no pools of water)
• Large full-size soccer field that can be
divided up into multiple practice fields
• Remote shade structures
• Orthogonal sidewalk and overall park
layout (not free-form and organic) to
maximize active recreation
• Park Furnishings such as picnic tables,
benches, grills, trash receptacles
• Seat walls and landscape to frame the
functional use areas
• Landscape shall be designed to support
the recreation and storm water storage of
the dual-use basins and parks and shall be
designed to provide an attractive, longlasting, low maintenance, and low water use landscape (relatively low).
• Irrigation shall be designed per the
requirements of the Parks Dept. and the
current Parks Master Plan/Landscape
Standards and Specifications for
Landscape Development at the time of
park submittal. The greatest extent
possible parks are to use non-domestic irrigation water such as from wells.

ATTACHMENT 17
A more detailed East Park Concept plan is provided in Chapter 7.

Irrigation
All parks shall be irrigated with irrigation wells. This does not include linear parks or parkways that cannot be easily connected to parks. To the greatest extent feasible, the adjacent parkways, streetscape, and open space areas shall be irrigated using water supplied by the park irrigation wells. Landscape connections to domestic water is discouraged and is only to be used if it is not feasible to connect to a park irrigation well per the determination of the Parks Department Director.

Parks and streetscapes are to be designed in compliance with the most current version of the Parks Master Plan and Public Works requirements. Irrigation shall be designed to maximize efficiency and meet the requirements of the City Parks Maintenance Department.

ATTACHMENT 17

5.3 STREETSCAPE
For purposes of these Design Guidelines, “streetscape” is defined as the publicly maintained landscape within the rights-of-way. Landscape is an important aspect of the streetscape, as it is used to create an aesthetic environment, provide shade, reduce and/or delay storm-water run-off, protect pedestrians, and set the style and character of Hat Ranch. Streetscape landscape shall include:
• Street trees
• Pedestrian paths such as sidewalk and multi-use paths • Low water using shrubs and groundcover as well as non-irrigated groundcover such as decomposed granite, cobble, boulders, and other similar materials. • Streetscapes shall be designed in accordance with City of Manteca Parks Dept. requirements. • Plantings shall be low to allow for surveillance and safety of pedestrians. Taller plants may be placed adjacent to fences and walls. Lawn is not allowed.
• Irrigation shall be efficient point-source bubblers, rotators, or other equipment as allowed by the Parks Dept. Irrigation shall be designed for possible connection to a City-wide reclaimed water system where appropriate and if required by the City.

ATTACHMENT 17

5.4 COMMUNITY GATEWAY ENTRIES
At the overall community entry streets, the landscape shall be designed as an upgraded landscape to accentuate the community entries. The landscape within the community gateways shall include:
• Enhanced wall elements such as diagonal wall sections with upgraded materials of stone, brick, tile, or stucco. These elements may also include pilasters, low walls, lighting, and other enhanced features. • Community signage
• Flowering trees and other enhanced landscape to accentuate the wall and fence entry design. • Landscape at the corners and median shall be low to allow for clear views of vehicular traffic as well as pedestrians and bicyclists.
• Landscape shall be formal in nature.
• Sidewalks and multi-use paths shall be placed at the back of curb along the curb return corners to allow for ease of crosswalks and clear visibility.

Above are example of similar Community signage/entry features – Not specific designs for Hat Ranch ATTACHMENT 17
Perimeter Wall – Split-face CMU block walls with cap and pilasters to meet City of Manteca Parks Dept. requirements for materials and means of construction.

ATTACHMENT 17

5.5 NEIGHBORHOOD ENTRIES
Within the overall Hat Ranch community there may be neighborhoods that have their own name or sense of identity.

The materials and overall appearance of these smaller neighborhood signs or entry elements are to complement and be harmonious with the larger-scale Hat Ranch community walls and entry elements. The treatment of the neighborhood entries shall include:
• Smaller entry signs than the overall Community signage, but uses similar/complementary materials and colors.
• Neighborhood signage in medians or diagonal wall sections. • Landscape at the corners and median shall be low to allow for clear views of vehicular traffic as well as pedestrians and bicyclists.
• Landscape shall be formal in nature.

Above are example of similar Neighborhood signage/entry features – Not specific designs for Hat Ranch ATTACHMENT 17
Chapter 6 Implementation

6.1 PURPOSE
The design review process of proposed plans will help to ensure the vision of Hat Ranch. The Hat Ranch Design Review Board (HRDRB) will review and work with each applicant to design a quality project. The HRDRB will consist of 3 people: a representative of the City of Manteca and two design professionals that will represent the Master Developer.

Design Review is required for all projects requiring a building permit in the Hat Ranch development for conformance with these Design Guidelines and applicable Covenants, Condition, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The HRDRB does not guarantee approval of any permit(s) from other entities. However, the HRDRB’s recommendation to City staff is mandatory for the ultimate approval of the unit and/or neighborhood.

6.2 EXCEPTIONS AND REVISIONS
As part of its responsibility in reviewing development proposals by Builders and making recommendations to the City, the HRDRB also has the authority to recommend exceptions and revisions to the Hat Ranch Design Guidelines.

Exceptions may arise through the design review process and might include minor design changes or adjustments that are consistent with the intent of these Design Guidelines. These changes may include, but are not limited to, elevation style changes, lot size modifications, park amenities, etc. In some cases, an exception might apply to a condition not foreseen or discussed in the Design Guidelines, such as unknown physical constraints, future market demands, future environmental constraints, etc. A HRDRB recommendation to grant an exception may or may not be coupled with a Builder submittal that is being reviewed by the HRDRB. A request for revision to the Design Guidelines must be made in writing to the City of Manteca Community Development Department and be approved by the Community Development Director after review and recommendation by the HRDRB. If a proposed revision is deemed to be more than minor by the HRDRB, a PD amendment will need to be processed for the proposed revision.

6.3 CONSISTENCY REQUIREMENTS
Design plans for new construction on undeveloped and improved land must be found consistent with this document, appliable City ordinances, standards, and rules, and any CC&Rs.

6.4 DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
The design review process described below is intended to ensure that projects developed at Hat Ranch contribute to the character and quality envisioned for the community – helping to execute a cohesive vision which creates neighborhoods of lasting value. The requirements are intended to result in a process that will move quickly and efficiently, without sacrificing the quality of available site, architectural, and landscape design opportunities. Two levels of review are required before a building permit can be issued: the first by the HRDRB, and the second by the City of Manteca.

The HRDRB is a committee initially formed and chaired by the master developer or its representative. The HRDRB has the authority to review and approve all plans and specification submitted to them for any proposed improvement. However, the HRDRB does not review or approve engineering designs, zoning or building ordinances, public utility plans, or easement compliance. The design review process is detailed step-by-step as follows.

ATTACHMENT 17
Step 1: Application to Hat Ranch Design Review Board
Review of the proposed plans will help to confirm that project conforms to the overall scope and character of Hat Ranch as described in the Design Guidelines.

The design review process will begin upon receipt of the Design Review Application – Exhibit F. The Design Review Application includes the City of Manteca Self-Certified Design Guidelines Checklist. This checklist focuses on design principles that will promote public health, safety, and welfare in the community. This checklist must be included with every Design Review Application.

Upon receipt of the application and all required submittals detailed below, each Builder will be notified within 10 working days of the date, time, and place for the Design Review Session with the HRDRB.

Required Submittals:
• Completed Design Review Application, including Self-Certified Design Guidelines Checklist. • Project Map. Project map should include lot and/or parcel numbers. • Schematic Floor Plans and Elevation. Please include:
o Building floor plans.
o Front, side, and rear elevations – per elevation, per plan. o Digital Color and Material boards
o Roof plans per elevation style
o One (1) colored front elevation per style missed within all the plans • Pre-Plotting / Lotting Plan. Please include:
o A minimum of five contiguous lots, including a corner lot (if applicable). o The footprint for proposed structures shall be shown on the lot, along with any driveways, walks, dimensioned setbacks, fencing, and any other major features. o If Applicable - Open Space, Streetscape, and/or Park Plans. Individual front yard and backyard landscape plans are not required.

All submitted floor plans and elevations shall be at a minimum 1/8” or 1/4” = 1” scale on 24”x36” paper, as well provided as an electronic file in PDF format. Electronic files can be submitted on a USB drive or via Dropbox (or similar file sharing program).

Upon acceptance of the Builder’s submittal package, the HRDRB will schedule an appointment for the Design Review Session, in which the HRDRB will meet with the Builder to review the submitted materials. During this meeting, site conditions, community development concepts, and any appropriate elements of the Design Guidelines will be discussed to establish the direction for the preparations of detailed plans (working drawings) by the Builder.

Within 15 days after the Design Review Session, the HRDRB shall prepare and submit to the Builder a written memorandum of approval or approval with modifications. In the event significant modifications are necessary, a second Design Review Session will be scheduled by the HRDRB to focus and resolve those modifications.

Step 2: Submittal of Plans to the City
Following the HRDRB written memorandum of approval, Builder can submit plans to the City.

ATTACHMENT 17
Step 3: Master Plans and Building Permit
After plans have been approved by the city, Builders can submit for building permits and, if applicable, temporary, or conditional use permits. City staff should be consulted with any questions regarding permitting process.

6.5 CONSTRUCTION IMPLEMENTATION / INVOLVEMENT
The HRDRB shall be notified if the Builder encounters conditions during construction of the project that change or alter the previously approved design(s). This also includes field changes. If the HRDRB determines that at any time during the construction phase that the Builder is not in compliance with the HRDRB approvals, Design Guidelines, appliable CC&Rs, or other required standards, the Builder shall be subject to a cease-and-desist order of the City Building Official and/or civil enforcement of applicable CC&Rs.

All projects may be subject to periodic field inspections by the HRDRB. If any non-compliance issues are identified, City Staff or the HRDRB shall immediately contact the Builder’s designated representative. The Builder will have five (5) days to respond in writing with a remedy acceptable to the HRDRB and/or City staff. The remedy shall be signed by the HRDRB or the City and the Builder.

ATTACHMENT 17
Chapter 7 Exhibits

CONTENTS
C.1 Vicinity Map
C.2 General Plan Amendment Land Use Comparison
C.3 Pre-Zone Exhibit
C.4 Site Plan Exhibit
C.5 Half Plex Cluster Parking Exhibit
C.6-7 Street Sections
C.8 Property Edge Conditions
A.1-8 Lot Coverage Exhibits
A.9-13 Conceptual Perspectives
A.14 Architecture Street Scene
L.1 Community Overall Plan
L.2 West Park Concept
L.3 East Park Concept
L.4 Landscape Sections
L.5 Open Space Streetscape
L.6 Walls, Fences, and Signage
L.7 Street Tree Exhibit
L.8 Street Tree Photos
Design Review Application
Self-Certification Checklist
ATTACHMENT 17
© 2021 Microsoft Corporation © 2021 Maxar ©CNES (2021) Distribution Airbus DS

PILLSBURY ESTATES
( LOW DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL)

EVANS ESTATES
(LOW DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL)

AUSTIN ROAD BUSINESS PARK
(CURRENT: AGRICULTURE
PROPOSED: LOS DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL)

WOODWARD PARK
(LOW DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL)

S E D A N A V E N U E
HIGHWAY 99

MOFFAT BLVD
WOODWARD AVE. PILLSBURY RD. MANTECA RD. (MAIN ST.)
(AGRICULTURE) (AGRICULTURE)

S E D A N A V E N U E
STATE ROUTE 99

MOFFAT BLVD A L I C E R O A D

S E D A N A V E N U E
WOODWARD AVE. PILLSBURY RD. EAST ATHERTON DR. MANTECA RD. (MAIN ST.)

ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY AUSTIN ROAD
UPRR MOFFAT BLVD.

HAT RANCH
PROJECT SITE EAST ATHERTON DR.

JOB NO.: 25224.000 DATE: 04.06.2022 HAT RANCH

MANTECA, CA VICINITY MAP
NTS
ATTACHMENT 17

URBAN RESERVE -

LOW DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL
(UD-LDR)
168.6 ± acres
PARK

4.1 ± acres COMMERCIALMIXED USE
(CMU)

7.6 ± acres
PARK

4.0 ± acres PILLSBURY RD EAST ATHERTON DR.

ANTONE RAYMUS EXPRESSWAY

LOW DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL (LDR)
152.3 ± acres
PARK

6.9 ± acres PILLSBURY RD EAST ATHERTON DR.

ANTONE RAYMUS EXPRESSWAY
PARK

9.3± acres

PUBLIC/

QUASI-PUBLIC

16.1± acres
JOB NO.: 25224.000 DATE: 04.06.2022 HAT RANCH

MANTECA, CA

LAND USE TABLE

LAND USE CURRENT GENERAL

PLAN ACREAGE

PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN

AMENDMENT AGREAGE
COMMERCIAL-MIXED USE 7.6 acres
PARK 8.1 acres 16.2± acres(2)

URBAN RESERVE - LOW
DESNSITY RESIDENTIAL 168.6 acres -- LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL 152.3± acres(1)(3)
PUBLIC/QUASI PUBLIC 16.1± acres
TOTAL 184.3 acres 184.6acres

GENERAL PLAN

AMENDMENT

CURRENT GENERAL PLAN

PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN

AMENDMENT
1) Includes 13.0± acres of arterial ROW (Pillsbury, Antone Raymus Parkway and Atherton Drive)
2) Includes Water Quality Basins located within the park 3) Includes 0.3 acres of frontage along Mono St (Parcel A). Refer to Tentative Map for site plan and location
NTS
ATTACHMENT 17
EAST ATHERTON DR.

PD-R-1
152.3± acres

PD-PARK

6.9 ± acres AUSTIN ROAD BUSINESS PARK
(AGRICULTURE) (AGRICULTURE)

ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY PILLSBURY RD PD-PARK

9.3± acres

PUBLIC/

QUASI-PUBLIC

16.1± acres

PILLSBURY ESTATES
( LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) EVANS ESTATES (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)

WOODWARD PARK
(LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)

PRE-ZONE
MAP
SCALE: 1"=600'
LEGEND

PARK PD OVERLAY
R-1 PD OVERLAY

P/QP PD OVERLAY
JOB NO.: 25224.000 DATE: 04.06.2022 HAT RANCH

MANTECA, CA
ATTACHMENT 17
EAST ATHERTON DR.

ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY

PILLSBURY ESTATES
( LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) EVANS ESTATES (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AUSTIN ROAD BUSINESS PARK (CURRENT: AGRICULTURE PROPOSED: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) (AGRICULTURE)

PARK SCHOOL

MONO ST

PARK PILLSBURY ROAD

WOODWARD PARK
(LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
STOP
STOP

STOP STOP

STOP SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1"=600'

PLAN SUMMARY

WEST OF PILLSBURY EAST OF PILLSBURY

LOT TYPE
(MIN)
LOT
COUNT LOT % ACREAGE NET

DENSITY

LOT TYPE
(MIN)
LOT
COUNT LOT % ACREAGE NET

DENSITY
LOT

COUNT ACREAGE NET

DENSITY
70'x100' --- --- 63.0± 4.6
du/acre
70'x100' 27 Lots 7%

63.1± 5.6
du/acre
27 Lots
126.1± 5.0
du/acre
60'x100' 88 Lots 27% 60'x100' 43 Lots 10% 131 Lots
55'x100' 103 Lots 31% 55'x100' --- --- 103 Lots
50'x100' 100 Lots 30% 50'x100' 114 Lots 28% 214 Lots
45'x100' --- --- 45'x100' 159 Lots 39% 159 Units
Half-Plex 40 Units 12% 5.0± 8.0
du/acre Half-Plex --- --- --- --- 40 Units 5.0± 8.0du/acre Half-Plex
Cluster --- --- --- --- Half-PlexCluster 64 Units 16% 8.3± 7.7 du/acre 64 Units 8.3± 7.7du/acre
TOTAL 331 units 68.0± 4.1
du/acre 407 units 71.3± 3.9du/acre 738 units 139.3± 5.3du/acre School Site --- --- --- --- School Site --- 16.1± 16.1± Park (2) --- 6.9± Park(1)(2) --- --- 9.3± 16.2±
Arterial ROW --- 6.8± 6.2± 13.0±
TOTAL 81.7± 102.9± 184.6±
FUTURE
PHASE
NOTES:
(1) SITE PLAN SHOWN IS CONCEPTUAL. REFER

TO TENTATIVE MAP FOR LOT

DIMENSIONS AND LAYOUT
(2) PARK IS PROPOSED TO HAVE A SHARED USE

WITH POTENTIAL SCHOOL SITE
(3) PARK ACREAGE INCLUDES 3.2± AC OF

STORMWATER BIORETENTION BASINS

THAT ARE NOT COUNTED TOWARD PARK

REQUIREMENT
(4) FINAL ALL-WAY AND SIDE STREET STOP

SIGN LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED BY
CITY

AREA ALONG MONO ST INCLUDED

WITHIN DEVELOPMENT ACREAGE
JOB NO.: 25224.000 DATE: 04.06.2022 HAT RANCH

MANTECA, CA
LEGEND

PRELIMINARY ALL-WAY STOP SIGN
LOCATIONS(4) STOP
ATTACHMENT 17
ATHERTON DR. PARK SCHOOL
P
P
P
P
P
PP
PP
P
P
P
P
PP
P
P
P
P
P
PP
P
P
P
P
P
P
PP
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
PP
P
P
P
PP
P
P
PP
P
P
P
PP
P
P
P
PP
P
P
P
PP
P
P
P
PP
P
P
P
PP
P
P
P
PP
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
PP
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
PP
P
P
P
PP
P
P
P
PP
P
P
P
PP
P
P
P
PP P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P

POTENTIAL SCHOOL PARKING

LOT LOCATION POTENTIAL SCHOOL PARKING LOT AND ONSITE DROP OFF LOCATION PP
P
P
P
PP
P
P

ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY
P
P
PPPP

PARKING PLAN

HALF PLEX CLUSTER
SCALE: 1"=600' JOB NO.: 25224.000 DATE: 04.06.2022 HAT RANCH

MANTECA, CA

ON-STREET PARKING

OFF-STREET PARKING

HALF PLEX FRONTAGE

PARK/SCHOOL FRONTAGE

SUBTOTAL
DRIVEWAY (2/LOT @ 20' DEEP)
GARAGE (2/LOT)

SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
69 133
202
128
128
256
458*
*SCHOOL SITE TO HAVE ADDITIONAL ON-SITE

PARKING IN PARKING LOT(S)
LEGEND
ON-STREET PARKING (8'x 22')

DRIVEWAY PARKING

P HALF-PLEX CLUSTER TYPICAL
ROW
SW
ATTACHMENT 17
EAST ATHERTON DR.

ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY

PILLSBURY ROAD

PILLSBURY ESTATES
( LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) EVANS ESTATES (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)

WOODWARD PARK
(LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
830
SECTION A.1: 50' ROW
SECTION A.2: MODIFIED 50' ROW
SECTION B: 60' ROW
SECTION C: PILLSBURY PRIMARY ENTRY ROAD: 90' ROW
SECTION D: PILLSBURY 90' ROW
SECTION E: PILLSBURY 66' ROW
SECTION F: ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY 108' ROW
SECTION G: EAST ATHERTON DRIVE 112' ROW
LEGEND:

STREET SECTION
KEY
JOB NO.: 25224.000 DATE: 04.06.2022 HAT RANCH
MANTECA, CA SCALE: 1"=600'
ATTACHMENT 17
2' 5' 36' 5' 2' SIDE WALK R.O.W.

RESIDENTIAL

SIDE WALK

RESIDENTIAL ROLLED

CURB ROLLED
CURB
R.O.W.
8' 10' 10' 8' TRAVEL
LANE
TRAVEL
LANE
PARKING PARKING A.1 NTS 50' ROW

TYPICAL INTERIOR STREET WITH MONOLITHIC SIDEWALK
P.U.E. P.U.E. 10' 10' 3' 5' 44' 5' 3' SIDE WALK R.O.W.

RESIDENTIAL

SIDE WALK

RESIDENTIAL ROLLED
CURB ROLLED* CURB
R.O.W. NTS B
60' ROW

TYPICAL INTERIOR COLLECTOR
P.U.E. P.U.E. 10' 60' 10' 8' 14' 14' 8' TRAVEL
LANE
TRAVEL
LANE

PARKING PARKING
90' ROW

NTS C PILLSBURY ROAD ENTRY

NTS D PILLSBURY ROAD (EXCLUDING
PILLSBURY ESTATES FRONTAGE) 66' ROW
NTS E

PILLSBURY ROAD (ALONG

PILLSBURY ESTATES FRONTAGE)

HAT RANCH WALL
112' ROW
NTS G

RESIDENTIAL

EAST ATHERTON DRIVE
(LOOKING NORTH) MEDIAN

WALL HAT RANCH
(NORTH
SIDE)

ULTIMATE IMPROVEMENTS

BY OTHERS
108' ROW
NTS F

VERTICAL CURB

RESIDENTIAL PL

VERTICAL CURB
90' ROW
12' MEDIAN
R.O.W. R.O.W.

VERTICAL CURB

VERTICAL CURB
PL
WALL
50'
5' 40' 5' SIDE WALK R.O.W.

RESIDENTIAL

SIDE WALK

RESIDENTIAL ROLLED

CURB ROLLED
CURB
R.O.W.
8' 12' 12' 8' TRAVEL
LANE
TRAVEL
LANE
PARKING PARKINGA.2 NTS 50' ROW-MODIFIED

INTERIOR STREET WITH MONOLITHIC SIDEWALK

ALONG PARK FRONTAGE
P.U.E. P.U.E. 10' 50' 10' 3' 5' TRAVEL
LANE
TRAVEL
LANE R.O.W.

SIDE WALK 7' PARKING PARKING
ROLLED
CURB

PILLSBURY

ESTATES

EXISTING

PL EX ROW

VERTICAL CURB
20'
66'
12' 12' 7' MEDIAN 12'
EX
R.O.W.

IMPROVEMENTS
90' 8' 20' VARIES VARIES

SIDE- WALK
TRAVEL
LANE 7' PARKING 12' TRAVEL
LANE
PARKING 12' 7'
50' 90' R.O.W. R.O.W.

VERTICAL CURBVERTICAL CURB WALL

PLEX WALL

LANE/MEDIAN GEOMETRICS TO BE DETERMINED BY CITY

RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL
WALL
20'
*VERTICAL CURB ALONG PARK FRONTAGE
* JOINT TRENCH TO

BE LOCATED IN ROW
TRAVEL
LANE 11' BIKE
LANE 5' TRAVEL
LANE 11' 14' 11' 11' 5' 20' 20'
PFIP

IMPROVEMENTS
54' 108'
TRAVEL
LANE
TRAVEL
LANE
BIKE
LANE
8'
13' 14' TRAVEL
LANE
TRAVEL
LANE R.O.W. R.O.W.

ADJACENT PROPERTY

BY OTHERS

VERTICAL CURB
VERTICAL CURB 14' MEDIAN
PFIP

IMPROVEMENTS
PL
56' 112'
22' LANDSCAPE & MEANDERING SIDEWALK 22' LANDSCAPE & MEANDERING SIDEWALK TRAVEL
LANE 11' 11' BIKE
LANE 5' TRAVEL
LANE 8'
8'
5' SIDE WALK
HAT RANCH 3'

ANTONE RAYMUS EXPRESSWAY
(LOOKING EAST)
VARIES 8' VARIES

SIDE- WALK
8' SIDEWALK

SIDEWALK

SIDEWALK

SIDEWALK
20' VARIES 8' VARIES

SIDE- WALK
VARIES 8' VARIES

SIDE- WALK
JOB NO.: 25224.000 DATE: 04.06.2022 HAT RANCH

MANTECA, CA NTS

STREET SECTIONS
NOTE:
1) The cross sections as shown for Antone Raymus Parkway and Atherton Dr represent the ultimate condition. Refer to Tentative Map for Interim Condition cross sections.
2) Meandering sidewalk design and landscape strip widths along Pillsbury Rd, Atherton Dr., and Antone Raymus Expressway to be determined at final design.

ATTACHMENT 17
ATHERTON DR.

ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY EVANS ESTATES (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AUSTIN ROAD BUSINESS PARK (CURRENT: AGRICULTURE PROPOSED: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) (AGRICULTURE)

PARK SCHOOL

MONO ST

PARK PILLSBURY ROAD

WOODWARD PARK
(LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)

PILLSBURY ESTATES
( LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* * * * * *******************
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

PROPERTY EDGE

CONDITIONS
SCALE: 1"=600' JOB NO.: 25224.000 DATE: 04.06.2022 HAT RANCH

MANTECA, CA
*
LEGEND
1-STORY/1-STORY WITH POP TOP FLOORPLAN

ENHANCED REAR ELEVATION
NOTE:

1. REFER TO CHAPTER 3.3 "PROPERTY EDGE CONDITIONS" FOR MORE DETAILS ON ARCHITECTURAL

ENHANCEMENTS

2. HALF PLEX CLUSTER REAR UNITS SHALL HAVE STANDARD ENHANCED REAR ELEVATIONS, AS ALL UNITS

REAR ON TO ANTONE RAYMUS EXPRESSWAY OR ATHERTON DR

3. POP TOP FLOORPLANS SHALL HAVE NO WINDOWS ABOVE THE FIRST STORY FACING THE REAR YARD ATTACHMENT 17
ATTACHMENT 17
ATTACHMENT 17
ATTACHMENT 17
ATTACHMENT 17
ATTACHMENT 17
ATTACHMENT 17
ATTACHMENT 17
ATTACHMENT 17
ATTACHMENT 17
ATTACHMENT 17
ATTACHMENT 17
ATTACHMENT 17
ATTACHMENT 17
ATTACHMENT 17

F R O N T

R E A R
- H A L F P L E X C O U R T
ATTACHMENT 17
February 07, 2022 19-2140 A N T O N E R A Y M U S P A R K W A Y

P I L L S B U R Y R O A D

A T H E R T O N D R I V E A T H E R T O N H O M E S A T W O O D W A R D P A R K P I L L S B U R Y E S T A T E S E V A N S E S T A T E S School Park Park
P I L L S B U R Y R O A D Scale: 1" = 150'-0" Vicinity Map Not to scale Existing Pillsbury Estates Park C o m m u n i t y P l a n H a t R a n c h Manteca, CA ATTACHMENT 17
M O N O D R I V E Scale: 1" = 40'-0" W e s t N e i g h b o r h o o d P a r k H a t R a n c h Manteca, CA Existing upland park area to remain Existing trees to be removed for expansion of upland park area Basketball Court Volleyball /Pickleball, etc. Small park/development entry feature Small park/development entry feature Primary park entry feature, project signage, and accent landscape Retention basin sized for regulation soccer field Stormwater treatment Lawn at existing basin park Formal row of trees from existing park area to continue with new park expansion Non-uniform slope of basin sides in select areas for spacial function at soccer field and design aesthetic. Steep areas to be planted with no-mow fescue Gradual basin slope at corner to create sloped lawn amphitheater Formal row of trees along primary pedestrian circulation through the site Bosque of trees creates shaded multifunction space Solid roof pavilion allows for sheltered gathering/ dining space Curb bulb outs to provide pedestrian prioritized crossings Pickle ball court Raised planter and seat wall Vine covered colonnade and steel frame pavilion to create a green structure to define spaces Small park sign Continuation of bosque of trees at outdoor dining Lawn Bowling Dog Park Active play zone B E N S O N S T R E E T S A W T O O T H L A N E

I N Y O S T R E E T
J I G S A W R O A D P O L K S T R E E T P I L L S B U R Y P A R K (Existing) (Proposed) February 07, 2022 19-2140 ATTACHMENT 17
East Neighborhood Park / School Scale: 1" = 60'-0" N e i g h b o r h o o d P a r k H a t R a n c h Manteca, CA Park Basin / Soccer Fields Restroom and Snack Shack Continuous shade structure Picnic area Shade structure Large accent trees S T R E E T S T R E E T Well Site Regularly spaced row of architectural trees along primary walkway Elementary School School Parking Lot School Parking Lot School Bus Drop-off Grass Field / Soccer Fields Hard Court Area Baseball DiamondS T R E E T Shade structure Retention basin sized and shaped for maximum flexibility of soccer field layouts for various age groups Water Play Zone Formal row of trees along primary pedestrian circulation through the site Stormwater treatment Wetland style planting in stormwater treatment area Play areas with age specific structures February 07, 2022 19-2140

S T R E E T
ATTACHMENT 17
Varies 8'-0" Var. 11'-0" 11'-0" 27'-0" Var. 8'-0" Varies 20'-0" 27'-0" 20'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0" 54'-0" 54'-0" Landscape Sidewalk Land scape Travel Lane Travel Lane 11'-0" 11'-0" Travel Lane Travel Lane Land scape Sidewalk Landscape North South Future Median 5'-0" Bike Lane 5'-0" Bike Lane 24" 5'-0" 8'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 8'-0" 5'-0" 24" 7'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 7'-0" 25'-0" 25'-0" Sidewalk Parking Travel Lane Travel Lane Parking Sidewalk Homeowner maintained Homeowner maintained West East Varies 8'-0" 7'-0" 12'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 12'-0" 7'-0" 8'-0" 20'-0" 45'-0" 45'-0" 20'-0" Sidewalk Parking Travel Lane Travel Lane Parking Landscape Sidewalk Var. Var. Varies Landscape Landscape Median 36" 5'-0" 8'-0" 22'-0" 5'-0" 30'-0" 8'-0" 14'-0" 14'-0" 8'-0" 36" 22'-0" 8'-0" 30'-0" Sidewalk Parking Travel Lane Travel Lane Parking Sidewalk Homeowner maintained Homeowner maintained 12'-0" Varies - 5'-0" min Varies - 7'-0" 13'-0" 14'-0" 5'-0" min Multi-use Trail Varies 8'-0" Varies 11'-0" 11'-0" 7'-0" Landscape Sidewalk Landscape Travel Lane Travel Lane Median Travel Lane Travel Lane 22'-0" 27'-0" 27'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 22'-0" Landscape Landscape West East Future 5'-0" Bike Lane Varies 8'-0" Var. 25'-0" 25'-0" Var. 8'-0" Varies 20'-0" 45'-0" 45'-0" 20'-0" Landscape Sidewalk Landscape Travel Lane Travel Lane Landscape Sidewalk Landscape West East Perimeter sound wall S t r e e t C r o s s - S e c t i o n s H a t R a n c h Antone Raymus Parkway Pillsbury Road Entry 60' Street ROW (Typical) Scale: 1" = 10'-0" Scale: 1" = 10'-0" Scale: 1" = 10'-0" Typical Residential Street Pillsbury Road Scale: 1" = 10'-0" Scale: 1" = 10'-0" - 108' R.O.W. - Looking east - 86' R.O.W. - 60' R.O.W. - 86' R.O.W. - 50' R.O.W. Manteca, CA Atherton Drive Scale: 1" = 10'-0" - 112' R.O.W. - Looking North R.O.W
R.O.W R.O.W
R.O.W
R.O.W
R.O.W
R.O.W
R.O.W
R.O.W
R.O.W
R.O.W
R.O.W CL CL CL CL CL CL Layers of shrub and accent plants Secondary street trees Street trees in parkway strip Groundcover and low accent plants Street trees in median Perimeter sound wall Layers of shrub and accent plants Secondary street trees Street trees in parkway strip Groundcover and low accent plants Street trees in median Perimeter sound wall Layers of shrub and accent plants Secondary street trees Street trees in parkway strip Groundcover and low accent plants Perimeter sound wall Layers of shrub and accent plants Secondary street trees Street trees in parkway strip Street trees to be planted at regular spacing as part of the construction of each home Front yard landscape - maintained per the homeowner Front yard landscape (shown for reference only) Front yard landscape (shown for reference only) Street trees to be planted at regular spacing as part of the construction of each home Front yard landscape - maintained per the homeowner Front yard landscape (shown for reference only) Front yard landscape (shown for reference only) Perimeter sound wall Layers of shrub and accent plants Secondary street trees Street trees in parkway strip and median Groundcover and low accent plants Perimeter sound wall Layers of shrub and accent plants Secondary street trees Groundcover and low accent plants Final travel lanes and median width to be determined by the city. See Section F on Street Section Plan See Section D on Street Section Plan See Section B on Street Section Plan See Section G on Street Section Plan See Section C on Street Section Plan See Section A.1 on Street Section Plan Sidewalk transitions between being contiguous with curb and separated Sidewalk transitions between being contiguous with curb and separated Sidewalk transitions between being contiguous with curb and separated Sidewalk transitions between being contiguous with curb and separated Sidewalk transitions between being contiguous with curb and separated February 07, 2022 19-2140 ATTACHMENT 17

A N T O N E R A Y M U S P A R K W A Y

P I L L S B U R Y R O A D

A T H E R T O N D R I V E A T H E R T O N H O M E S A T W O O D W A R D P A R K P I L L S B U R Y E S T A T E S E V A N S E S T A T E S East Park West Park
P I L L S B U R Y R O A D Existing Pillsbury Estates Park B U E N A V I S T A D R I V E

I N Y O A V E N U E
J I G S A W A V E N U E M O N O S T R E E T School Site Scale: 1" = 150'-0" Vicinity Map Not to scale O p e n S p a c e a n d S t r e e t s c a p e E x h i b i t H a t R a n c h Manteca, CA Open Space and Streetscape Areas Park / Open Space Streeetscape School Existing Adjacent Park Future / Existing Streetscapes February 07, 2022 19-2140 ATTACHMENT 17

A N T O N E R A Y M U S P A R K W A Y

P I L L S B U R Y R O A D

A T H E R T O N D R I V E A T H E R T O N H O M E S A T W O O D W A R D P A R K P I L L S B U R Y E S T A T E S E V A N S E S T A T E S East Park West Park
P I L L S B U R Y R O A D Existing Pillsbury Estates Park B U E N A V I S T A D R I V E

I N Y O A V E N U E
J I G S A W A V E N U E M O N O S T R E E T School Site Scale: 1" = 150'-0" Vicinity Map Not to scale W a l l s, F e n c e s, a n d S i g n a g e E x h i b i t H a t R a n c h Manteca, CA Walls, Fences, and Signage Legend Perimeter Community Wall - min. 6'-0" tall masonry wall with cap and manufactured stone veneer pilaster at ±150' on center. Vines to be planted on street side for graffiti prevention. (This is a CFD owned and maintained wall with CFD maintained landscaping on the street side.) Neighborhood Entry Wall - min. 6'-0" tall masonry wall. Block pattern, cap, and/or block color. To provide enhancement that differentiates from perimeter community wall to announce neighborhood entry. (This is a CFD owned and maintained wall with CFD maintained landscaping on the street side.) Enhanced Wood or Vinyl Fence - Along side yards of key entry drives. (This is a private property fence owned and maintained by the homeowner. Side yard landscaping will be maintained by the homeowner.) Community Entry Feature and Signage- diagonal wall segment with enhanced wall, pilaster, finishes, and community signage. (Wall and signage to meet City Parks Department standard requirements for signage.) Neighborhood Entry Feature Signage- Placed in corner pilasters. Secondary version of community entry materials and signage. (Wall and signage to meet City Parks Department standard requirements for signage.) Park Sign- to meet City Parks Department standard requirements for signage. 6' - 8' tall tubular steel fence between the park and the school with controlled access gates. Final fence design, height, and picket spacing to be approved by the City Parks Dept. and the School Dist. February 07, 2022 19-2140 ATTACHMENT 17

A N T O N E R A Y M U S P A R K W A Y

P I L L S B U R Y R O A D

A T H E R T O N D R I V E A T H E R T O N H O M E S A T W O O D W A R D P A R K P I L L S B U R Y E S T A T E S E V A N S E S T A T E S East Park West Park
P I L L S B U R Y R O A D Existing Pillsbury Estates Park B U E N A V I S T A D R I V E

I N Y O A V E N U E
J I G S A W A V E N U E M O N O S T R E E T School Site Scale: 1" = 150'-0" Vicinity Map Not to scale S t r e e t T r e e E x h i b i t H a t R a n c h Manteca, CA Street Tree Legend Antone Raymus Parkway - Final species selection to be made or approved by the City of Manteca Planning and Parks Dept. Primary street trees between the curb and sidewalk - formal planting of upright deciduous street trees at 40' on center. Secondary trees between the sidewalk and perimeter wall - Average spacing at 40' - 50' on center, but in groupings o 3-7 with gaps between each group in coordination with meanders in the sidewalk. Atherton Drive - Selection of trees for Atherton Dr. are to match the species that have been selected and installed with DeJong and Atherton Homes at Woodward Estates to the north. Final species selection to be made or approved by the City of Manteca Planning and Parks Dept. Primary Street trees between the curb and sidewalk - formal planting of deciduous street trees at 40' on center in groupings in relation to the meander of the sidewalk. Secondary trees between the sidewalk and perimeter wall - Average spacing at 40' - 50' on center, but in groupings o 3-7 with gaps between each group in coordination with meanders in the sidewalk and opposite the gaps in the primary street tree groupings. Accent Trees - Smaller accent and/or flowering trees are used at the community and neighborhood signage as well as neighborhood entry drives to announce the entries and complement the change in planting and wall materials at the signage. Smaller trees in grids and/or rows and held back of the corner and the signage to allow for visibility. Pillsbury Road - Median - To match the trees in the existing medians to the north, or to match the side street species as listed above for Pillsbury street trees (final decision per the City Parks Dept.). Large spreading deciduous trees placed at 40' on center, triangularly spaced to the side street trees. Neighborhood Entry Drives - Narrow upright trees along each side of the short entry drive segments off of the arterials and collectors. These trees are to announce the neighborhood entry and create a transition from the formal streetscape landscape to the residential front yards. Primary Residential Streets - These are the main connector streets within the residential streets. One tree species is selected to connect these primary streets and reinforce their prominence. Trees provided with these streets are installed with the construction of the home and the trees are maintained by the homeowner. Pillsbury Road - Side Streets - The majority of Pillsbury Road within Hat Ranch is not the same as existing Pillsbury streetscape to the north. To the north, there are homes fronting Pillsbury. In Hat Ranch there are walls and separated sidewalk like a traditional collector. Primary street trees are upright street trees at 40' on center between the curb and sidewalk. Secondary trees - Minimal use of secondary trees were there is sufficient room between the sidewalk and wall to comply with City Parks Dept. requirements. Residential Streets - Streets shall have a consistent single species street tree on both sides of the street. Each street can/shall have a unique species from the other surrounding streets. The same species can be used more than once, but shall not be used for too close to another street that already has that species. Whichever species is selected for the Primary Residential Streets shall not be used for any of the rest of the residential streets. Trees provided with these streets are installed with the construction of the home and the trees are maintained by the homeowner. Parks and Open Space - Trees within the Parks and Open Space of Hat Ranch will be provided per the design of the specific use and per the standards and requirements of the City of Manteca Parks Dept. Where appropriate street trees may be provided around the perimeter of the parks with species that match the adjacent residential street. February 07, 2022 19-2140 ATTACHMENT 17
S t r e e t T r e e P h o t o s a n d D e s c r i p t i o n H a t R a n c h Manteca, CA Antone Raymus Parkway - Final species selection to be made or approved by the City of Manteca Planning and Parks Dept. Primary street trees between the curb and sidewalk - formal planting of upright deciduous street trees at 40' on center - Platanus ; acerifolia 'Bloodgood' - London Plane Tree Secondary trees between the sidewalk and perimeter wall - Average spacing at 40' - 50' on center, but in groupings of 3-7 with gaps between each group in coordination with meanders in the sidewalk - Acer buergerianum - Trident Maple Laurus nobilis 'Saratoga' - Saratoga Bay Laurel Magnolia grandiflora ' Little Gem' - Little Gem Magnolia Tristania laurina 'Elegant' - Water Gum Zelkova serrata ' City Sprite' - Sawleaf Zelkova Atherton Drive - Selection of trees for Atherton Dr. are to match the species that have been selected and installed with DeJong and Atherton Homes at Woodward Estates to the north. Final species selection to be made or approved by the City of Manteca Planning and Parks Dept. Primary Street trees between the curb and sidewalk - formal planting of deciduous street trees at 40' on center in groupings in relation to the meander of the sidewalk - Pistachia chinensis 'Keith Davey' - Chinese Pistache Secondary trees between the sidewalk and perimeter wall - Average spacing at 40' - 50' on center, but in groupings o 3-7 with gaps between each group in coordination with meanders in the sidewalk and opposite the gaps in the primary street tree groupings - Acer buergerianum - Trident Maple Laurus nobilis 'Saratoga' - Saratoga Bay Laurel Magnolia grandiflora ' Little Gem' - Little Gem Magnolia Tristania laurina 'Elegant' - Water Gum Zelkova serrata ' City Sprite' - Sawleaf Zelkova Accent Trees - Smaller accent and/or flowering trees are used at the community and neighborhood signage as well as neighborhood entry drives to announce the entries and complement the change in planting and wall materials at the signage. Smaller trees in grids and/or rows and held back of the corner and the signage to allow for visibility - Callistemon viminallis - Bottlebrush Cercis reniformis 'Oklahoma' - Oklahoma Redbud Crataegus phaenophyrum - Washington Thorn Cupressus sempervirens - Italian Cypress Ginkgo biloba ' Princeton Sentry' - Princeton Sentry Maidenhair Tree Lagerstroemia indica 'Tuscarorra' - Crape Myrtle Prunus cerasifera 'Purple Pony' - Flowering Cherry Pillsbury Road - Side Streets - The majority of Pillsbury Road within Hat Ranch is not the same as existing Pillsbury streetscape to the north. To the north, there are homes fronting Pillsbury. In Hat Ranch there are walls and separated sidewalk like a traditional collector. Primary street trees are upright street trees at 40' on center between the curb and sidewalk. Zelkova serrata 'Musashino' - Sawleaf Zelkova Secondary trees - Minimal use of secondary trees were there is sufficient room between the sidewalk and wall to comply with City Parks Dept. requirements. Acer buergerianum Antone Raymus Parkway Street Trees Zelkova serrata ' City Sprite' Atherton Drive- Street Trees Tristania laurina 'Elegant' Accent Trees Cercis reniformis ' Oklahoma' Pillsbury Road- Side Street Trees Zelkova serratta 'Musashino' 4uercus coccinea Pillsbury Road- Median Trees Arbutus 'Marina' Neighborhood Entry Drive Trees Ginkgo biloba 'Princeton Sentry' Platanus acerifolia 'Bloodgood' Primary Residential Street Trees Residential Street Trees Geijera parviflora Liquidambar styraciflua 'Rotundiloba' Pillsbury Road - Median - To match the trees in the existing medians to the north, or to match the side street species as listed above for Pillsbury street trees (final decision per the City Parks Dept.). Large spreading deciduous trees placed at 40' on center, triangularly spaced to the side street trees. 4uercus coccinea - Scarlet Oak Zelkova serrata 'Musashino' - Sawleaf Zelkova Neighborhood Entry Drives - Narrow upright trees along each side of the short entry drive segments off of the arterials and collectors. These trees are to announce the neighborhood entry and create a transition from the formal streetscape landscape to the residential front yards. Acer buergerianum - Trident Maple Arbutus 'Marina' - Strawberry Tree Carpinus betulus ' Fastigiata' - Upright Hornbeam Cupressus sempervirens - Italian Cypress Ginkgo biloba ' Princeton Sentry' - Princeton Sentry Maidenhair Tree Liquidambar styraciflua ' Rotundiloba' - Seedless American Sweetgum Magnolia grandiflora ' Sam Somers' - Sam Somers Magnolia Prunus cerasifera 'Purple Pony' - Flowering Cherry Zelkova serrata 'Musashino' - Sawleaf Zelkova Primary Residential Streets - These are the main connector streets within the residential streets. One tree species is selected to connect these primary streets and reinforce their prominence. Trees provided with these streets are installed with the construction of the home and the trees are maintained by the homeowner. One species from the following list shall be selected and used for all streets in this category - Acer buergerianum - Trident Maple Ginko biloba 'Princeton Sentry' - Maidenhair Tree Pistachia chinensis 'Red Push' - Chinese Pistache Platanus ; acerifolia 'Bloodgood' - London Plane Tree Ulmus x 'Frontier' - Frontier Elm Residential Streets - Streets shall have a consistent single species street tree on both sides of the street. Each street can/shall have a unique species from the other surrounding streets. The same species can be used more than once, but shall not be used for too close to another street that already has that species. Whichever species is selected for the Primary Residential Streets shall not be used for any of the rest of the residential streets. Trees provided with these streets are installed with the construction of the home and the trees are maintained by the homeowner. Acer buergerianum - Trident Maple Geijera parviflora - Australian Willow Koelreuteria bipinnata - Chinese Flame Tree Laurus nobilis 'Saratoga' - Saratoga Bay Laurel Liquidambar styraciflua ' Rotundiloba' - Seedless American Sweetgum Pistachia chinensis 'Red Push' - Chinese Pistache Platanus ; acerifolia 'Bloodgood' - London Plane Tree Ulmus x 'Frontier' - Frontier Elm Zelkova serrata 'Musashino' - Sawleaf Zelkova Parks and Open Space - Trees within the Parks and Open Space of Hat Ranch will be provided per the design of the specific use and per the standards and requirements of the City of Manteca Parks Dept. Where appropriate street trees may be provided around the perimeter of the parks with species that match the adjacent residential street. Magnolia grandiflora 'Little Gem' Lagerstroemia indica Crataegus phaenophylum Pistachia chinensis 'Keith Davey' Ulmus x 'Frontier' Laurus nobilis 'Saratoga' Zelkova serratta 'Musashino' Laurus nobilis 'Saratoga' Pistachia chinensis 'Keith Davey' Acer buergerianum February 07, 2022 19-2140 ATTACHMENT 17
HAT RANCH| DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION
Lot Number(s): Assessor’s Parcel Number(s):

Size of Project (SF or acres): Total Number of Units:

Builder Name: Point of Contact:

Address:

Email:

Phone Number: Phone Number:

Architect Name: Point of Contact:

Address:

Email:

Phone Number: Phone Number:

IF BUILDER DOES NOT OWN PROPERTY:

Property Owner Name: Point of Contact:

Address:

Email:

Phone Number: Phone Number:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION. Describe in detail your proposed project. Attach a separate sheet if necessary.

Name of Proposed Project:

ATTACHMENT 17
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS WITH APPLICATION. Incomplete application packages will be returned.

Project Map showing lot and/or parcel numbers.

Schematic Floor Plans and Elevation, including:
• Building floor plans.
• Front, side, and rear elevations – per elevation, per plan. • Materials boards (if proposed materials are not evident on elevations) Pre-Plotting / Lotting Plan, including:
• A minimum of five contiguous lots, including a corner lot (if applicable). • The footprint for proposed structures shall be shown on the lot, along with any driveways, walks, dimensioned setbacks, fencing, and any other major features.

If Applicable - Open Space, Streetscape, and/or Park Plans.

City of Manteca Self-Certified Design Guidelines Checklist All submitted floor plans and elevations shall be at a minimum 1/8” or 1/4” = 1” scale on 24”x36” paper, as well provided as an electronic file in PDF format. Electronic files can be submitted on a USB drive or via Dropbox (or similar file sharing program).

PROPERTY OWNER’S CONSENT
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am the owner of said property or have written authority from property owner to file this application. I certify that all the submitted information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that any misrepresentation of submitted data may invalidate any approval of this application.

Property Owner (or Authorized Representative) Signature: Date:

ATTACHMENT 17
City of Manteca

SELF-CERTIFIED DESIGN GUIDELINES CHECKLIST
Project Name: __________________________________________________________ Date: _________________________________________________________________ Sec. 17.59.020 - Intent and purposes. The purpose of the criteria in this article is to provide overt and professionally appropriate standards for the evaluation of external design features in Manteca. The criteria are not intended to restrict imagination, innovation, or variety, but rather to assist in focusing on design principles which can result in creative solutions that will enhance real and perceived safety in Manteca, develop a satisfactory visual appearance, preserve taxable values, and promote the public health, safety, and welfare.

Yes No Comments
All Uses
Natural Surveillance
a. Utilize appropriate lighting. ☐ ☐
b. Utilize low or non-opaque fencing, walls, landscaping, and paving patterns to delineate ownership and responsibility.
☐ ☐
c. Remove areas that offer concealment. ☐ ☐
d. Place windows, doors, and walkways to ensure the opportunity for easy observation of surrounding areas.
☐ ☐
e. Windows are provided in facades facing streets, parking lots, and open space comprising at least 20% of the façade area.
☐ ☐
f. All windows within a building and across a façade are related in design, operating type, proportions, and trim.
☐ ☐
Natural Access Control
a. Control access by means of fencing, landscaping, sidewalks, lighting, walkways, or signage.
☐ ☐
b. Entrances are visible, well-lit, and overlooked by windows. ☐ ☐ Territorial Reinforcement
a. Sidewalks, landscaping, and porches distinguish between public and private areas.
☐ ☐
b. Provide obvious defined entries, patios, balconies, and terraces. ☐ ☐ c. Facades are designed to include entries, porches and other architectural elements that relate to the human scale and provide a transition from public to private space.
☐ ☐
d. Front entries are accompanied by a projecting overhead element such as a dormer, arch or gable that provides roof coverage and weather protection. ☐ ☐
Building Design
a. Appearance of project is based on quality of its design and relationship to surroundings.
☐ ☐
ATTACHMENT 17
Yes No Comments
b. Buildings are in scale and harmonious with permanent neighboring developments.
☐ ☐
c. Materials are in harmony with adjoining structures. ☐ ☐ d. Different types of exterior wall materials are used. ☐ ☐ e. Materials are of durable quality. ☐ ☐
f. There are definite transitions between changes of material and plane while maintaining an overall simple geometry for the building mass. ☐ ☐
g. Structural materials are compatible within themselves and harmonious to their surroundings.
☐ ☐
h. Exterior building components such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets have balanced proportions.
☐ ☐
i. All sides of a structure have received design consideration and are related to the rest of the building.
☐ ☐
j. Colors are harmonious and accents, if used, are compatible. ☐ ☐ k. All projections and mechanical details such as louvers, exposed flashing, flues, vents, gutters, and downspouts are recognized as architectural features and match the color of the adjacent surface, or a complementary color. ☐ ☐
l. Refuse and waste removal areas, service yards, storage yards, and exterior work areas are screened from view from public ways with materials harmonious with the building.
☐ ☐
m. Monotony of design is avoided. Variations of detail, form, and siting is used to provide visual interest. In multiple building projects, variable siting of individual buildings is used to prevent a monotonous appearance.
☐ ☐
n. Roof profiles define the form, scale and proportion of the home and building and reduce bulk.
☐ ☐
o. Windows are used as architectural elements that add relief to the façade and wall surface.
☐ ☐
p. Front doors reflect the architectural style of the building. ☐ ☐ q. Windows shall employ design details, if appropriate to the architecture, such as mullions, to break the scale of the façade into smaller components. ☐ ☐
r. A variety of roof colors is used within the development. ☐ ☐ s. A consistent pattern and application of exterior materials is used on new buildings and additions in order to enhance the appearance and character in the existing neighborhood.
☐ ☐
Relationship of Building to Site
a. Project reflects the character of the site upon which it is located. ☐ ☐ b. The site is planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and parking areas.
☐ ☐
c. Consideration of the appropriateness of providing setbacks and yards in excess of zoning restrictions to enhance compatible relationships between buildings, and between buildings and adjacent streets.
☐ ☐
ATTACHMENT 17
Yes No Comments
d. Plans demonstrate a concern for the conservation of energy by their sensitivity to factors such as the orientation of a building, the use and location of glass and the use of landscape materials on the site.
☐ ☐
e. Parking areas are treated with decorative elements, building wall extensions, plantings, berms, or other means so as to minimize the impact of parked vehicles on the view from public ways and adjacent residential areas. ☐ ☐
f. Fencing plans are consistent with the intended use and zoning of the site. ☐ ☐ g. The design of fences and screening walls give specific consideration to the relief of monotony, such as breaking up major lengths by complementary landscaping.
☐ ☐
h. Unless for sound attenuation, the design of fences and walls allow for visibility with no more than a three-foot-high view obscuring foundation (does not pertain to single-family residential).
☐ ☐
i. Newly installed utility services, and service revisions necessitated by exterior alterations are underground.
☐ ☐
j. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas, provide an inviting and stable appearance for walking and sitting. ☐ ☐
Relationship of Project to Adjoining Area
a. Demonstrated a harmony in texture, lines, and masses between all adjacent buildings. Monotony is avoided.
☐ ☐
b. The height and scale of each building is compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings.
☐ ☐
c. Adjacent buildings of different architectural styles are compatible by such means as screens, sight breaks and materials.
☐ ☐
d. Attractive landscape transitions to adjoining properties or compatible use characteristics are provided.
☐ ☐
e. Project features which may have negative impacts upon adjacent properties, such as parking lots, service entrances, loading zones, mechanical equipment, etc., are buffered from the adjacent properties.
☐ ☐
f. Primary building forms are the dominating form while secondary formal elements include porches, principal dormers, or other significant features. ☐ ☐
g. The architectural style of the house or building enhances the character of the neighborhood.
☐ ☐
h. The architectural form of the house or building is designed to articulate the style of the house or building.
☐ ☐
Landscape and site treatment
a. Preserve and enhance where natural or existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development.
☐ ☐
b. Landscaping is an integral part of the overall site design, rather than functioning as a camouflage for unused or unusable spaces or poor architectural design. ☐ ☐
c. Landscape plan addresses the functional aspects of landscaping such as drainage, erosion prevention, wind barriers, provisions for shade, energy conservation, sound absorption, dust abatement and reduction of glare. ☐ ☐
ATTACHMENT 17
Yes No Comments
d. Landscape treatment provides to enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important places, and to provide shade.

☐ ☐
e. Unity of design is achieved by repetition of certain plant varieties and other materials, and by correlation with adjacent developments.

☐ ☐
f. Plant materials selected for interest in its structure, texture, and color and for its ultimate growth. Plants that are indigenous to the area and others that will be hardy, harmonious to the design, and of attractive appearance are used.

☐ ☐
g. Parking areas and related traffic ways are enhanced with landscaped areas, including trees or tree groupings. ☐ ☐
h. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, they are protected by appropriate curbs, tree guards, or other devices. ☐ ☐ i. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of approved trees in parkways are planted. ☐ ☐
j. Where landscaping is used as screening, they are equally effective in winter and summer. ☐ ☐
k. In areas where general planting will not grow in a healthy, thriving manner, other materials are used, such as steel tube fences, low walls and pavement of brick, stone, decomposed granite, and cobbles. Suitable plants are combined with such materials.
☐ ☐
l. Landscape screening is of a height and density so that it provides the full desired effect within twenty-four months’ growing time. ☐ ☐ m. Unless for screening, shrubs are limited to two-feet in height and mature trees are limbed up to six-feet above the ground. ☐ ☐
n. Planting and selection of landscape material should be such that sight lines remain open and clear, and places of concealment are not fostered. ☐ ☐ o. Place thorny vegetation in locations to deter unwanted entry. ☐ ☐ p. Avoid blank spaces utilizing vines or planted wall coverings. ☐ ☐ q. Discourage crime by creating an inhospitable environment for criminals. ☐ ☐ r. Provide attractive and durable fencing whenever possible. ☐ ☐ Signs
a. Every sign has appropriate scale in its design and in its visual relationship to buildings and surroundings. ☐ ☐
b. Every sign is designed as an integral architectural element of the building and site to which it principally relates. ☐ ☐
c. The height of a sign does not exceed the predominant height of the principal building to which it relates. ☐ ☐
d. The colors, materials and lighting of every sign is restrained and harmonious with the building and site to which it principally relates. ☐ ☐ e. The number of colors and graphic elements on a sign is the minimum needed to convey the sign’s major message and is composed in proportion to the area of the sign face.
☐ ☐
f. Identification signs of a prototype design and corporation logos conform to the criteria for all other signs.
☐ ☐
ATTACHMENT 17
Yes No Comments
g. Each sign is compatible with signs on adjoining premises, and do not compete for attention.
☐ ☐
h. Signs within windows are limited to 15% of the windowpane. ☐ ☐ Lighting
a. Site plans and architectural plans include the location of fixtures, their design and the nature and level of the illumination they will provide. ☐ ☐
b. Sidewalks and pathways are lit with ornamental lighting fixtures. All pedestrianscale lighting fixtures are a maximum height of 12 feet. ☐ ☐
c. All exterior lighting balances the need for energy conservation with needs for safety, security, and decoration.
☐ ☐
d. Exterior lighting is designed as an integral part of the building and landscape design. All exterior lighting is prevented from projecting light upward either by placement beneath building eaves or by an integral shield of the fixture’s interiors as recommended by the manufacturer.
☐ ☐
e. Lighting is limited to illumination of surfaces intended for pedestrians, vehicles, or key architectural features.
☐ ☐
f. Where decorative floodlighting is used, fixtures are located or shielded so that their presence is minimized.
☐ ☐
g. All exterior lighting is part of the architectural and landscape design concept.

Fixtures, standards, and all exposed accessories are concealed or harmonious with other project design materials.
☐ ☐
h. The height of exterior lighting fixtures does not exceed the predominant height of the principal building to which they relate.
☐ ☐
i. Exterior lighting is not designed to permit an adverse effect upon neighboring properties. Appropriate light cutoff angles for all sources of illumination prevent unnecessary glare.
☐ ☐
j. All freestanding parking lot and internal access route lighting are LED luminaires, color corrected for compatibility.
☐ ☐
k. Provide lighting systems which provide nighttime vision for motorists to increase visibility of pedestrians, other vehicles and objects which should be seen and avoided.
☐ ☐
l. Design lighting systems for pedestrians to see one another, and to see risks involved in walking at night.
☐ ☐
m. Provide lighting systems which will enhance the ability for surveillance and observation.
☐ ☐
n. Provide lighting systems that minimize glare, shadow, light pollution, and light trespass.
☐ ☐
o. Utilize lighting in the landscaping both for security and aesthetics. ☐ ☐ ATTACHMENT 17
Residential (Single-Family, Multi-Family, Neighborhoods) Natural Access Control
a. Use walkways and landscaping to direct visitors to the proper entrance and away from private areas.
☐ ☐
b. Keep balcony railings and patio enclosures as low as possible using non-opaque materials.
☐ ☐
c. Define entrances to the site and each parking lot with landscaping, architectural design, or symbolic gateways.
☐ ☐
d. Block off dead-end spaces with fences or gates. ☐ ☐
e. Discourage loitering by non-residents. ☐ ☐
f. Use devices which automatically lock upon closing on common building entrances.
☐ ☐
g. Provide good illumination in hallways. ☐ ☐
h. Limit entrance access to the building to the minimum required. ☐ ☐ i. Limit access without completely disconnecting the subdivision from adjacent subdivisions.
☐ ☐
j. Design streets to calm traffic and discourage cut-through or high-speed traffic. ☐ ☐ k. Install plantings, and architectural design features such as columned gateway to guide visitors to desired entrances and away from private areas. ☐ ☐
l. Install walkways in locations safe for pedestrians and use them to define pedestrian bounds.
☐ ☐
Natural Surveillance
a. Fully illuminate all doorways that open to the outside. ☐ ☐ b. Place the front door to be visible from the street. ☐ ☐ c. Install windows in living areas to provide visibility of the property. ☐ ☐ d. Provide appropriate illumination to sidewalks and all areas of the yard. ☐ ☐ e. Place the driveway to be visible from either the front or back door and at least one window.
☐ ☐
f. Properly select and install landscaping so that it allows unobstructed views of vulnerable doors and windows from the street and other properties. ☐ ☐
g. Design buildings so that exterior doors are visible from the street or by neighbors.
☐ ☐
h. Use good lighting at all doors that open to the outside. ☐ ☐ i. Install windows on all four facades of buildings to allow good surveillance. ☐ ☐ j. Assign parking spaces to residents but not marked with their unit number. ☐ ☐ k. Designate visitor parking. ☐ ☐
l. Make parking areas visible from windows and doors. ☐ ☐ m. Adequately illuminate parking areas and pedestrian walkways. ☐ ☐ ATTACHMENT 17
n. Position recreation areas (pools, tennis courts, clubhouses) to be visible from many of the units’ windows and doors.
☐ ☐
o. Screen or conceal dumpsters but avoid creating blind spots and hiding places. ☐ ☐ p. Elevators and stairwells are in locations that are clearly visible from windows and doors.
☐ ☐
q. Shrubbery is no more than two feet high for clear visibility. ☐ ☐ r. Site buildings so that the windows and doors of one unit are visible from another (although not directly opposite).
☐ ☐
s. Construct elevators and stairwells to be open and well lighted. ☐ ☐ t. Place playgrounds where they are clearly visible from units, but not next to parking lots or streets.
☐ ☐
u. Avoid landscaping that might create blind spots or hiding spots. ☐ ☐ v. Locate open spaces and recreational areas so that they are visible from nearby homes and streets.
☐ ☐
w. Use pedestrian scale street lighting in high pedestrian traffic areas to help people recognize potential threats at night.
☐ ☐
x. The driveway and the garage are secondary to the livable portions of the house, landscaping and pedestrian entry as seen from the street. ☐ ☐
y. Garages are located in an area to minimize the presence of the automobile. ☐ ☐ z. On-site garages are set back from the front building façade with a minimum 20- foot driveway length from the face of the garage to the back of the sidewalk. ☐ ☐
aa. For homes with front-loaded garages, no more than 40 percent of a home’s façade facing the street is devoted to a garage.
☐ ☐
bb. Common Open Space is visible and open to the street or from dwelling units. ☐ ☐ Territorial Reinforcement
a. Use front porches or entryways to create a transitional area between the street and the home.
☐ ☐
b. Each home has a covered porch or main entry oriented towards the public realm.
☐ ☐
c. Define property lines and private areas with plantings, pavement treatments, or fences.
☐ ☐
d. Street address is clearly visible from the street and public way. ☐ ☐ e. Accentuate building entrances with architectural elements, lighting and/or landscaping.
☐ ☐
f. Design lots, streets, and houses to encourage interaction between neighbors. ☐ ☐ g. Accentuate entrances with the subdivision name, different paving material, changes in street elevation, architectural, and landscape design. ☐ ☐
h. Outdoor spaces such as yards, decks, terraces, and patios are delineated from common space.
☐ ☐
i. Duplexes located on corner lots have a garage and entryway facing each street frontage.
☐ ☐
ATTACHMENT 17
Commercial
Natural Access Control
a. Locate check-out counters at the front of the store, clearly visible from the outside.
☐ ☐
b. Clearly mark public paths. Make private areas harder for non-employees to access.
☐ ☐
c. Use signs to direct patrons to parking and entrances. ☐ ☐ d. Prevent easy access to the roof or fire escape from the ground. ☐ ☐ e. Provide rear public access to shops if rear public parking is offered. ☐ ☐ f. Clearly mark public entrances with landscape, architecture, and graphic/signage.
☐ ☐
g. Designate sidewalks and “public” areas with special paving and/or landscaping. ☐ ☐ h. Use landscaping to divide the parking areas into smaller lots. ☐ ☐ i. Separate loading zones, with designated delivery hours, from public parking areas.
☐ ☐
j. Locate ATMs to face main roads and/or high traffic areas. ☐ ☐ k. Place drive-through ordering station for a restaurant within sight of the interior and the street.
☐ ☐
l. Provide adequate lighting at both the ATM and along the queuing lane. ☐ ☐ m. Avoid fencing, landscaping, and walls whose design might provide hiding opportunities for those preying on patrons.
☐ ☐
Natural Surveillance
a. Install windows to face parking areas and streets for increased visibility. ☐ ☐ b. Window signs cover no more than 15% of windows. ☐ ☐
c. Use interior shelving and displays no higher than five feet. ☐ ☐ d. Fully illuminate the exterior of the building and grounds at night. ☐ ☐ e. Design water retention areas to be visible from the building or street. ☐ ☐ f. Place all entrances under visual surveillance. ☐ ☐
g. Avoid creating dead end alleys or blind spots in loading areas. ☐ ☐ h. Use perpendicular parking in front of stores rather than parallel to allow greater visibility between cars.
☐ ☐
i. Avoid exterior walls without windows. ☐ ☐
Territorial Reinforcement
a. Mark property boundaries, where possible, with hedges, low fences, or gates. ☐ ☐ b. Make private areas distinguishable from public areas. ☐ ☐ c. Install awnings over rear doors and windows. ☐ ☐
d. Position parking areas to be clearly visible from the building or street with neatly marked spaces.
☐ ☐
e. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, ground, or elevations are located so as not to be visible from any public ways or adjacent residential areas.
☐ ☐
ATTACHMENT 17
Office Buildings
Natural Access Control
a. Clearly define public entrances with architectural elements, lighting, landscaping, paving, and/or signage.
☐ ☐
b. Reduce the number of public access points to those which are watched by guards, receptionists, nearby tenants, or passing traffic. ☐ ☐
Natural Surveillance
a. Install and use good lighting at all exterior doors, common areas and hallways. ☐ ☐ b. Keep dumpsters visible and avoid creating blind spots or hiding places or place them in secured locked areas.
☐ ☐
c. Design windows and exterior doors so that they are visible from the street or by neighboring buildings.
☐ ☐
d. Install windows into all facades except where in conflict with building code. ☐ ☐ e. Place parking as to be visible from windows. ☐ ☐
f. Keep shrubbery under two feet in height for visibility. ☐ ☐ g. Do not obstruct views from windows. ☐ ☐
Territorial Reinforcement
a. Define perimeters with landscaping or decorative non-opaque fencing to maintain visibility from the street.
☐ ☐
b. Differentiate exterior private areas from public areas. ☐ ☐ c. Position security and/or reception areas at all entrances. ☐ ☐ d. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, ground, or elevations are located so as not to be visible from any public ways or adjacent residential areas.
☐ ☐
ATTACHMENT 17
Industrial
Natural Access Control
a. Avoid dead end driveways and design streets to increase surveillance opportunities from passing traffic and patrols. ☐ ☐
b. Use easily securable entrances. Install entrance controls to employee parking areas. ☐ ☐
c. Assign parking by shifts, and account for late night workers with close-in spaces. ☐ ☐ d. Plan storage yards for vehicular or visual access by patrol cars. ☐ ☐ e. Restrict access to roofs by way of dumpsters, loading docks, stacked items, ladders, etc. ☐ ☐
f. Keep building entrances to a minimum and monitor them. ☐ ☐ g. Use a separate, well-marked, monitored entrance for deliveries. ☐ ☐ h. Have the employee entrance close to the employee parking and workstations. ☐ ☐ i. Keep nighttime parking separate from service areas. ☐ ☐ j. Provide access to both the front and the back of the site so that the grounds can be patrolled. ☐ ☐
Natural Surveillance
a. Illuminate and define all entrances so that they are visible to the public and patrol vehicles.
☐ ☐
b. Make parking areas visible to patrol cars, pedestrians, parking attendants, and/or building personnel.
☐ ☐
c. Position parking attendants for maximum visibility of property. ☐ ☐ d. Design the reception area to have a view of parking areas. ☐ ☐ e. Avoid creating hiding places in alleys, storage yards, loading docks, etc. ☐ ☐ Territorial Reinforcement
a. Create a well-defined entrance or gateway with plantings, fences, gates, etc. ☐ ☐ b. Development is consistent with Noise Element of the General Plan. ☐ ☐ c. Define vehicle entrances with different paving materials and signage. ☐ ☐ d. Separate visitor parking from employee parking and shipping and receiving areas.
☐ ☐
e. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, ground, or elevations are located so as not to be visible from any public ways or adjacent residential areas.
☐ ☐
ATTACHMENT 17

ATHERTON DRIVE BUENA INYO AVE JIGSAW AVE VISTADR

POLK STREET

STREET W

STREET X

STREET Y STREET O STREET P STREET Q STREET R

STREET U

STREET V

STREET Y STREET O STREET P VERAMONTE AVE

TANNEHILL DRIVE

PARK/ SCHOOL SITE PILLSBURY RD VERAMONTEAVE

STREET T

STREET S

POLK ST BUENA VISTA DRIVE STREET A STREET B STREET C INYO AVE STREET D JIGSAW AVE STREET E STREET F

STREET L

STREET J STREET I

STREET M STREET N

STREET K

MONO STREET

STREET H

STREET G

STREET H

STREET K VERAMONTE AVE STREET Q

MONO STREET INYO AVE JIGSAW AVE

STREET H STREET R

STREET Y

PARCEL 'A'
PARK/

PARCEL 'B'

STORMWATER BASIN

PARCEL 'C'

STORMWATER BASIN
ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY DATE REVISION NO. DATE: SCALE: DRAWN BY: DESIGNED BY: CHECKED BY:

SHT
PROJECT NO.

OF CALIFORNIA REPRODUCTIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT THAT ARE GENERATED BY OTHERS FROM ELECTRONIC MEDIA. MACKAY & SOMPS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: 5142B FRANKLIN DR, PLEASANTON, CA 94588 (925)225-0690 ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY 25224.000 MAY 2022
12 HAT RANCH TENTATIVE MAP- TRACT NO. 3782 CITY OF MANTECA CHRISTIAN T. RAGAN RCE # 60473 D R A F T AS SHOWN

HAT RANCH
TENTATIVE MAP - TRACT NO. 3782

VICINITY MAP
1" = 2000'

SEDAN AVE

THIS TENTATIVE MAP WAS APPROVED
WITH CONDITIONS ON ______________
1 COVER SHEET
2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
3 STREET CROSS SECTIONS (HAT RANCH WEST)
4 STREET CROSS SECTIONS (HAT RANCH EAST)
5 SITE PLAN (HAT RANCH WEST)
6 SITE PLAN (HAT RANCH EAST)
7 UTILITY PLAN (HAT RANCH WEST)
8 UTILITY PLAN (HAT RANCH EAST)
9 GRADING PLAN (HAT RANCH WEST)
10 GRADING PLAN (HAT RANCH EAST)
11 PFIP EXHIBIT
12 PRELIMINARY PHASING PLAN
GENERAL NOTES:

SHEET DESCRIPTION

SHEET INDEX

PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT

EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY / PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING EASEMENT

EXISTING WATER PIPE

EXISTING SEWER PIPE (GRAVITY)
LEGEND

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE

PROJECT SITE COVER SHEET
1 BEING A PORTION OF SECTION 15 AND 16, T.2S., R.7E., M.D.B.&M.

CITY OF MANTECA, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

PROPOSED WATER PIPE

PROPOSED STORM DRAIN PIPE (GRAVITY)

PROPOSED SEWER PIPE (GRAVITY)

EXISTING CENTERLINE

PROPOSED CENTERLINE MANTECA RD
STATE ROUTE 120 (MAIN ST)
STATE ROUTE 99 AUSTIN RD

PROPOSED STORM PIPE (FORCEMAIN)

PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY
AREA

LAND USE

INTERIOR PUBLIC STREET R/W

PARCEL B, PARK (PD-PARK)

LAND USE / ACREAGE SUMMARY

HALF-PLEX RESIDENTIAL

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
UNITS
40 291

17.1 ± AC.

3.5 ± AC.

47.5 ± AC.

PARCEL C, SCHOOL SITE (P-QP)

ATHERTON DRIVE PUBLIC STREET R/W

ANTONE RAYMUS PUBLIC STREET R/W
TOTAL 331 81.8 ± AC.

3.9 ± AC.

WOODWARD AVE PILLSBURY RD
PILLSBURY ROAD PUBLIC STREET R/W 2.9 ± AC.

EARTHWORK (CY) ESTIMATED CUT (CY)

CONSOLIDATION
(0.2' ON FILL AREA)

TRENCH SPOILS

PRELIMINARY EARTHWORK CALCULATIONS

SHRINKAGE
(20% OF CUT)

UNADJUSTED
VOLUME

ESTIMATED FILL (CY)
203,000
18,000
185,000
TOTAL
143,000
37,000
18,000
198,000
NOTE:

PRELIMINARY EARTHWORK QUANTITIES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE DURING FINAL DESIGN

HAT (WEST)HAT (EAST) HAT (WEST)HAT (EAST)
123,000
18,000
105,000 85,000
21,000
22,000
128,000

WEST & EAST
326,000
36,000
290,000

WEST & EAST
228,000
58,000
40,000
326,000

HALF-PLEX CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL

PARCEL A, PARK (PD-PARK)

HAT RANCH WEST

UNITS AREA
343

2.2 ± AC.

16.1 ± AC.

9.3 ± AC.

18.7 ± AC.

6.1 ± AC.

46.5 ± AC.
407

4.0 ± AC.

HAT RANCH EAST

UNITS AREA

2.2 ± AC.

16.1 ± AC.

9.3 ± AC.

35.8 ± AC.

3.5 ± AC.
94 ± AC.

7.9 ± AC.

2.9 ± AC.

TOTALS ---- 64

6.9 ± AC.
----
----
----
----
----
102.9 ± AC.
634
40 738

6.1 ± AC.

6.9 ± AC.
184.7 ± AC.
1) OWNER: APN 226-140-040
APN 226-120-100
APN 226-120-110

RIVERSIDE LHC, LTD
3161 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 425
IRVINE, CA 92612
APN 226-370-062

CITY OF MANTECA
(FORMER OWNER

PILLSBURY ROAD PARTNERS)
2) APPLICANT: RICHLAND PLANNED
COMMUNITIES INC.
3000 LAVA RIDGE CT, SUITE 115
ROSEVILLE, CA 95661
3) CIVIL ENGINEER: MACKAY & SOMPS CIVIL
ENGINEERS, INC.
5142 FRANKLIN DRIVE, SUITE B
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
(925) 225-0690
4) GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: ENGEO INC.
17278 GOLDEN VALLEY PARKWAY
LATHROP, CA 95330
(209) 835-0610
5) ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS: 226-140-040, 226-370-062, 226-120-100 & 226-120-110
6) TOTAL AREA: 184.6± ACRES
7) NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL LOTS: 738
8) SUBJECT PROPERTY SHOWN TO BE IN ZONE 'X' ON THE

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY'S FLOOD
INSURANCE RATE MAP 06077C0640F (AREAS DETERMINED TO
BE OUTSIDE THE 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FOODPLAIN)
9) ALL STREET IMPROVEMENTS, STREET LIGHTS, WATER, SEWER

AND STORM DRAIN UTILITY SYSTEMS TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF MANTECA STANDARD PLANS

AND SPECIFICATIONS AND MASTER UTILITY PLANS OR AS
OTHERWISE APPROVED BY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR.

STREETS, WATER, SEWER AND STORM DRAIN SYSTEMS TO BE
PUBLICLY OWNED AND MAINTAINED.

POTABLE WATER: CONNECTION TO CITY OF MANTECA

WATER SYSTEM
SANITARY SEWER: CONNECTION TO CITY OF MANTECA

SEWER SYSTEM
STORM DRAIN: CONNECTION TO SSJID LATERAL "X"
10) GAS AND ELECTRIC SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED BY PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC. INSTALLATION SHALL BE UNDERGROUND IN
ACCORDANCE WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS.
11) EXISTING POWER POLES AND OVERHEAD POWER LINES THAT

CONFLICT WITH IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE RELOCATED,
REMOVED OR UNDERGROUNDED.
12) TELEPHONE SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED BY VERIZON,

INSTALLATION SHALL BE UNDERGROUND IN ACCORDANCE WITH
CITY REQUIREMENTS.
13) PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED ALONG ALL

INTERIOR STREETS, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED OR APPROVED
BY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR.
14) EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: UR-LDR, CMU, AND P. 15) PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LDR, PARK,
PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC.
16) EXISTING ZONING: AG-40 (SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY)
17) PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R1, PD-PARK, PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC (CITY OF MANTECA)
18) CONTOUR INTERVAL IS AS SHOWN. THE ELEVATION DATUM IS PER CITY OF MANTECA BENCH MARKS (NGVD29).
19) UTILITY LOCATIONS AND LOT DIMENSIONS ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO FINAL ENGINEERING DESIGN.
20) GRADING INFORMATION AS SHOWN IS PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO FINAL ENGINEERING DESIGN.
21) THE PROJECT WILL BE PHASED. MULTIPLE FINAL MAPS MAY BE FILED

ON THE LANDS SHOWN ON THIS VESTING TENTATIVE MAP IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 4, SECTION 66.456.1 OF THE
SUBDIVISION MAP ACT.
22) THE BOUNDARY AS SHOWN IS COMPILED FROM RECORD

INFORMATION AND DOES NOT REPRESENT A SURVEY OF THE
PROPERTY.
23) UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY STATED IN THE CONDITIONS OF

APPROVAL, LOCAL AGENCY APPROVAL OF THIS MAP SHALL

CONSTITUTE AN EXPRESSED FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED DIVISION

AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY WILL NOT UNREASONABLY

INTERFERE WITH THE FREE AND COMPLETE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66436(a)(3)(A)(i). ----

ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY ATHERTON DRIVE SEDAN AVE
ATTACHMENT 17

VELDSTRA GEORGE & H
226-140-05

RIVERSIDE LHC LTD
226-120-11
226-140-07

BROCCHINI FARMS
226-140-16

BKB INVESTMENTS LLC
226-140-11
226-140-12

PLANT SCIENCES INC

RIVERSIDE LHC LTD
226-120-10
226-120-22
SILAGI

RANDALL
226-120-21

VAN VUREN

SHERWOOD
& J A
226-120-20

VAN LAAR JAMES & LYNDA
226-120-19

VAN ELDEREN DANIEL
& JUDITH
226-120-18

BURGESS

WILLIAM F JR
226-120-17
CAMBRA

KAREN ANN M
226-120-16

BS LAND COMPANY LLC
EX. DIRT ROAD
EX. DIRT ROAD
EX. FENCE
EX. DIRT ROAD
EX. FENCE
EX. DIRT ROAD
EX. FENCE
EX. FENCE
EX. DIRT ROAD
NOTE: EXISTING UTILITY POLES
NOT WITHIN EASEMENT (TYP.)

PILLSBURY ESTATES

EVANS ESTATES
EX. 30' SSJID

EASEMENT
(SEE NOTE 8)
EX. RESIDENCE
EX. CONCRETE

DRIVEWAY
EX. STRUCTURES
EX. 15' SSJID

EASEMENT
BK 3002 PG 150
EXCEPTION 6
EX. CONCRETE

DRIVEWAY SEDAN AVE

INC ETAL
226-140-08

BROCCHINI FARMS

INC ETAL
EX. SSJID STRUCTURE

SEDAN AVE

EVANS ESTATES
EX. 30' SSJID

EASEMENT
N89°31'42"W 2644.57' BNDY N0°16'44"W 1710.07' BNDY
N89°39'50"W

34.16' BNDYN0°15'53"W 386.81' BNDY
N89°39'18"W 2651.90' BNDY
SILAGI

RANDALL
226-140-04

RIVERSIDE LHC LTD
PARCELS 1 AND 2

OF PRELIMINARY

TITLE REPORT
ORDER NO.
0192-5373639 PILLSBURY RD

WOODWARD PAK
EX. 15' SSJID EASEMENT
BK 3002 PG 150
EXCEPTION 6
EX. 30' SSJID

EASEMENT
BK 3002 PG 150
EXCEPTION 6
EX. 40' ROAD RESERVATION
BK A VOL 470 PG 163
EXCEPTION 5
EX. 20' SSJID EASEMENT
BK A VOL 470 PG 163
EXCEPTION 5
226-370-062

CITY OF MANTECA (FORMER PILLSBURY ROAD PARTNERS, LLC)
PARCEL 5
OF PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT ORDER NO. 0192-5373639

RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE VACATED AND QUITCLAIMED TO
RICHLAND PLANNED COMMUNITIES INC.

C1
N89°40'09"W
330.16' BNDY
C2
N88°45'09"W

58.84' BNDY
C3
C4
C5
C7C9
C8
N0°20'10"E 47.75' BNDY
N89°39'50"W 2042.51' BNDY
N46°09'35"E 38.86' BNDY
C6

MONO STREET VERA
AVE

MONTE ATHERTON DRIVE
PARCEL 'A' PER TRACT MAP 3777
EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS TO BE REMOVED. CONCRETE TURNOUT

AREA TO BE REMOVED, CURB TO REMOVED, REALIGNED, & REPLACED Curve Table
Curve #
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
Radius

20.00'
267.00'

57.00'
277.00'

57.00'

43.00'
383.00'

20.00'
275.00'
Delta
71°02'25"
0°22'30"
17°24'37"
10°37'32"
17°03'07"
12°12'42"
3°28'38"
113°19'27"
5°09'47"
Length

24.80'

1.75'

17.32'

51.37'

16.96'

9.16'

23.24'

39.56'

24.78' EXISTING CONDITIONS
2 NOTES:

1. THE BOUNDARY SHOWN IS COMPILED FROM RECORD INFORMATION AND DOES NOT REPRESENT THE RESULTS OF A FIELD SURVEY.

2. THE EASEMENTS/EXCEPTIONS SHOWN ARE PER THE PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT BY FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY DATED JUNE 23, 2021 (ORDER NUMBER 0192-5373639).

3. REFER TO TREE REPORT BY HORTSCIENCE DATED MAY 2013 FOR EXISTING TREES.

4. EXISTING PRIVATE GAS PIPES AND / OR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS TO BE REMOVED.

5. AERIAL TOPO WAS FLOWN ON 04-01-2013 BY GEOMAPS (NGVD 29)

6. SUPPLEMENTAL TOPO SHOTS WERE TAKEN ON 10/13/2014 BY MACKAY & SOMPS. SOME SSJID FACILITIES MAY HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REMOVED OR RELOCATED.

7. ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES ON SITE TO BE REMOVED WITH THE APPLICABLE PHASE

OF DEVELOPMENT

8. EX. 30' SSJID EASEMENT SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED IN BOOK 26, PAGE 19. EASEMENT IS NOT LISTED AS AN EXCEPTION IN THE TITLE REPORT REFERENCED ABOVE.

9. EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN PARCEL 'A' OF TRACT MAP 3777 TO BE REMOVED.

EXISTING CONCRETE TURNOUT AREA ADJACENT TO PARCEL 'A' TO BE REMOVED AND CURB TO BE RECONSTRUCTED.

10. ALL EX. SSJID EASEMENTS TO BE ABANDONED BASED ON PROPOSED RELOCATIONS AND NEW EASEMENTS. DATE REVISION NO. DATE: SCALE: DRAWN BY: DESIGNED BY: CHECKED BY:

SHT
PROJECT NO.

OF CALIFORNIA REPRODUCTIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT THAT ARE GENERATED BY OTHERS FROM ELECTRONIC MEDIA. MACKAY & SOMPS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: 5142B FRANKLIN DR, PLEASANTON, CA 94588 (925)225-0690 ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY 25224.000 MAY 2022
12 HAT RANCH TENTATIVE MAP- TRACT NO. 3782 CITY OF MANTECA CHRISTIAN T. RAGAN RCE # 60473 D R A F T AS SHOWN ATTACHMENT 17
2' 5' 36' 50' R.O.W.SIDE WALK ROLLED CURB ROLLED CURB 8' 10' 10' 8' TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE PARKING PARKING A NTS 50' ROW TYPICAL INTERIOR STREET WITH MONOLITHIC SIDEWALK (STREET A,B,C,E,F,G,I,J,K,L,M,N,INYO AVE,JIGSAW AVE NOT ALONG PARK FRONTAGE) 44' ROLLED* CURBNTS 60' ROW TYPICAL INTERIOR COLLECTOR (STREET D, STREET H, POLK, ST, BUENA VISTA DR) 8' 14' 14' 8' TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE PARKING PARKING 3' 4' TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE R.O.W. SIDE WALK 7' PARKING PARKING 76' ROW NTS

E ROLLED CURB PILLSBURY ESTATES PILLSBURY ROAD EXISTING CL EX ROW ROLLED CURB 90' ROW NTS
F PILLSBURY ROAD (ANTONE RAYMUS TO STREET K) 12' MEDIAN R.O.W. R.O.W. VERTICAL CURB VERTICAL CURB PL 20' 8' 66' 12' 12' 7' MEDIAN 12' 90' EX PUE 10' 10' PUE 7' 12' 12' 7' TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE PARKING PARKING (STREET K TO MONO STREET) 40' 50' 8' 12' 12' 8' TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE PARKING PARKING C NTS 50' ROW INTERIOR STREET WITH MONOLITHIC SIDEWALK ALONG PARK (INYO AVE,JIGSAW AVE) VARIES LAND- SCAPE VARIES LAND- SCAPE 4' SIDE- WALK R.O.W. * VERTICAL CURB ALONG PARK FRONTAGE 4' 5' 2' R.O.W. SIDE WALK PUE10' 4' 5' SIDE WALK ROLLED CURB PUE 10' 4' 5' SIDE WALK VERTICAL CURB PUE10' 4.5' R.O.W. R.O.W. 3' 5' R.O.W.SIDE WALK ROLLED CURB PUE 10' 4' 60' 5' 3' R.O.W. SIDE WALK PUE10' 4' B 3' *JOINT TRENCH TO BE LOCATED IN ROW * SSJID IRRIGATION LINE & JOINT TRENCH TO BE LOCATED IN ROW 13' 10' PUE 108' ROW (HAT RANCH FRONTAGE) D1 ULTIMATE ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY NTS 20' 108' 20' WALL 65.5' ROW (HAT RANCH FRONTAGE) INTERIM ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY (TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH HAT RANCH) VARIES 8' LAND- SCAPE VARIES LAND- SCAPE WALL WALL S/W S/W ROW 14' TRAVEL LANE HAT RANCH (NORTH SIDE) FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND IMPROVEMENTS (BY OTHERS) VERTICAL CURB PL VERTICAL CURB 11' * SSJID & JOINT TRENCH IMPROVEMENTS TO BE LOCATED IN ROW 11' BIKE LANE 5' TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE MEDIAN 11' 11' BIKE LANE 5' TRAVEL LANE ULTIMATE STRIPING & MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS (BY OTHERS) WALL VARIES LAND- SCAPE VARIES LAND- SCAPE VARIES S/W WALL CL 11.5' PFIP IMPROVEMENTS 7' 7' 65.5' 42.5' THE EXISTING SSJID PIPE IS LOCATED HORIZONTALLY APPROXIMATELY AT THE PROPERTY LINE. THE DEPTH OF THE PIPE HAS NOT BEEN CONFIRMED 7' TRAVEL LANE HAT RANCH (NORTH SIDE) VERTICAL CURB PFIP * SSJID & JOINT TRENCH IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS TO BE LOCATED IN ROW 20' 65.5' INTERIM STRIPING 5' LAND- SCAPE 5' LANDSCAPE 10' S/W PL 13.5' LEFT TURN LANE VARIES 1.5-13' TRAVEL LANE 12' 38.5' 11.5' *TEMP MEDIAN CURB *TEMP PVMT TEMP SLOPE EG CL ULTIMATE *TO BE REMOVED WITH CONSTRUCTION OF ULTIMATE IMPROVEMENTS 4.5' 5' LAND- SCAPE 5' LANDSCAPE 10' S/W 27' 27' 106' ROW (EVANS ESTATES FRONTAGE) D2 ULTIMATE ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY NTS * THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN OF THE PARKWAY ALONG THE EVANS ESTATES FRONTAGE SHOWS AN INVERTED CROWN (I.E. SLOPED TOWARD THE CENTER MEDIAN). THE EVANS ESTATES FRONTAGE SHALL BE REDESIGNED TO A TYPICAL CROWN SECTION. 19' 106' 14' 19' TRAVEL LANE HAT RANCH (NORTH SIDE) FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND IMPROVEMENTS (BY OTHERS) VERTICAL CURB PL VERTICAL CURB 11' * SSJID & JOINT TRENCH IMPROVEMENTS TO BE LOCATED IN ROW 11' BIKE LANE 5' TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE MEDIAN 11' 11' BIKE LANE 5' TRAVEL LANE ULTIMATE STRIPING & MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS (BY OTHERS) WALL VARIES LAND- SCAPE VARIES LAND- SCAPE VARIES S/W WALL CL 11.5' PFIP IMPROVEMENTS 7' 7' 53.0' 53.0' 5' LAND- SCAPE 5' LANDSCAPE 9' S/W 27' 27' 95' R.O.W. R.O.W. VERTICAL CURB 95' ROW ULTIMATE ENTRY ONTO PILLSBURY ROAD NTS

G VERTICAL CURB
PLEX (ALONG RIGHT TURN LANE) 20' 20' * SSJID IRRIGATION LINE TO BE LOCATED IN ROW 12' 8' LAND- SCAPE WALL WALL S/W 12' 12' 12' 19' LEFT-TURN LANE (1) TRAVEL LANE(2) RIGHT-TURN LANE TRAVEL LANE 30' 25' 19' TRAVEL LANE HAT RANCH (NORTH SIDE) VERTICAL CURB PL 13.5' * SSJID & JOINT TRENCH IMPROVEMENTS TO BE LOCATED IN ROW 13.5' TRAVEL LANE INTERIM STRIPING WALL 7' 53.0' 5' LAND- SCAPE 5' LANDSCAPE 9' S/W 27.0' 53' ROW (EVANS ESTATES FRONTAGE) INTERIM ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY PFIP IMPROVEMENTS MEDIAN CURB TEMP SLOPE EG THE EXISTING SSJID PIPE IS LOCATED HORIZONTALLY APPROXIMATELY 0-6' SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY LINE. THE DEPTH OF THE PIPE HAS NOT BEEN CONFIRMED 20' 25' 25' 20' VARIES 8' LAND- SCAPE VARIES LAND- SCAPE S/W *JOINT TRENCH TO BE LOCATED IN ROW 1) LEFT TURN LANE SHOWN WILL BE A STRIPED MEDIAN IN INTERIM CONDITION 2) TRAVEL LANE WILL BE LEFT TURN LANE IN INTERIM CONDITION

BUENA VISTA DRIVE

INYO AVE

JIGSAW AVE

PILLSBURY RD ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY

STREET A

BUENA VISTA DR

STREET B

STREET C

INYO AVE

STREET D

JIGSAW AVE

STREET E

STREET F STREET H STREET L STREET J

STREET I STREET M STREET N STREET K POLK ST STREET G

STREET CROSS SECTIONS - WEST
3 DATE REVISION NO.

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

CHECKED BY: SHT PROJECT NO. OF
CALIFORNIA REPRODUCTIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT THAT ARE GENERATED BY OTHERS FROM ELECTRONIC MEDIA. MACKAY & SOMPS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
5142B FRANKLIN DR, PLEASANTON, CA 94588 (925)225-0690

ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY 25224.000
MAY 2022 12

HAT RANCH
TENTATIVE MAP- TRACT NO. 3782

CITY OF MANTECA
CHRISTIAN T. RAGAN RCE # 60473

D R A F T

AS SHOWN
ATTACHMENT 17
B NTS 60' ROW TYPICAL INTERIOR COLLECTOR WITH MONOLITHIC SIDEWALK STREET H,Q (V TO ANTONE RAYMUS),R (V TO Y),V,Y ROLLED CURB NTS C TYPICAL MOTORCOURT 12' 12' 24'
A NTS 50' ROW TYPICAL INTERIOR STREET WITH MONOLITHIC SIDEWALK STREET O,P,S,T,U,V (S TO Q),W,X,Y (O TO Q) 13' 14' TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE R.O.W. R.O.W. HAT RANCH ADJACENT PROPERTY 112' ROW NTS E VERTICAL CURB VERTICAL CURB 14' MEDIAN RESIDENTIAL PFIP IMPROVEMENTS ULTIMATE ATHERTON DRIVE PL 56' 112' ROLLED CURB * VERTICAL CURB ALONG PARK FRONTAGE 2' 5' 36' 50' R.O.W.SIDE WALK ROLLED CURB ROLLED CURB 8' 10' 10' 8' TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE PARKING PARKING 44' ROLLED* CURB 8' 14' 14' 8' TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE PARKING PARKING PUE 10' 4' 5' 2' R.O.W. SIDE WALK PUE10' 4' 3' 5' R.O.W.SIDE WALK ROLLED CURB PUE 10' 4' 60' 5' 3' R.O.W. SIDE WALK PUE10' 4' 8' 22' LANDSCAPE & MEANDERING SIDEWALK TRAVEL LANE 11' 11' BIKE LANE 5' TRAVEL LANE 7' WESTBOUND TRAVEL LANE HAT RANCH (NORTH SIDE) PL 13.5' 13.5' EASTBOUND TRAVEL LANE VARIES LAND- SCAPE 8' SIDE- WALK LAND- SCAPE VARIESPROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY & IMPROVEMENTS WITH HAT RANCH (INTERIM STRIPING WITH HAT RANCH IMPROVEMENTS)TEMPORARY LANDSCAPING 7' * SSJID & JOINT TRENCH IMPROVEMENTS TO BE LOCATED IN ROW WALL WALL 8' S/W S/W WALL ULTIMATE STRIPING (BY OTHERS) FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND IMPROVEMENTS (BY OTHERS) 56' ROW INTERIM ATHERTON DRIVE (TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH HAT RANCH) 7' TEMPORARY GRADING & LANDSCAPING. SLOPE TO CONFORM TO EXISTING GROUND (2% MIN/3:1 MAX). CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALL WITHIN R/W IF REQUIRED. EX GROUND LAND- SCAPE VARIES VARIES LAND- SCAPE 108' ROW (HAT RANCH FRONTAGE) D1 ULTIMATE ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY NTS 20' 108' 20' 65.5' ROW INTERIM ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY (TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH HAT RANCH) 14' TRAVEL LANE HAT RANCH (NORTH SIDE) FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND IMPROVEMENTS (BY OTHERS) VERTICAL CURB PL VERTICAL CURB 11' * SSJID & JOINT TRENCH IMPROVEMENTS TO BE LOCATED IN ROW 11' BIKE LANE 5' TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE MEDIAN 11' 11' BIKE LANE 5' TRAVEL LANE ULTIMATE STRIPING & MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS (BY OTHERS) WALL VARIES LAND- SCAPE VARIES LAND- SCAPE VARIES S/W WALL CL 11.5' PFIP IMPROVEMENTS 7' 7' 65.5' 42.5' THE EXISTING SSJID PIPE IS LOCATED HORIZONTALLY APPROXIMATELY 7' SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY LINE. THE DEPTH OF THE PIPE HAS NOT BEEN CONFIRMED 7' TRAVEL LANE HAT RANCH (NORTH SIDE) VERTICAL CURB PFIP * SSJID & JOINT TRENCH IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS TO BE LOCATED IN ROW 20' 65.5' INTERIM STRIPING 5' LAND- SCAPE 5' LANDSCAPE 10' S/W PL 13.5' LEFT TURN LANE VARIES 1.5-13' TRAVEL LANE 12' 38.5' 11.5' *TEMP MEDIAN CURB *TEMP PVMT TEMP SLOPE EG CL ULTIMATE *TO BE REMOVED WITH CONSTRUCTION 4.5' OF ULTIMATE IMPROVEMENTS 5' LAND- SCAPE 5' LANDSCAPE 10' S/W 115.5' ROW (HAT RANCH FRONTAGE) D3 ULTIMATE ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY NTS RIGHT-TURN LANE ONTO PILLSBURY ROAD 15' 115.5' 20' 14' TRAVEL LANE HAT RANCH (NORTH SIDE) FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND IMPROVEMENTS (BY OTHERS) VERTICAL CURB PL VERTICAL CURB 11' * SSJID & JOINT TRENCH IMPROVEMENTS TO BE LOCATED IN ROW 11' BIKE LANE 5' TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE MEDIAN 11' 11' BIKE LANE 5' TRAVEL LANE ULTIMATE STRIPING (BY OTHERS) WALL VARIES LAND- SCAPE VARIES LAND- SCAPE VARIES S/W WALL CL 11.5' PFIP IMPROVEMENTS 7' 7' 42.5' 5' LANDSCAPE 10' S/W 12.5' RIGHT-TURN LANE 14' MEDIAN 27' 27' 14' MEDIAN 40' 27' 73.0' STREET H STREET U STREET V STREET W STREET X STREET Y

STREET O

STREET P

VERAMONTE AVE

STREET Q

STREET R STREET U STREET V STREET Y

STREET O

STREET P ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY PARK SCHOOL

ATHERTON DRIVE

PILLSBURY ROAD KEY MAP SEE ENLARGED DETAIL HEREON STREET K STREET T

STREET S

EX SEDANAVE

ATHERTON DRIVE INTERIM EDGE OF PAVEMENT (TYP) FUTURE MEDIAN ISLAND (TYP) FUTURE MEDIAN ISLAND ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY

STREET CROSS SECTIONS-EAST
4 DATE REVISION NO.

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

CHECKED BY: SHT PROJECT NO. OF
CALIFORNIA REPRODUCTIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT THAT ARE GENERATED BY OTHERS FROM ELECTRONIC MEDIA. MACKAY & SOMPS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
5142B FRANKLIN DR, PLEASANTON, CA 94588 (925)225-0690

ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY 25224.000
MAY 2022 12

HAT RANCH
TENTATIVE MAP- TRACT NO. 3782

CITY OF MANTECA
CHRISTIAN T. RAGAN RCE # 60473

D R A F T

AS SHOWN INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS AT EXISTING SEDAN AVENUE INTERSECTION ATTACHMENT 17
306

INYO AVE

JIGSAW AVE
102'
53' 28' 26'
22' 32'74
157'
' 103'131'
103'
105'
113'
109' 110' 50' 59'
102'
118'
118' 152' 49' 34' 9'
117'132'
39' 4
7' 39' 57' 13'
57' 17'
34' 112'
58' 14'21' 53'26'
46' 60'
97' 1'
58'
24'37'
27'28'
67' 67'
63' 50' 31'
43' 62' 96'
34' 31' 64'
47' 39' 22'
68' 22'
164'157'
30' 52'
81'
91'
50'29'
88' 65' 27'
131'
114'
110'
110'
110'
110'
110'
110'
110'
110'
99' 11'
76' 33' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 58' 12'
5 2' 64' 111' 131' 130' 130' 129' 129' 128' 128' 127' 118' 136' 129'
111'
116'
115'
114' 91' 104' 50' 50' 50' 55'
85' 165' 75'
50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 57' 60' 58' 117' 117' 117' 117' 118' 117' 118' 117' 118' 117' 64' 53' 53' 64' 106'
106'
106' 58' 57' 40' 40' 31' 31' 60' 58'
50' 117' 117' 117' 117' 117' 117' 118' 118' 118' 118' 64' 53' 53' 65' 50' 50' 50' 50' 57' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 89' 13' 166' 58' 58' 58' 55' 60' 60' 127'126' 63'
134' 60'
55' 55' 55' 55' 55' 55' 55' 55' 57' 125' 59' 59'
105' 59' 110' 70'
129' 120' 126' 125' 125' 124' 123' 123' 122' 51' 60'
58' 111' 111'
58' 111' 111'
58' 111' 111'
58' 111' 111'
58' 111' 111'
58' 111' 111'
65'
73'
60' 60' 60' 60' 87' 111' 111'
63' 111' 111' 111' 111' 111' 111'31' 54' 63' 63' 63'
62' 118' 118'
62' 62' 117' 116'
62' 50' 31' 77'
90'
110'
110'
110'
110'
110'
110'
110'
110' 85' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 85'
148' 141' 98' 60' 102' 11'
50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 65' 50' 50' 98' 53' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 75' 148' 93' 77' 65' 60' 40' 57' 40' 64' 41' 63' 60' 40' 63' 57' 57' 57' 60'
73'
73' 60' 60' 51' 51' 60' 60' 51' 50' 50'
63' 110' 110' 110' 110' 110' 110' 107' 107' 110' 110' 110' 110' 110' 110' 106' 106' 130'
104'
110'
110' 60' 50' 50' 60'
53'
53' 110' 110'
60' 110' 110'
60'
24' 110' 110'
36' 109' 110'
67' 31' 90' 27'
72'
60'
60' 60'
60' 60' 79'
63' 63' 63' 63' 54' 31' 91' 91'
74' 63' 63' 63' 63' 71' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' 66' 36' 53' 33' 302 301 17 1819 20 24 57 56 55 58 54 16 25 326 324 23 21 22 12 11 10 9 8
7 6
5 4
3 2 1 1514 13 317 321 281 280 279 278 322325 327 318 275 274 276 273 272 267 268 269 270 271 291 290 289 288 287 286 285 284 283 263 264 265 257 266 258 259 261 262 260 299 298 297 296 305 295 294 293 292 63'
63'
66'
66'
53'
73'
73'
73'
53' ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY POLK STREET

BUENA VISTA

STREET A

BUENA VISTA DRIVE

STREET B

STREET C

INYO AVENUE

STREET D

JIGSAW AVENUE

STREET E

STREET F STREET H STREET L STREET J
STREET I STREET M STREET N STREET K MONO STREET PARCEL 'A' PARK/STORMWATER BASIN (INCLUDES 4.9± AC OF PARK USE & 2.0± AC WATER QUALITY BASIN) 218 217 216 215 214 213 210 212 219 220 221 222 223 224304 225 316 107 106 105 104 103 102 99 100 101 9392 319 98 97969594 6970 73 74 6761626364 227 228 208 229 230 231 209 308 6566 72 68 9091 320 86878889 78 77 76 82838485 323 79 8081 254 253 252 251 303256 255 250 246 245 244 243300 249 248 247 199 193 203 197 205 204 201 202 196 195 194 192 186 200 182 187 179 190 185 183 188 189 191 181 180 178 226 184 198 207 307 282 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50'
50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 57'
50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 57' 86'
86' 45' 53' 53' 44'
50' 86' 45' 53' 53' 44'
86' 57' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 45'
82' 22'
16'
43' 31'
43'
43'
43'
106'
106'
63'
63'
63' 31'
50'
63'
63'
50' 50' 50' 57'
14' 51' 101' 101'
45'
45'
57'
57'
57'
57' 57' 65'
57' 57' 121' 121' 121' 121' 121' 121'
57' 121' 121' 121' 121'
57' 57'
57'
57'
57'
57' 57' 121'
57' 52' 71'
57' 121'
57' 72'
52' 60' 41' 90' 90'
45'
65'
45' 110'
57'
57'
57' 110' 110'
57' 57'
57' 57'
57' 57'
57' 110'
57' 110'
57' 57' 57'
57' 57'
57' 52' 60' 40'
72' 57' 50'50' 31'
52' 40' 50' 50' 40' 31' 31' 31'40' 50' 50' 40'31'
43'
43'
55' 55'
55' 55'
55' 55' 55' 55' 36'
55' 51' 51' 40'31' 40' 31'
46'
46'
58' 58' 58'
55'
58'
55'
58'
55'
58'
36'
45' 34' 91' 91' 59' 34'
27' 55'
45' 58' 58'
55'
58'
55'
58'
55'
58' 58'
55' 55' 52' 31' 40' 51' 51' 40' 31'
66'
45' STREET G 315 314 313 312 311 310 309 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 117 118 4142 40 47 46 45 44 43 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 50 49 48 31 32 30 29 282726 328 329 3305253 51 331 176 237 236 235 241 240 239 238 232 158 159 160 161 132 133 137 138 139 140 134 135 136 141 142 145 153 146 147 148 149 150 143 151 144 152 154 155 156 157 162 163 166 167 165 164 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 89'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
82'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
90'
169'
111'
110' 110' 60' 63'50'
63'
63' 122'
60'
78'
66'
58' 50' 22'39' 21'39' 21' 39'21' 39'21' 39'21'39' 21'39' 21'39' 21' 70' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 54' 79' 50' 61' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 65'
79'
66' 27' 29'
47'
51' 9' 12'
58' 58' 62' 7'
43' 31' 40' 50' 65' 40' 31'
43' 40'
21' 59' 55' 2
9' 25' 7' 60' 60' 32'
53' 26' 65' 60' 110' 125'4'
59' 30' 6059
100' 45' 60' 60' 45'
100'
100'
80'
80' 125' 125' 125' 125' 125' 125' 125' 125' 125' 125' 105' 105' 125' 125' 125' 125' 125' 125' 125' 125' 125' 125' 65' 60' 60' 65' 53' 53' 53' 53' 53' 53' 53' 53' 53' 53' 40'
40' 53'
60' 53' 53'
53'
53'
53'
53'
53'
53'
53'
53'
53'
53'
53'
53'
53'
53' 53'
53' 53' 31' 31'
81'
110'
110'
110'
110'
110'
110'
110'
110'
110'
103' 50' 50' 105' 45' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 22' 122'
134' 117'
87' 46' 12'
19'125'
52' 125'
52' 6'
52' 125'
52' 52' 52' 125' 6'
46'12'
40'18' 125'
52' 52' 52' 52' 125' 125' 125'
34'
24'
28' 30'
22'
36'
16'125'
52' 125'
42' 10'
52'
52' 65' 60'
80' 31' 45' 60' 60' 45'31'
100'
100'
100'
80' 60' 65' 125' 125'
62' 58' 58' 58' 125' 125' 125'
58' 58' 125' 125'
58' 58' 125'
58' 13' 115' 125'
168'
100'
110'
110'
110'
80' 58' 58' 45' 14'
76'
163' 125' 125'
72'
72' 50' 50' 71' 51' 31' 50' 50' 51' 31' 31' 50'
72'
72' 40' 50' 60'
122' 277 82' 31'
60' 119' 31'83' 242 STREET H

PILLSBURY ROAD FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY (BY OTHERS)
DRIVE 25'
52' 62' 62' 62' 62' 62'
26' 25'
55' 54' 55' 55' 55' 55' 55' 24' 55' 50' 24'
187'
257' 31' 483' 31'
181'
76' 200' 72'
11'586'
33' 68' 31' 21' 14' 40'
39'
47' 4' 25' 14' 75 108 71 209 211 233 234 119 177 206 120 37'18' 50' 14' 31' 25' 4'
46' 41' 43' 9'
25' 31' 31' 31' 31' 31' 31' 31'
25'
21' 57'
45' 21'25' 31' 14'
80' 31' 31' 31' 31' 31' 19' 57' 35'
19' 51' 19'
110'
110'
107' 110' 110' 110' 110' 110' 110' 110' 5'
19' 6'
51'
34'
57' 2'2
5'
2 5' 39' 1'
53' 46' 4'
25' 31' 31'
63' 31' TRANSITION R/W 11.5' 6'
28'
106'
23' 67'

SITE PLAN - WEST
5 DATE REVISION NO.

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

CHECKED BY: SHT PROJECT NO. OF
CALIFORNIA REPRODUCTIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT THAT ARE GENERATED BY OTHERS FROM ELECTRONIC MEDIA. MACKAY & SOMPS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
5142B FRANKLIN DR, PLEASANTON, CA 94588 (925)225-0690

ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY 25224.000
MAY 2022 12

HAT RANCH
TENTATIVE MAP- TRACT NO. 3782

CITY OF MANTECA
CHRISTIAN T. RAGAN RCE # 60473

D R A F T

AS SHOWN
ATTACHMENT 17

ATHERTON DRIVE ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY STREET H

STREET O

STREET P

STREET Q
STREET R STREET U STREET V STREET W STREET H STREET X STREET Y PARCEL 'B' PARK/STORMWATER BASIN (6.4± AC OF PARK USE, 2.5± AC WATER QUALITY BASIN, 0.4± AC WELL SITE) STREET K STREET T

STREET S

VERAMONTE AVE

VERAMONTE AVE MONO STREET
PILLSBURY ROAD FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY (BY OTHERS) FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY (BY OTHERS) 511 510 509 508 514 513 512 703 470 472 474 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 532 533 534 527 528 529 530 531 522 523 524 517 518 519 520 521 538 537 544 543 542 541 540 539 425 426 427 429 434 435 439 440 678 679 682 683 686 687 690 691 694 695 698 699 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 717 733 720 736 721 708 724 725 712 728 713 729 716 732 723 722 735 719734 718 731 715 730 714 727 726 416 627 626 625 624 623 622 621 620 619 618 617 601 600 599 598 597 596 595 594 593 592 591 738 402 441 629 641 628 603 615 616 602 590 577 589 479 469 526 545 502 507 575 574 573 572 571 570 569 568 567 566 565 525 535 536 576 564 675 422 421 710 702 516 515 495 494 493 492 499 491 498 497 496 485 486 487 488 484 709 685 701 505 552 562 684 700 551 561 504 681 697 550 560 503 680 696 549 558 677 693 501 548 557 692 547 556 689 546 555 688 704 506 554 737 420 419 418 417 414 413 412 411 410 408 407 406 405 404 403 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 355 358 357 352 353 354 356 359 360361362363364 654 655 365 657 656 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 674 673 672 671 670 669 668 369 370 371 372 467 468 647 648 649 642 650 643 651 644 645 646 335 337 336 332 334 333 652 653 460 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 477 481 478 475 476 480 482 471 473 553 559 423 424 415 428 430 431 432 433 409 436 437 438 343 342 341 340 339 338 344 373 374375 377 378 379 384 376 380 381 382 383 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 400 401 399 445 367 446 444 443 442 447 448 449 450 451 368366 461 462 463 464 465 466 483 490 711 489 563 676 705 706 707 46' 54' 54' 54' 54' 54' 44' 113' 113' 112' 112' 111' 111' 104' 133' 95' 70' 70' 31' 80' 80' 31' 44'
64'
44' 100'
54' 54' 54' 54' 66' 100' 100' 100' 100' 80' 80' 31'46' 31' 46' 54' 54' 54' 54' 54'
69' 69' 69' 68' 70' 70' 70' 70' 70' 70' 70' 70'
80'
80' 80'
100'
80' 62' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 62' 31' 31' 31' 31' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 42' 42' 52' 52' 52' 52' 31' 35' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 35'31' 40' 109' 108' 108' 107' 106' 106' 105' 105' 96' 107'
104'
108'
109'
112'
114'
115'
115'
115'
115'
115'
116'
116'
115'
115'
116'
116'
116'
115'
116'
116'
115'
85' 73' 73' 73' 73' 73' 73' 73'
14' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50'
55' 5'
40' 10'
35' 15'
30'
20'
25'
25'
20'
30' 15'
35' 10'
40' 5'
56' 31'80' 80' 31'
40'
35' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 41'
36' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45'
55' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 56' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 31'80' 80'31' 35'
35'
45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 36'
36' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45'
82'
102'
102'
102'
102'
102'
102'
102'
102'
102'
102'
102'
102'
82' 55' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 55' 82'
102'
102'
102'
102'
102'
102'
102'
102'
102'
102'
102'
102'
82' 31'35' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 35' 31' 108'
128'
128'
128'
128'
128'
128'
128'
128'
128'
128'
128'
128'
108' 55' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 55' 108' 31'
128'
128'
128'
128'
128'
128'
128'
128'
128'
128'
128'
128'
108' 31' 35' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 35' 55' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 55' 109' 110'
110'
110'
110'
110'
110'
110'
110'
110'
110'
110'
110'
90'
90'
89'
109'
109'
109'
109'
109'
109'
109'
109'
109'
109'
109'
89'31' 35' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 35'31' 31' 31' 35' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 35' 79' 68' 68' 68' 69' 68' 69' 68' 68' 68' 68' 69' 68' 69' 68' 68' 15'
69' 59' 51'
69' 52'
69' 69' 69' 59' 54' 59' 53' 59' 59' 54' 59' 55'
69' 59' 56'
69'
69' 68' 68' 69' 68' 68' 68' 59'31' 59' 57'
68' 59' 57' 59' 58' 69'
68' 68' 59' 59' 69'
69' 59' 60'
68'
69' 59' 60'
68'
69' 59' 56' 5' 61' 57' 59' 58' 69'
48'
72' 83' 73' 73' 73' 73' 73' 73' 73' 74' 73' 73' 73' 69' 73' 126' 46'
46'
46'
46'
46'
46'
46'
46'
46'
46'
46'
46'
46'
46'
46'
36' 44'
64'
64'
64'
64'
64'
64'
64'
64'
64'
64'
64'
64'
64'
62'
60'
21' 74' 73' 73' 73' 73' 68' 73' 78'116'66' 73'
116'
115' 71'31' 76' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100'
54'
54' 54' 54' 54' 54'
40' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 42' 80' 31'100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 99' 92'80'31' 35' 45' 45' 45' 45' 100'
45' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100'
45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45'
45' 45' 34' 55' 40' 35' 30' 25' 20' 15' 10' 5'
25'20'30'15'35'10'
45' 11'
132'
91'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
80' 47' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50'
51' 43' 68' 30'20' 50' 11'39' 50' 39' 11' 49'1' 59' 60' 11' 30'19' 8'17' 35'
15' 25'12' 58' 81'
96' 27' 51'
110'
110'
1 7'44' 60' 60' 60'
106'
110'
110'
132'
153'
143'
31' 31'
56' 65' 1' 66' 97' 81' 127' 98' 99'
66' 99' 100' 101'
66' 66' 66' 66' 67'
80' 33' 33' 59' 7' 66'
91' 140'
44' 108'
113'
113'
113' 124' 101' 66' 58'8' 66' 28' 38' 22'44' 16' 50' 10'69' 113'
116'
151'
70'
30'
68' 118'
137'
137'
137'
113' 37' 29' 60' 60' 69'
35'
60'
60' 104' 101'
76'
53' 6'
43'
103'
103'
31' 60'
60' 17' 43'
104'
106'
94'
29' 31' 39'21'
107'
60' 104'
53'
44' 45' 104' 104'
45' 27' 36'
103'
45' 104'
45'
45' 104'
45' 31'84'
65' 45'41' 9'
110'
110'
141'
107'
110'
110'
110'
110'
110'
110'
110'
90' 31' 49' 49' 49' 49' 49' 49' 49' 49' 49' 40' 49' 49' 23'26'19'30'16'33'13'36' 10' 39' 7'43' 3'56' 115'
115'
95'
115'
115'
115'
115' 31' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 36' 12' 25' 10'
51' 40' 37'
27'
10' 73' 15'27'
20' 54'
135'
51' 105'
3 7'25' 10'
111' 70'
111' 70'
111'
111' 70' 70' 70' 70'
111'
111'
111' 70'
111'
111' 70' 107'
70' 81' 30'
52' 120'
30' 35'
66' 46' 38' 113'
70' 50' 50'100' 50' 50'100' 50' 50'100' 50' 50'100' 51' 31' 31' 80' 85' 31' 31' 105' 50'
105' 50'
105' 50'
105' 50'
17' 70' 70' 70' 70' 70'
111'
111' 70' 70' 70' 70' 70' 70' 70' 70' 70' 70' 66' 70' 70' 70' 70' 70' 70' 121' 84' 111'
111'
111'
111'
111'
111'
111'
111'
111'
111'
118'
115'
51' 21' 4 ' 48' 24'112' 113'
69' 63' 31'
15' 4'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100'
100' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 42' 52' 52' 31' 72' 54' 113'
54' 26' 31'
54' 54' 54' 25'
46' 42'26'
50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' 50'
1013' 31' 31'
1013' 365'
1053' 645' 73'
110'
103'
23' 66' 66' 66' 50' 46' 17' 48' 17' 11'
28'9'23'40' 48' 13' 25'82' 84' 39' 40'
74' 70' 113' 93'
48' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 47' 14' 14' 73' 25' 13'53'
32' 46'3'
2 2'32' 90' 53' 28'25' 50' 50' 25'25' 53' 50' 50' 50' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 37' 31' 31' 35' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 35' 31' 31' 80' 80' 31' 31' 80' 80'31' 31'63' 73' 73' 73' 74' 73' 73' 73' 73' 73' 73' 73' 74' 50' 18' 63' 1'
59'
18'
19' 2' 31' 365' 645' 31'
28' PARCEL 'A' SCHOOL SITE (16.4± AC)

SITE PLAN - EAST
6 DATE REVISION NO.

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

CHECKED BY: SHT PROJECT NO. OF
CALIFORNIA REPRODUCTIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT THAT ARE GENERATED BY OTHERS FROM ELECTRONIC MEDIA. MACKAY & SOMPS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
5142B FRANKLIN DR, PLEASANTON, CA 94588 (925)225-0690

ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY 25224.000
MAY 2022 12

HAT RANCH
TENTATIVE MAP- TRACT NO. 3782

CITY OF MANTECA
CHRISTIAN T. RAGAN RCE # 60473

D R A F T

AS SHOWN
ATTACHMENT 17
CONNECT TO EXISTING SSJID LATERAL "XB-DD" PUMP STATION 1 PUMP TO WATER QUALITY BASIN 1 PUMP TO SSJID FORCEMAIN REFER TO PFIP EXHIBIT FOR ROAD AND UTILITY EXTENSIONS CONNECT TO EXISTING W STUB INV 36.5 UPLAND PLAY AREA 1.0± ACRES SDFM TO DISCHARGE AT EX. SD PUMP STATION TO SSJID LATERAL "X" EX 36' SSJID IRRIG INV 29.1+/- EX 36' SSJID IRRIG WATER QUALITY BASIN 2.0± ACRES 6:1 TYP SIDE SLOPE 5' EFFECTIVE DEPTH 1' FREEBOARD DETENTION BASIN 3.9± ACRES PONDING ELEV 36.5 BOTTOM ELEV 31.5 (GROUND WATER 29.5)

INYO AVE

JIGSAW AVE ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY

BUENA VISTA

STREET D STREET N MONO STREET

STREET A STREET M
JIGSAW

STREET E

PILLSBURY WAY POLK ST STREET I STREET J STREET L

BUENA VISTA

STREET B STREET H

STREET C

INYO STREET K
STREET F 259 219 220 221 222 223 224304 225 316 107 106 105 104 103 102 99 100 101 9392 319 98 97969594 6970 73 74 67616263646566 72 68 9091 320 86878889 78 77 76 82838485 323 79 8081 254 253 252 251 303256 255 250 246 245 244 243300 249 248 247 199 193 203 197 205 204 201 202 196 195 194 192 200 186 182 187 179 190 185 183 188 189 191 181 180 178 226 227 208 209 228 229 230 231 184 198 207 307218 217 216 215 214 213 210 212 4142 40 47 46 45 44 43 39 38 37 36 35 33 34 50 49 48 31 32 30 29 282726 328 329 3305253 51 331 311 310 309 308 PARCEL 'A' 315 314 313 312 6059 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 117 118 158 159 160 161 132 133 137 138 139 140 134 135 136 141 142 145 153 146 147 148 149 150 143 151 144 152 154 155 156 157 162 163 166 167 165 164 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 274275 276 273 272 306 305 301 263 264 265 266 298 297 296 292 293 267 268 269 270 271 295 302
294 237 236 235 241 240 239 238 232 282 17 1819 20 11 12 10 9 8
7 6
5 4
3 2 1 241514 13 317 57 56 5554 58 16 25 324 326 23 21 22 321 325 327 322 318 281 280 279 278 287 286 285 284 283 291 290 289 288 257 258 299261 262 260 EX. 36" SSJID LINE TO BE RELOCATED AS SHOWNEX SSJID PIPE TO REMAIN STREET G STREET H FUTURE WATER MAIN 242 277 1.5' PONDING DEPTH 1.5' MEDIA DEPTH 1' GRAVEL CONNECT TO EX 12"W 75 108 71 119120 177 206 211 233 234

UTILITY PLAN - WEST
7 AND UTILITY EXTENSIONS

REFER TO PFIP EXHIBIT FOR ROAD
DATE REVISION NO.

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

CHECKED BY: SHT PROJECT NO. OF
CALIFORNIA REPRODUCTIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT THAT ARE GENERATED BY OTHERS FROM ELECTRONIC MEDIA. MACKAY & SOMPS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
5142B FRANKLIN DR, PLEASANTON, CA 94588 (925)225-0690

ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY 25224.000
MAY 2022 12

HAT RANCH
TENTATIVE MAP- TRACT NO. 3782

CITY OF MANTECA
CHRISTIAN T. RAGAN RCE # 60473

D R A F T
AS SHOWN NOTES: 1. STORM WATER DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY BASINS ARE SHOWN FOR PRELIMINARY SIZING PURPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL DESIGN SQUARE FOOTAGE, SHAPE AND LOCATION ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT FINAL DESIGN. 2. SSJID RELOCATIONS ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL DESIGN ATTACHMENT 17
446 445 PUMP STATION 1 PUMP TO WATER QUALITY BASIN 1 PUMP TO SSJID FORCEMAIN 6:1 TYP SIDE SLOPE 5' EFFECTIVE DEPTH 1' FREEBOARD WATER QUALITY BASIN 2.5± ACRES 1.5' PONDING DEPTH 1.5' MEDIA DEPTH 1' GRAVEL RETENTION BASIN 5.4± ACRES PONDING ELEV 39.5 BOTTOM ELEV 34.5 (GROUND WATER 32.5) PARCEL 'B' PARCEL 'C' SCHOOL SITE 717 733 720 736 721 708 724 725 712 728 713 729 716 732 723 722 735 719 734 718 731 715 730 714 727 726 532 533 534 527 528 529 530 531 522 523 524 517 518 519 520 521 538 537 544 543 542 541 540 539 470 472 474 425 426 427 429 434 435 439 440 678 679 682 683 686 687 690 691 694 695 698 699 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 511 510 509 508 514 513 512 703 373 374375 377 378 379 384 376 380 381 382 383 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 400 401 399 367 444 447 448 449 450 451 368366 461 462 463 464 465 466 483 490 467 468 647 648 649 642 650 643 651 644 645 646 335 337 336 332 334 333 652 653 460 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360361362363364 654 655 365 657 656 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667668674 673 672 671 670 669 369 370 371 372 477 481 478 476 475 480 482 471 473 553 559 423 424 415 428 430 431 432 433 409 436 437 438 343 342 341 340 339 338 344 515 495 494 493 492 499 491 498 497 496 485 486 487 488 484 709 685 701 505 552 562 684 700 551 561 504 681 697 550 560 503 680 696 549 558 677 693 501 548 557 692 547 556 689 546 555 688 704 506 554 737 420 419 418 417 416 414 413 412 411 410 408 407 406 405 404 403 738 402 441 603 615 577 589 479 469 526 545 502 507 575 525 535 536 576 675 422 421 710 702 516 711 EX SSJID IRRIG LINE TO REMAIN 627 626 625 624 623 622 621 620 619 618 617 629 641 628 616 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 602 601 600 599 598 597 596 595 594 593 592 591 590 574 573 572 571 570 569 568 567 566 565 564 443 442 UPLAND PLAY AREA 1.0± AC WELL SITE 0.4± ACRES CONNECT WATER CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER CONNECT TO SEWER AND WATER FUTURE WATER MAIN WATER MAIN 489 446 445 563 676 705 500 706 STREET V

PILLSBURY ROAD HAT RANCH - WEST ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY STREET H

STREET Q

STREET R

VERAMONTE STREET W STREET X STREET Y

ATHERTON DRIVE STREET U

STREET CC

STREET O STREET K STREET T

STREET S

STREET P STREET H
UTILITY PLAN - EAST 8

AND UTILITY EXTENSIONS
REFER TO PFIP EXHIBIT FOR ROAD NOTES: 1. STORM WATER DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY BASINS ARE SHOWN FOR PRELIMINARY SIZING PURPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL DESIGN SQUARE FOOTAGE, SHAPE AND LOCATION ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT FINAL DESIGN. 2. SSJID RELOCATIONS ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL DESIGN DATE REVISION NO.

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

CHECKED BY: SHT PROJECT NO. OF
CALIFORNIA REPRODUCTIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT THAT ARE GENERATED BY OTHERS FROM ELECTRONIC MEDIA. MACKAY & SOMPS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
5142B FRANKLIN DR, PLEASANTON, CA 94588 (925)225-0690

ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY 25224.000
MAY 2022 12

HAT RANCH
TENTATIVE MAP- TRACT NO. 3782

CITY OF MANTECA
CHRISTIAN T. RAGAN RCE # 60473

D R A F T

AS SHOWN
ATTACHMENT 17
2+28.83 GB 42.40 3+30.83 GB 42.81 4+32.83 GB 42.40 4+83.83 GB 42.61 5+72.29 GB 42.25 6+26.28 GB 42.79 6+76.26 GB 42.59 8+61.54 GB 43.34 10+25.19 GB 42.69 2+25.00 GB

42.57 2+25.14 GB

39.90 P39.7 P39.7 P39.9 P40.2P40.5 P40.7 P40.7 P40.5 P40.6 P40.7 P40.7 P40.0 P39.8P40.4P40.8 P39.6 P39.9 P40.2 P40.4 P40.8 P40.8 P41.0 P40.9 P41.1 P41.1 P41.0 P40.8 P41.1 P40.3 P40.6 P40.9 P40.6 P40.4 P41.1 P40.2 P40.2 P39.8 P39.7 P39.6 P39.7P39.7 P39.8 P40.3 P40.6 P40.6 P40.6 P40.6 P40.6 P40.6 P40.2 P40.7 P40.5P40.3P40.4P40.6 P39.5 P39.5 P39.3 P39.6 P39.6 P39.4P39.5 P39.7 P39.7 P39.4P39.5 P40.4 P40.6 P40.3 P40.8P40.4 P40.8 P40.7P40.4P41.5P40.8 P40.7 P40.9 P40.3 P40.6 P40.3 P40.4 P40.5 P40.5 P40.7 P40.5 P40.7 P40.5 P40.4 P40.3 P40.7P40.4P40.2 P40.6P40.5P40.4P41.1 P39.6 P39.5 P40.0 P39.6 P39.7 P39.5 P39.5 P39.3 P39.4 P39.5 P39.5 P39.4 P39.7 P39.7 P39.6 P39.5 P40.4 P40.1
P39.8 P40.0 P39.8P40.1P40.7 P40.9 P40.6 P40.4 P40.5 P40.5 P40.5 P40.3 P40.7 P40.9 P41.1 P41.1 P40.8 P40.6 P40.8 P40.9 P40.6P40.6 P40.9 P40.9 P40.9 P40.9 P40.6P40.4 P40.6 P40.8 P40.8 P40.8 P40.6 P40.5 P40.7 P41.0 P41.1 P41.1 P40.9 P41.4 P40.8 P40.5 P40.4 P40.5 P40.7 P40.8 P40.9 P40.9 P41.1 P40.9 P40.7 P40.9 P41.1 P40.8P41.1P41.1P40.9 P40.9 P40.8 P40.7 P40.6 P40.8 P40.4 P40.9 P41.1 P40.6 P40.8 P41.1 P40.9 P40.9 P40.7 P40.9 P40.7 P40.5P40.9P40.9P40.7 P40.6 P40.7 P40.8 P41.9 P40.8 P41.2 P40.4 P41.2 P40.4 P41.2 P35.0 P31.5 P41.1 P40.9 P40.9 P41.0 P41.1 P41.2 P41.1 P41.2 P40.9 P41.3 P41.2 P41.2 P40.4 P40.8 P41.3 P41.3 P41.0 P41.0P41.3 P41.3 P41.8 P41.1 P41.1 P41.0 P41.1 P40.9 P40.7 P40.8 P41.1 P41.1 P40.9 P40.4P40.2P40.5 P40.7 P40.7P40.4P40.2P40.3 P41.1 P40.9 P40.4 P40.4 P40.6 P40.6 P40.5 P40.3 P40.3 P40.6 P40.8 P40.2 P40.5 P40.5P40.9P40.9P40.7 P40.6 P40.8P40.8 P40.7P40.2 P39.9P40.1P40.2 P40.2P39.9 P39.8P40.1 P40.5 P40.1 P39.9 P40.2 P40.1 P40.4 P40.4 P40.1 P40.3 P40.5 P40.5 P40.3 P40.4 P40.7 P40.3 P41.0 P40.0 P40.2 P40.5 P40.5 P40.5 P40.3 P40.3 P40.5 P40.5 P40.4 P40.2P40.4P40.4P40.4P40.6P40.8P41.0P41.1 P41.1 P41.1 P40.9 P40.6 P40.4 P40.3 P40.5 P40.5 P40.3 P40.4 P40.4 P40.1 P40.4 P40.4 P40.2 P40.5P40.7P40.7 P40.4 P40.3 P40.6P40.6P40.4 P40.2 P39.9 P39.8P40.1 REFER TO PFIP EXHIBIT FOR ROAD AND UTILITY EXTENSIONS UPLAND PLAY AREA SDFM TO DISCHARGE AT EX. SD PUMP STATION TO SSJID LATERAL "X"

INYO AVE

JIGSAW AVE ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY

STREET D STREET N MONO STREET

STREET A STREET M
JIGSAW

STREET E

PILLSBURY WAY POLK ST STREET I STREET J STREET L

BUENA VISTA

STREET B STREET H

STREET C

INYO STREET K
STREET F 259 219 220 221 222 223 224304 225 316 107 106 105 104 103 102 99 100 101 9392 319 98 97969594 6970 73 74 67 6162636465 66 72 68 9091320 86878889 78 77 76 82838485 323 79 8081 254 253 252 251 303256 255 250 246 245 244 243300 249 248 247 199 193 203 197 205 204 201 202 196 195 194 192 186 200 182 187 179 190 185 183 188 189 191 181 180 178 226 227 228 208 209 229 230 231 184 198 207 307218 217 216 215 214 213 210 212 4142 40 47 46 45 44 43 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 50 49 48 31 32 30 29 282726 328 329 3305253 51 331 311 310 309 308 PARCEL A 315 314 313 312 6059 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 117 118 158 159 160 161 132 133 137 138 139 140 134 135 136 141 142 145 153 146 147 148 149 150 143 151 144 152 154 155 156 157 162 163 166 167 165 164 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 274 275 276 273 272 306 305 301 263 264 265 266 298 297 296 293 292 267 268 269 270 271 295 302 294 237 236 235 241 240 239 238 232 282 17 1819 20 11 12 10 9 8
7 6
5 4
3 2 1 24 15 1413 317 56 57 55 58 54 16 25 324 326 23 2122 321 325 327 322 318 281 280 279 278 291 290 289 288 287 286 285 284 283 257 258 299261 262 260 RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL STREET G STREET H PILLSBURY WAY 242 277 WATER QUALITY BASIN DETENTION BASIN 206 233234 119120 75 71 108 177

A RETAINING WALL
CASE 2
A CASE 2
A CASE 2 RETAINING WALLRETAINING WALL
B
CASE 1
B
CASE 1
B
CASE 1
B CASE 2
B CASE 2
A
CASE 2
A
CASE 1
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

GRADING PLAN - WEST
9 AND UTILITY EXTENSIONS
REFER TO PFIP EXHIBIT FOR ROAD NOTES: 1. STORM WATER DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY BASINS ARE SHOWN FOR PRELIMINARY SIZING PURPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL DESIGN SQUARE FOOTAGE, SHAPE AND LOCATION ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT FINAL DESIGN. 2. UTILITY SIZES AND LOCATIONS ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO FINAL DESIGN 3. SSJID RELOCATIONS ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL DESIGN 4. ALL SEWER IS ASSUMED TO BE 8" WITH A SLOPE OF 0.0034 UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED RETAINING WALLS LOCATED ALONG BOUNDARY WHERE PROPOSED PADS ARE HIGHER THAN ADJACENT EXISTING PADS OR HIGHER THAN ADJACENT STREET ELEVATION IF THERE IS INADEQUATE SPACE FOR SLOPES DATE REVISION NO.

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

CHECKED BY: SHT PROJECT NO. OF
CALIFORNIA REPRODUCTIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT THAT ARE GENERATED BY OTHERS FROM ELECTRONIC MEDIA. MACKAY & SOMPS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
5142B FRANKLIN DR, PLEASANTON, CA 94588 (925)225-0690

ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY 25224.000
MAY 2022 12

HAT RANCH
TENTATIVE MAP- TRACT NO. 3782

CITY OF MANTECA
CHRISTIAN T. RAGAN RCE # 60473

D R A F T

AS SHOWN SECTION A PAD
2:1
MAX
PL EX PAD EXISTING FENCE APPROX. LOCATED ON PROPERTY LINE CASE 1 PADPL EX PAD EXISTING FENCE APPROX. LOCATED ON PROPERTY LINE CASE 2RETAINING WALL SECTION B R/W PAD 1' OVERBUILD RETAINING WALL WHERE REQUIRED CASE 1 CASE 2 2:1 MAX PAD 1' OVERBUILD 2:1
MAX COMMUNITY WALL COMMUNITY WALL REMOVE & REPLACE EXIST. FENCE ON P/L OR CONSTRUCT NEW PARALLEL FENCE OFFSET FROM P/L ON HAT RANCH SIDE 1' OVERBUILD * R/W REMOVE & REPLACE EXIST. FENCE ON P/L OR CONSTRUCT NEW PARALLEL FENCE OFFSET FROM P/L ON HAT RANCH SIDE ATTACHMENT 17
12+76.59 GB 41.23 14+11.48 GB 42.38 15+74.83 GB 41.97 1+79.92 GB 39.45 8+21.52 GB 43.07 8+21.64 GB 43.07 P44.0 P44.0 P44.0 P44.2 P44.2 P44.1 P44.1 P44.3 P44.4 P44.4 P44.4 P43.6P43.8P44.1P44.1P43.8P43.6P43.6P43.8P43.9P43.9P43.7 P44.0 P43.7 P43.7 P43.9 P43.9 P43.7 P43.8 P44.1 P44.1 P43.9 P43.7 P43.9 P43.9 P43.5 P43.3 P43.3 P43.1 P43.0 P43.1 P43.5 P43.3P43.5P43.5P43.4P43.4P43.5P43.5P43.4P43.4P43.5P43.7P43.7P43.5 P44.3 P44.1 P44.0 P44.2 P44.2 P44.2 P44.0 P44.0 P43.9 P43.9 P44.1 P44.1 P43.8 P43.7 P43.9 P43.9 P43.7 P43.7 P44.0 P43.3P43.5P43.5P43.4P43.4P43.5P43.5P43.4P43.4P43.5P43.7P43.7P43.5 P43.6P43.4P43.4P43.6P43.8P43.8P43.6P43.4P43.4P43.6P43.6P43.4P43.2 P43.6P43.4P43.4P43.6P43.8P43.8P43.6P43.4P43.4P43.6P43.6P43.4P43.2 P43.5P43.2P43.2P43.4P43.6P43.6P43.4P43.2P43.2P43.4P43.4P43.2P43.3 P43.7 P43.7 P43.7 P43.7 P43.7 P43.7 P43.7 P43.7 P43.7 P43.7 P43.7 P43.7 P43.7 P43.7 P43.7 P43.7 P44.0 P44.0 P44.0 P44.0 P44.3 P44.3 P44.3 P44.3 P44.3 P44.3 P44.3 P44.3 P45.0 P45.0 P45.0 P45.0 P44.5 P44.5 P44.5 P44.5 P44.5 P44.5 P44.5 P44.5 P44.5 P44.5 P44.5 P44.5 P44.5 P44.5 P44.5 P44.5 P44.5 P44.5 P44.5 P44.5 P44.5 P44.5 P44.5 P44.5 P44.5 P44.5 P44.5 P44.5 P44.5 P44.5 P44.9 P45.0 P43.5P43.5 P43.9 P43.8P44.1 P44.1P43.9 P43.9P44.2P44.3 P44.3P44.2 P44.2P44.4P45.0 P45.0P44.4P44.4P45.0 P45.0P44.4 P44.5 P43.9 P44.1 P43.8P43.8P44.0P44.1P43.7P43.7P43.4P43.6P43.6P43.6P43.9P44.0P44.0P43.8P43.7P43.6P43.8P43.9P43.9P43.7P43.5P43.3 P44.2 P44.4 P44.6 P44.7 P44.7 P44.7 P44.7 P44.6 P44.4 P44.2 P44.0 P44.2 P44.4 P44.4 P44.3 P44.0 P44.2 P44.4 P43.7 P43.9 P43.9 P43.7 P43.5 P43.5 P44.4 P44.3 P44.1 P43.5 P43.6 P43.8 P43.8 P44.3 P44.1 P44.5 P44.1 P44.3 P44.3 P44.5 P44.3 P44.4 P43.1P43.8P44.3P44.3P44.1P44.0P44.2 P44.4 P43.7 P43.6 P43.6 P43.5 P43.3 P43.0 P43.7 P43.5 P43.7 P43.6P43.6 P43.6 P43.4 P43.1 P43.9 P44.1 P44.0 P44.0 P44.0 P44.1 P44.1 P43.8 P43.8 P43.1 P43.4 P42.9 P43.1 P43.4 P43.6 P43.3 P43.5 P43.6 P43.1 P43.3 P43.5 P43.6 P43.6 P43.6 P43.8 P43.8 P43.6 P43.6 P43.4 P43.4 P43.4 P43.6 P43.4P43.3P43.4P43.5P43.3P43.2P43.4P43.3P43.1P43.3 P43.3P43.1P43.1P43.6P43.9P43.9P43.8 P43.1 P43.1 P43.0 P42.8 P43.3P43.6P43.9 P42.8P43.0P43.2P43.4 P43.9P43.8 P43.5 P43.4 P43.1 P42.9 P42.9 P43.2 P43.5 P43.5 P43.7 P44.0 P43.9 P43.7P44.0P44.0 P44.0 P43.8P43.9P44.3 P44.4P44.9 P45.0P45.0P44.7P44.7P44.9 P45.1P45.1P44.9P45.0 P45.3 P45.0 P45.0 P45.4 P45.4 P45.4 P44.4 P44.8 P44.9 P44.9 P44.6 P45.0 P45.0 P44.9 P45.1 P44.0P43.9 P44.0 446 445 CONNECT WATER PARCEL 'B' PARCEL 'C' SCHOOL SITE 717 733 720 736 721 708 724 725 712 728 713 729 716 732 723 722 735 719 734 718 731 715 730 714 727 726 532 533 534 527 528 529 530 531 522 523 524 517 518 519 520 521 538 537 544 543 542 541 540 539 470 472 474 425 426 427 429 434 435 439 440 678 679 682 683 686 687 690 691 694 695 698 699 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 511 510 509 508 514 513 512 703 373 374375 377 378 379 384 376 380 381 382 383 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 400 401 399 367 444 447 448 449 450 451 368366 461 462 463 464 465 466 483 490 467 468 647 648 649 642 650 643 651 644 645 646 335 337 336 332 334 333 652 653 460 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360361362363364 654 655 365 657 656 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 369 674 673 672 671 670 669 668 370 371 372 477 481 478 476 475 480 482 471 473 553 559 423 424 415 428 430 431 432 433 409 436 437 438 343 342 341 340 339 338 344 515 495 494 493 492 499 491 498 497 496 485 486 487 488 484 709 685 701 505 552 562 684 700 551 561 504 681 697 550 560 503 680 696 549 558 677 693 501 548 557 692 547 556 689 546 555 688 704 506 554 737 420 419 418 417 416 414 413 412 411 410 408 407 406 405 404 403 627 626 625 624 623 622 621 620 619 618 617 599 597 596 595 594 593 592 591 738 402 441 629 641 628 603 615 616 602 590 577 589 479 469 526 545 502 507 525 535 536 576 575 574 573 572 571 570 569 568 567 566 565 564 675 422 421 710 702 516 443 442 601 600 598 711 STREET V

PILLSBURY ROAD HAT RANCH - WEST ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY

STREET Q

STREET R

VERAMONTE AVE STREET W STREET X STREET Y

ATHERTON DRIVE STREET U

VERAMONTE AVE

STREET O STREET FF STREET T

STREET S

STREET P STREET H RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL PILLSBURY ROAD 446 445 489 WATER QUALITY BASIN DETENTION BASIN UPLAND PLAY AREA 563 676 705 706 707 500 A
CASE 2
B CASE 1
A
CASE 1
A
CASE 2 RETAINING WALL
B CASE 1
B
CASE 1
B
CASE 1
B CASE 1
B CASE 1
*
*
*
*
*
*
GRADING PLAN - EAST 10

AND UTILITY EXTENSIONS
REFER TO PFIP EXHIBIT FOR ROAD NOTES: 1. STORM WATER DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY BASINS ARE SHOWN FOR PRELIMINARY SIZING PURPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL DESIGN SQUARE FOOTAGE, SHAPE AND LOCATION ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT FINAL DESIGN. 2. LOCATIONS ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO FINAL DESIGN 3. SSJID RELOCATIONS ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL DESIGN 4. ALL SEWER IS ASSUMED TO BE 8" WITH A SLOPE OF 0.0034 UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED RETAINING WALLS LOCATED ALONG BOUNDARY WHERE PROPOSED PADS ARE HIGHER THAN ADJACENT EXISTING PADS OR HIGHER THAN ADJACENT STREET ELEVATION IF THERE IS INADEQUATE SPACE FOR SLOPES DATE REVISION NO.

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

CHECKED BY: SHT PROJECT NO. OF
CALIFORNIA REPRODUCTIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT THAT ARE GENERATED BY OTHERS FROM ELECTRONIC MEDIA. MACKAY & SOMPS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
5142B FRANKLIN DR, PLEASANTON, CA 94588 (925)225-0690

ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY 25224.000
MAY 2022 12

HAT RANCH
TENTATIVE MAP- TRACT NO. 3782

CITY OF MANTECA
CHRISTIAN T. RAGAN RCE # 60473

D R A F T

AS SHOWN SECTION A SECTION BPAD
2:1
MAX
PL EX PAD EXISTING FENCE APPROX. LOCATED ON PROPERTY LINE CASE 1 PADPL EX PAD EXISTING FENCE APPROX. LOCATED ON PROPERTY LINE CASE 2RETAINING WALL R/W PAD 1' OVERBUILD RETAINING WALL WHERE REQUIRED CASE 1 CASE 2 2:1
MAX PAD 1' OVERBUILD 2:1 MAX COMMUNITY WALL COMMUNITY WALL REMOVE & REPLACE EXIST. FENCE ON P/L OR CONSTRUCT NEW PARALLEL FENCE OFFSET FROM P/L ON HAT RANCH SIDE 1' OVERBUILD * R/W REMOVE & REPLACE EXIST. FENCE ON P/L OR CONSTRUCT NEW PARALLEL FENCE OFFSET FROM P/L ON HAT RANCH SIDE ATTACHMENT 17

S E D A N A V E N U E
HIGHWAY 99 S E D A N A V E N U E WOODWARD AVE.

PILLSBURY RD.

MANTECA RD. (MAIN ST.)
ATHERON DR.

AUSTIN RD. (FUTURE ANTONE RAYMUS) FUTURE EXTENSION TO HIGHWAY 99 VELDSTRA GEORGE & H 226-140-05 WOODWARD AIRPORT 226-140-06 JOINT VENT LLC 226-140-07 BROCCHINI FARMS INC ETAL 226-140-09 BROCCHINI FARMS INC ETAL 226-140-10 BROCCHINI FARMS INC ETAL 226-140-08 BROCCHINI FARMS INC ETAL 226-140-16 BKB INVESTMENTS LLC 226-140-11 SILAGI RANDALL 226-140-12 PLANT SCIENCES INC 226-120-22 SILAGI RANDALL 226-120-21 VAN VUREN SHERWOOD & J A 226-120-20 VAN LAAR JAMES & LYNDA 226-120-19 VAN ELDEREN DANIEL & JUDITH 226-120-18 BURGESS WILLIAM F JR 226-120-17 CAMBRA KAREN ANN M 226-120-16 BS LAND COMPANY LLC 226-120-15 BS LAND COMPANY LLC 226-120-14 HOLMES ROLAND 226-120-13 BURGORD NORM & GLORIA 226-120-12 DE KIDOS DENNIS & HELEN 224-050-07
BONDS
U.P.R.R. EX. HIGHWAY 99/ AUSTIN RD INTERCHANGE ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY

MOFFATT BLVD EX PFIP SEWER EX PFIP WATER TAN
NEHILL DRIVE SSJID LATERAL "X"
ATHERON DR. TANNEHILL DR EX WATER PFIP WATER ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY TO EX PIPE APPROX 200 LF SOUTH OF TANNEHILL DRIVE PFIP SEWER ATHERTON DRIVE TO MANTECA ROAD PFIP SEWER LIFT STATION PFIP SEWER PIPE WITHIN MANTECA ROAD PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH GRIFFIN PARK SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS PFIP SEWER PIPE WITHIN WOODWARD AVENUE TO BE EXTENDED APPROX. 4050 LF TO EXISTING PIPE (APPROX. 400 LF EAST OF PAGOLA AVENUE) PFIP WATER PFIP EXHIBIT 11
AS SHOWN PFIP EXHIBIT (PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPLEMENTATION PLAN) ROADWAY POTABLE WATER SANITARY SEWER LEGEND NOTES: 1. OFFSITE UTILITY AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS WILL DEPEND ON CONSTRUCTION TIMING OF ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND/OR CITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. 2. HAT RANCH WATER SYSTEM TO CONNECT TO EXISTING CITY SYSTEM. CONNECTION POINTS TO BE IDENTIFIED AT TIME OF FINAL DESIGN. 3. HAT RANCH SEWER SYSTEM TO CONNECT TO EXISTING CITY SYSTEM. CONNECTION POINT TO BE IDENTIFIED AT TIME OF FINAL DESIGN. TEMPORARY SEWER SYSTEM MAY BE UTILIZED IF PFIP IMPROVEMENTS ARE NOT COMPLETE. 4. HAT RANCH PROJECT TO CONSTRUCT NORTH HALF OF ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY FROM MANTECA ROAD TO ATHERTON DRIVE AND CONSTRUCT WEST HALF OF ATHERTON DRIVE FROM ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY TO EXISTING ROAD APPROXIMATELY 200 LF SOUTH OF TANNEHILL DRIVE.

DATE REVISION NO.

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

CHECKED BY: SHT PROJECT NO. OF
CALIFORNIA REPRODUCTIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT THAT ARE GENERATED BY OTHERS FROM ELECTRONIC MEDIA. MACKAY & SOMPS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
5142B FRANKLIN DR, PLEASANTON, CA 94588 (925)225-0690

ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY 25224.000
MAY 2022 12

HAT RANCH
TENTATIVE MAP- TRACT NO. 3782

CITY OF MANTECA
CHRISTIAN T. RAGAN RCE # 60473

D R A F T

AS SHOWN
ATTACHMENT 17

MONO STREET

VERAMONTE

PILLSBURY ROAD MONO STREET

JIGSAW AVENUE

INYO AVENUE
BUENA VISTA DR PHASE 1 PHASE 2

PILLSBURY RD ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY POLK STREET
ATHERTON DRIVE 65.5' RIGHT-OF WAY AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS (NORTH HALF SECTION) TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH HAT RANCH PHASE 1 FROM MANTECA ROAD TO PILLSBURY ROAD 42.5' FUTURE RIGHT-OF WAY AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS (SOUTH HALF SECTION) BY OTHERS 65.5' RIGHT-OF WAY AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS (NORTH HALF SECTION) TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH HAT RANCH PHASE 2 FROM PILLSBURY ROAD TO ATHERTON DRIVE 42.5' FUTURE RIGHT-OF WAY AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS (SOUTH HALF SECTION) BY OTHERS 53' FUTURE RIGHT-OF WAY BY OTHERS 53' EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY PHASE 1 EXTEND NORTH HALF OF ANTONE RAMYUS PARKWAY STREET IMPROVEMENTS TO MANTECA ROAD 56' FUTURE RIGHT-OF WAY AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS (EAST HALF SECTION) BY OTHERS 56' RIGHT-OF WAY AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS (WEST HALF SECTION) TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH HAT RANCH PHASE 2 FROM ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY TO EXISTING STREET 200'± SOUTH OF TANNEHILL DR 56' EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY 56' FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY BY OTHERS SEDAN AVE SEDAN AVE PHASE 2 EXTEND WEST HALF OF ATHERTON DR STREET IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING STREET 200'± SOUTH OF TANNEHILL DR CONFORM TO EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS AT SEDAN AVE STREET 73' RIGHT-OF WAY AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS (NORTH HALF SECTION) TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH HAT RANCH PHASE 2 FROM PILLSBURY ROAD TO ATHERTON DRIVE PRELIMINARY PHASING PLAN 12
DATE REVISION NO.

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

CHECKED BY: SHT PROJECT NO. OF
CALIFORNIA REPRODUCTIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT THAT ARE GENERATED BY OTHERS FROM ELECTRONIC MEDIA. MACKAY & SOMPS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
5142B FRANKLIN DR, PLEASANTON, CA 94588 (925)225-0690

ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY 25224.000
MAY 2022 12

HAT RANCH
TENTATIVE MAP- TRACT NO. 3782

CITY OF MANTECA
CHRISTIAN T. RAGAN RCE # 60473

D R A F T
AS SHOWN GENERAL NOTES: 1. THE PROJECT WILL BE PHASED. MULTIPLE FINAL MAPS MAY BE FILED ON THE LANDS SHOWN ON THIS TENTATIVE MAP IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 4, SECTION 66.456.1 OF SUBDIVISION MAP ACT. 2. DEVELOPER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MODIFY THE PHASING . UTILITY PHASING NOTES: PHASE 1 WATER: CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER SYSTEM AT POLK STREET, BUENA VISTA DRIVE, INYO AVENUE, JIGSAW AVENUE, AND PILLSBURY ROAD. SEWER: CONSTRUCT SEWER GRAVITY MAIN IN ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY AND CONNECT TO EXISTING PIPE IN MANTECA ROAD. CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PFIP DOWNSTREAM IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN MANTECA ROAD AND WOODWARD AVENUE, IF NOT CONSTRUCTED BY OTHERS PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT OF PHASE 1, UNLESS ALTERNATIVE INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS ARE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. STORM DRAIN: CONNECT TO EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN ADJACENT PARK WHICH DISCHARGE TO SSJID LATERAL 'X' OR DIRECTLY CONNECT TO LATERAL 'X'. PHASE 2 (ASSUME PHASE 1 IS BUILT) WATER: CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER SYSTEM AT PILLSBURY ROAD, VERAMONTE AVENUE, AND ATHERTON ROAD. SEWER: CONSTRUCT SEWER GRAVITY MAIN IN ANTONE RAYMUS PARKWAY AND CONNECT TO EXISTING PIPE BUILT WITH PHASE 1. STORM DRAIN: CONNECT TO SSJID LATERAL 'X'.

ATTACHMENT 17
Hat Ranch Subdivision
1 City of Manteca Development Services Department
Conditions of Approval Hat Ranch
General Plan Amendment, Pre-Zoning, Planned Development, and Tentative Subdivision Map
July 6, 2023
Project File Numbers: ANX19-122, GPA19-124, PRZ19-123, PD19-126, SDJ19-125
Project Name: Hat Ranch Annexation
Project Address: 21706 and 21712 S. Manteca Road, and 9701 E. Sedan Avenue APNs: 226-12-010, 226-12-011, 226-14-004
Property Owner: Riverside LHC LTD
Kyle Masters
1508 Eureka Roade, Suite 140
Roseville, CA 95678
Project Applicant: Richland Communities, Inc.

Kyle Masters
1508 Eureka Roade, Suite 140
Roseville, CA 95678
This list of conditions is not intended to be all-inclusive or a comprehensive list of City regulations. All conditions are referenced to the Hat Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map (dated May 2022) on file with the City of Manteca, Development Services Planning Division.

City of Manteca Development Services Department:

This Planned Development and Tentative Subdivision Map dated May 2022, 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 17
Hat Ranch Subdivision
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 two years or 24 months from the date the Certificate of Completion for annexation is filed by LAFCo. The map may be renewed for additional time in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act.

3. Phased Maps. The subdivider has the right to file multiple final maps pursuant to Gov. Code Sec. 66456.1.

4. Vested Rights. This approval does not vest Subdivider’s rights regarding future development.

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 first building 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. 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.

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

9. Substantial Conformance. Final maps 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.

10. 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.

11. Structure Conformance. Applicant shall ensure all future homes and/or structures will be built in compliance with the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Planned Development Standards.

ATTACHMENT 17
Hat Ranch Subdivision
3 12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

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

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. Design Requirements:
a. The development of this subdivision shall comply with the Hat Ranch Planned Development Guidelines, dated April 2022. The below items are specifically found in the Planned Development Guidelines and are included here for ease of reference. Any items specifically not highlighted below, but ATTACHMENT 17
Hat Ranch Subdivision
4 guidance and direction exists in the Planned Development Guidelines, shall still be applicable to all development.
i. All setbacks for the various product types shall conform to the setbacks established in Chapter 2 of the PD Design Guidelines.

1. Development Standards from Section 2.2 of the Design Guidelines shall be met.
ii. There shall be at least five architectural styles within the entire Hat Ranch development. The five style identified in the PD Design Guidelines are: Traditional Spanish, Modern Farmhouse, MidCentury Modern, California Ranch, and Prairie. Additional styles may be provided subject to approval by the Hat Ranch Design Review Board discussed in Chapter 6 of the Design Guidelines.

1. Neighborhoods with up to 119 units of similar lot types are required to have a minimum of three plan types and three elevation styles per plan.

2. Neighborhoods with 120 or more units of similar lot types are required to have a minimum of four plan types and
three elevation styles per plan.
iii. Elevation, color scheme, and garage orientation shall be varied. No more than two Plan elevations shall be located next to each other. iv. Visible rear and side elevations shall have full trim amenities on both the first and second stories. All edge conditions as noted in section

3.3 of the PD Guidelines shall be designed to meet the criteria listed in this section.
v. Garage door placement, garage door treatment, size, and staggering shall conform to section 3.3 of the Design Guidelines. vi. Colors and Materials of future development will be closely compared to Section 3.3 of the Design Guidelines, and any development shall adhere to the expectations of this section.
vii. The architectural styles identified in Chapter 6 of the Planned Development Guidelines shall be adhered to. “Authentic
Adaptation” discussed in section 6.2 shall be a key component of any Master Plan submittal.
viii. All future development will be reviewed against the proposed “Menu of Common Features” for each architectural style found is Chapter 6 of the Design Guidelines.
ix. All front yards must have a minimum of one tree. Corner lots shall include trees along all frontages as noted in Section 7.10.1 of the Design Guidelines.
x. The Community Framework discussed in Chapter 1 of the Design Guidelines and mapped out on Figure 1.2 in the Guidelines shall be ATTACHMENT 17
Hat Ranch Subdivision
5 adhered to as closely as possible. Any deviation from this diagram shall require approval by the Director of Development Services.

21. Environmental Mitigation
a. Agricultural Resources
i. Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 and 4.2-3: Prior to the 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.
b. Air Quality
i. Mitigation Measure 4.3-7 and 4.3-8: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, Project Building Plans shall demonstrate compliance with the following applicable measures included in the City’s Climate Action Plan, to the satisfaction of the City of Manteca Development Services Department:

1. Provide proof (through calculations or other) that the proposed project would exceed current Title 24 Energy
Efficiency Standards by 10 percent. If the project design cannot meet this requirement, the project applicant shall coordinate with the City to determine alternative options (e.g., exterior lighting, water savings, etc.); and

2. Provide proof (through calculations, notation on project plans, or other) that the proposed project shall implement a recycling or waste diversion program sufficient to exceed the State recycling and diversion targets by at least 10 percent.
c. Biological Resources
i. Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 and 4.4-6: Prior to the 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 ATTACHMENT 17
Hat Ranch Subdivision
6 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.
d. Cultural and Tribal Resources
i. Mitigation Measure 4.5-2(a), 4.5-3, and 4.5-4: If potentially significant archaeological resources are encountered during subsurface excavation activities, all construction activities within a 100-foot radius of the resource shall cease until a qualified archaeologist determines whether the resource requires further study. The City shall require that the applicant include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation forms and evaluated for significance in terms of California Environmental Quality Act criteria by a qualified archaeologist. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historic dump sites. If the resource is determined to be significant under CEQA, the City and a qualified archaeologist shall determine whether preservation in place is feasible. Such preservation in place is the preferred mitigation. If such preservation is infeasible, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan for the resource. The archaeologist shall also conduct appropriate technical analyses, prepare a comprehensive written report and file it with the appropriate information center (California Historical Resources Information System), and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials.
ii. Mitigation Measure 4.5-2(b), 4.5-3, and 4.5-4: If previously unknown human remains are encountered during construction activities, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code applies, and the following procedures shall be followed: In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, Public Resource Code Section 5097.98 must be followed. Once project-related ground disturbance begins and if there is accidental discovery of human remains, the following steps shall be taken:

1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the San Joaquin County
ATTACHMENT 17
Hat Ranch Subdivision
7 Coroner’s Office is contacted to determine if the remains are Native American and if an investigation into cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the NAHC
within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” of the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant
may make recommendations to the landowner or the
person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
e. Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources
i. Mitigation Measure 4.6-1(a) and 4.6-2: Prior to approval of improvement plans for the project, the applicant shall submit to the Engineering Division, for review and approval, a design-level geotechnical engineering report that is produced by a California Registered Geotechnical Engineer and addresses the findings and recommendations of the geotechnical studies prepared for the proposed project. The design-level geotechnical report shall evaluate site soil conditions using a subsurface field investigation program consisting of both soil borings using Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampling and Cone Penetration Tests (CPT). The report shall address and make recommendations on the following aspects of the project:

1. Road, pavement, and parking area design;

2. Structural foundations, including retaining wall design (if applicable);

3. Grading practices;

4. Erosion/winterization;

5. Special problems discovered on-site, (i.e., groundwater, expansive/unstable soils, etc.);

6. Slope stability (if applicable to any required trenching activities);

7. Estimates related to ground-shaking intensity, seismic settlement, and liquefaction potential; and

8. Site-specific geotechnical design parameters for
development (allowable bearing capacity,
subsidence/settlement analysis, etc.)

9. The recommendations on the aforementioned aspects
shall ensure that if implemented, all identified potential project impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant ATTACHMENT 17
Hat Ranch Subdivision
8 levels. All recommendations set forth in the design-level geotechnical engineering report shall be implemented into the final improvement plans for the proposed project, which shall be subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer.
ii. Mitigation Measure 4.6-1(b) and 4.6-2: All grading and foundation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division and the Building Safety Division, respectively, prior to issuance of building permits to ensure that all geotechnical recommendations specified in the geotechnical report(s) are properly incorporated and utilized in the design and reduce all identified potential project impacts to a less-than-significant level.
iii. Mitigation Measure 4.6-3: Prior to grading permit issuance, the applicant shall submit plans to the City of Manteca Development Services Department for review and approval which indicate (via notation on the improvement plans) that if construction or grading activities result in the discovery of unique paleontological resources, all work within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease immediately.

The applicant shall notify the City of Manteca Development Services Department, and the resources shall be examined by a qualified paleontologist at the applicant’s expense, for the purpose of recording, protecting, or curating the discovery as appropriate. The paleontologist shall submit to the Development Services Department for review and approval a report of the findings and method of curation or protection of the resources. Work may only resume in the area of discovery when the preceding work has occurred.
f. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
i. Mitigation Measure 4.7-2(a): Prior to Improvement Plan approval, the project applicant shall hire a qualified geotechnical engineer to identify the location of any groundwater wells in the East Parcel. If groundwater wells are not found, further mitigation is not required.

If groundwater wells are identified within the East Parcel, the project applicant shall hire a licensed well contractor to obtain a well abandonment permit from the SJCEHD for all on-site wells in the parcel, and properly abandon the on-site wells, pursuant to Department of Water Resources Bulletin 74-81 (Water Well Standards, Part III) for review and approval by the SJCEHD. ii. Mitigation Measure 4.7-2(b): Prior to Improvement Plan approval, the project applicant shall hire a qualified geotechnical engineer to identify the location of any septic systems in the East Parcel. If septic systems are not found, further mitigation is not required. If septic systems are identified in the East Parcel, the project applicant shall hire a licensed contractor to abandon any on-site septic system ATTACHMENT 17
Hat Ranch Subdivision
9 in compliance with applicable SJCEHD standards. Verification of abandonment shall be ensured by the SJCEHD.
g. Hydrology and Water Quality
i. Mitigation Measure 4.8-1(a) and 4.8-3: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Project Construction:

1. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall prepare and submit to the City Public Works
Department and Central Valley RWQCB a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) detailing measures to control soil erosion and waste discharges during
construction. The SWPPP shall include an erosion control and restoration plan, a water quality monitoring plan, a hazardous materials management plan, and postconstruction BMPs. The BMPs shall be maintained until all areas disturbed during construction have been adequately stabilized.

2. .Prior to commencement of construction activities (as they are phased), including grading, the project applicant shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the SWRCB for coverage under the General Construction Permit. Specific BMPS
shall be determined during the final states of project
design. However, the SWPPP shall include specific
practices to minimize the potential that pollutants will leave the site during construction. Such practices include, but are not limited to, establishing designated equipment staging and washing areas, protecting spoils and soil stockpile areas, and identifying equipment exclusion zones.
ii. Mitigation Measure 4.8-1(b) and 4.8-3: Water Quality BPMsProject Operation:

1. Prior to the City’s approval of final improvement plans, the applicant shall submit a master drainage plan, subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer. This plan shall address the following requirements:
a. Calculations of pre-development runoff conditions
and post-development runoff scenarios, using
appropriate engineering methods, to evaluate
potential changes to runoff through specific
design criteria and account for increased surface
runoff;
b. Assessment of existing drainage facilities within
the project area and an inventory of necessary
upgrades, replacements, redesigns, and
rehabilitation;
ATTACHMENT 17
Hat Ranch Subdivision
10 c. List all BMPs for water quality protection, source control, and treatment control, which shall be
developed in accordance with the Multi-Agency
Post-Construction Stormwater Standards Manual;
d. A proposed maintenance program for the on-site
drainage system; and
e. Phasing standards for drainage systems to be
installed on a project- and parcel-specific basis.

2. Drainage systems, including any detention basin(s), shall be designed in accordance with the City’s and other
applicable flood control design criteria. As a performance standard, measures to be implemented from the master
drainage plan shall provide for no net increase in peak stormwater discharge relative to current conditions, ensure that 10-year flooding events and their potential impacts are maintained at or below current levels, and ensure that
people and structures are not exposed to additional flood risk.

3. Prior to issuing a grading permit for any/each phase of the project, the City shall require the project applicant to demonstrate that the portion of the project subject to the grading permit is consistent with the recommendations and conclusions of the master drainage plan and shall
implement the measures identified in the plan. If the plan does not adequately address the drainage impacts of the specific development, the City shall require the applicant to prepare additional analysis and incorporate measures
consistent with the scope and performance standards
associated with the plan to ensure that drainage and
flooding impacts are avoided.
h. Noise
i. Mitigation Measure 4.10-1(a): Noise-generating construction activities associated with the proposed project shall only occur within the hours identified in City of Manteca Municipal Code Section 17.58.050. The above language shall be included on final project improvement plans, grading plans and building plans prior to approval by the City of Manteca Development Services Department. ii. Mitigation Measure 4.10-1(b): To the maximum extent practical, as determined by the City of Manteca Development Services Department, the following measures shall be implemented during project construction:

1. All noise-producing project equipment and vehicles using internal-combustion engines shall be equipped with
ATTACHMENT 17
Hat Ranch Subdivision
11 manufacturers-recommended mufflers and be maintained in good working condition;

2. All mobile or fixed noise-producing equipment used on the project site that are regulated for noise output by a federal, State, or local agency shall comply with such regulations while in the course of project construction;

3. Electrically powered equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic or internal-combustion-powered equipment,
where feasible;

4. Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall be located as far as
practicable from noise-sensitive receptors;

5. Project area and site access road speed limits shall be established and enforced during the construction period; and

6. Nearby residences shall be notified of construction
schedules so that arrangements can be made, if desired, to limit their exposure to short-term increases in ambient noise levels.

7. The above requirements shall be included via notation on project grading plans, subject to review and approval by the City of Manteca Development Services Department.
iii. Mitigation Measure 4.10-2: Prior to the approval of improvement plans, the improvement plans shall show a six-foot-tall traffic noise barrier, which shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Manteca Development Services Department, which would ensure traffic noise levels from the road are reduced to the normally acceptable 60 dB Ldn standard at the first-floor backyard of residences along Antone Raymus Parkway. The noise barriers shall take the form of a masonry wall, earthen berm, or combination of the two. Other materials may be acceptable, and shall be reviewed by an acoustical consultant, prior to approval and construction. i. Transportation and Circulation
i. Mitigation Measure 4.12-2 and 4.12-4: Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, transportation demand management measures shall be implemented to the maximum extent feasible, subject to the approval of the City of Manteca Planning Division.

Potential transportation demand management measures include, but are not limited to:

1. Increase residential density;

2. Limit residential parking supply;
ATTACHMENT 17
Hat Ranch Subdivision
12 3. Improve street connectivity;

4. Provide ride-share program;

5. Implement subsidized or discounted transit program;

6. Provide bicycle facilities at the proposed school;

7. Provide community-based travel planning;

8. Provide pedestrian network improvement;

9. Construct or improve bike facility;

10.Construct or improve bike boulevard;

11.Expand bikeway network;

12.Implement conventional or electric carshare program;

13.Implement pedal or electric bikeshare program;

14.Implement scooter-share program;

15.Extend transit network coverage or hours;

16.Increase transit service frequency;

17.Implement transit-supportive roadway treatments; and

18.Reduce transit fares.

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 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.

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 Pillsbury Road, Antone Raymus Parkway and Atherton Drive. Access shall also be relinquished at the following locations:
a. Lots 75 and 108 to and from Buena Vista Drive,
ATTACHMENT 17
Hat Ranch Subdivision
13 b. Lots 177 and 206 to and from Street D,
c. Lots 242 and 277 to and from Street H,
d. Lot 282 to and from Street K,
e. Lots 401, 737 and 738 to and from Street V,
f. Lots 563, 675, 676 to and from Street Q,
g. Lots 489 and 490 to and from Street H, and
h. Lot 483 to and from Street K.

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. 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 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 unit 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),
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.

ATTACHMENT 17
Hat Ranch Subdivision
14 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, 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.

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.

ATTACHMENT 17
Hat Ranch Subdivision
15 18.The utility layouts and connections for this project shall be reviewed and finalized during the Improvement Plan review process. Designs/layouts presented with the Tentative Map are considered preliminary 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. Antone Raymus Parkway: 11.0
b. Atherton Drive: 11.0
c. Pillsbury Road: 6.0
d. 60’ right-of-ways: 5.0
e. 50’ right-of-ways: 4.5
f. Cul-de-sacs: 4.0

21.Antone Raymus Parkway
a. Developer shall dedicate right-of-way along the north side of Antone Raymus Parkway to accommodate a sixty-five and one-half foot (65.5’) halfwidth street section. b. Developer shall construct street improvements along the north side of Antone Raymus Parkway including new street structural section, curb, gutter, eight foot (8’) wide meandering sidewalk, landscaping with trees and automatic irrigation system, street lights, signage and striping. The street improvements shall be installed from S. Main Street to Atherton Drive.

22.Atherton Drive
a. Developer shall dedicate right-of-way along the west side of Atherton Drive to accommodate a fifty-six foot (56’) half-width street section. b. Developer shall construct street improvements along the west side of Atherton Drive including new street structural section, curb, gutter, eight foot (8’) wide meandering sidewalk, landscaping with trees and automatic irrigation system, street lights, signage and striping. Developer shall also construct a seven foot (7’) wide raised landscaped median with automatic irrigation system; the eastern limit of the median shall be on the ultimate ATTACHMENT 17
Hat Ranch Subdivision
16 Atherton Drive centerline. The street improvements shall be installed from the existing southern terminus of Atherton Drive to Antone Raymus Parkway.

23.Pillsbury Road
a. Developer shall dedicate right-of-way along Pillsbury Road to accommodate a ninety foot (90’) full-width street section, which tapers to ninety-five feet (95’), prior to its intersection with Antone Raymus Parkway. b. Developer shall construct full width street improvements along Pillsbury Road including new street structural section, curb, gutter, eight foot (8’) wide meandering sidewalk, landscaping with trees and automatic irrigation system, street lights, signage and striping. Developer shall also construct a twelve foot (12’) wide raised landscaped median with automatic irrigation system centered on the Pillsbury Road centerline. The improvements shall be adjusted prior to the intersection of Pillsbury Road with Antone Raymus Parkway to accommodate a dedicated right-turn and left-turn lane. c. Developer shall acquire right-of-way on the City’s behalf to accommodate a sixty-six foot (66’) full width street section along 2336 Pillsbury Road (APN 226-370-63) and 2350 Pillsbury Road (APN 226-370-64). Developer shall construct new street structural section, curb, gutter, four foot (4’) wide sidewalk, street lights, signage and striping along the Pillsbury Road frontage of the existing residences.

24.Prior to approval of improvements to the Antone Raymus Parkway/Atherton Drive/Sedan Avenue intersection, Developer shall submit documentation to the City to verify the right-of-way/roadway location on the east side of Atherton Drive, as it relates to the intersection design.

25.Development of the project shall be in accordance the Phasing Plan included with the Tentative Map. Deviations from the approved Phasing Plan, and which improvements shall be installed per the modified phasing, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, at his sole discretion.

26.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 the condition, begin its own negotiations with the property owner or modify/relax the condition.

27.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.

28.Developer shall dedicate to the City an access and utility maintenance easement over the shared drive of the Half Plex Cluster Units, if City utilities are located in these areas.

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

ATTACHMENT 17
Hat Ranch Subdivision
17 30.Developer shall contact the local post office for direction regarding placement of mail receptacles or any other type of mail delivery proposed.

31.The electrolier locations shall be finalized during the Improvement Plan review process. Electroliers 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 in the City’s right-of-way. An electrolier photometric plan, showing the foot candle coverage, shall be submitted with the Improvement Plans.

32.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.

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

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

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.

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 constructed in conformance with the latest version of the City Water Master Plan.

42.The update of the City’s Water Master Plan, Reclaimed Water Master Plan and Groundwater Sustainability Plan, including the evaluation of a Direct/Indirect Potable Reuse Facility are currently underway. This project shall participate in ATTACHMENT 17
Hat Ranch Subdivision
18 expansion of the infrastructure or facilities identified in the updated Master Plans and any correlating funding programs.

43.Developer shall construct a twelve inch (12”) water main within the rights-of-way of Buena Vista Drive, Pillsbury Road and Atherton Drive, to maintain the City’s water main grid system.

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

45.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.

46.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.

47.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.

48.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 by the City of Manteca.

49.Developer shall install a reclaimed water line to the irrigation well within the parks.

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.

50.Developer shall set aside area within the park for the installation of a future City potable water well. The well site area shall be at least 125’x150’, on flat ground, located opposite from and in addition to the upland play area and opposite from the irrigation well.

51.Irrigation Supply
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. Piping which is installed from the potable water system for the purposes of irrigation shall be purple pipe. This includes the valve boxes.

Storm Drainage

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

ATTACHMENT 17
Hat Ranch Subdivision
19 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 groundwater depth.

54.All storm drainage which is tributary to the west basin shall drain to the basin, then discharge into the South San Joaquin Irrigation District’s (SSJID) Lateral X through the existing pump station in Pillsbury Park. No directly connected impervious areas (DCIA) shall be allowed to drain into the storm drain system downstream of the basin.

Developer shall make any necessary upgrades to the existing pump station to ensure the capacity and the design are in accordance with the City’s Storm Drain Master Plan requirements.

55.All storm drainage which is tributary to the east basin shall drain to the basin, then discharge into the South San Joaquin Irrigation District’s (SSJID) Lateral X. 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. Developer’s SCADA Integrator shall coordinate with the City Water Quality Control Facility’s Chief Plant Operator.

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.

58.Developer shall develop, at his expense, the storm drain basin areas 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 ATTACHMENT 17
Hat Ranch Subdivision
20 Manual. City of Manteca approval of the Project Stormwater Plan is precedent to issuance of any building, grading, or construction permits. Two paper copies and 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. Two paper copies and 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 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:

State Water Resources Control Board
PO Box 1977, Sacramento, CA 95812-1977
Attn: Storm Water Permitting Section
Telephone: (916) 341-5537

68. 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.

69. 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- ATTACHMENT 17
Hat Ranch Subdivision
21 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.

70. 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.

71.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 is approved for project entitlements but may require further refinement for final approval, which is precedent to issuance of any building, grading, or construction permits.

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

73.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.

74.Developer shall select an integrator for the pump station that is located so they are able to physically respond to the project site within three (3) hours, once given notice by City staff that their presence is needed. This shall apply through the end of the one-year warranty period of the project’s improvements. Remote login and Virtual Privacy Network (VPN) access are not an acceptable substitution for inperson response. This shall be noted on the Improvement Plans and the selected integrator shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to start of work.

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

Sanitary Sewer

76.Improvements shall be constructed in conformance with the latest version of the City Wastewater Collection System Master Plan and City Standards.

77.The update of the City’s Wastewater Master Plan is currently underway. This project shall participate in expansion of the infrastructure or facilities, including at the City’s Water Quality Control Facility, identified in the updated Master Plan and any correlating funding programs.

78.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.

ATTACHMENT 17
Hat Ranch Subdivision
22 79.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.

80.Developer shall construct a thirty-six inch (36”) gravity sanitary sewer main from the Woodward Avenue/S. Main Street intersection to the existing stub east of Pagola Avenue.

Once the thirty-six inch (36”) gravity sanitary sewer main in Woodward Avenue is complete, Developer shall remove the existing pump station located on the east side of Main Street, south of its intersection with Legacy Street, and complete the necessary work so the sanitary sewer system on S. Main Street is entirely gravity flow to the sanitary sewer system in Woodward Avenue.

This work shall be completed with the first phase of the project.

Public Facilities Implementation Plan

81.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.

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

83.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 cost to construct said improvements exceeds the value of PFIP credits, the remainder shall be reimbursed after the City receives sufficient PFIP fee revenue from development occurring within the same PFIP zones.

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

Homeowners’ Association

85.A Homeowners’ Association (HOA) or other funding mechanism shall be formed at the developer’s expense to provide for the maintenance of the shared drives for the Half Plex Cluster Units and any other facilities that is not being maintained by the City which are located within the boundaries of the community. HOA bylaws must be submitted to the City for approval prior to issuance of the first building permit. No bylaws which are not approved by the City may be entered into. a. The HOA bylaws shall include language to address the dissolution of the HOA. This language should include that dissolution of the HOA is only ATTACHMENT 17
Hat Ranch Subdivision
23 permitted if the City agrees to take over maintenance of all HOA maintained infrastructure. The City may agree to take over all or a portion of the HOA maintained infrastructure and may condition its agreement with items such as timing for the maintenance switch, the infrastructure condition at the time of the switch etc. This portion of the bylaws must also include language that changes to infrastructure maintenance related bylaws must be approved by the City prior the changes being approved by the HOA members.

City of Manteca Fire Department Conditions

1. Per Ordinance #1173, a Fire Facility Permit Fee shall be assessed to all new construction as per Manteca Municipal Code Section 15.04.060.

2. The Developer shall submit all proposed street names to the Fire Prevention Division for review and written approval prior to the submittal of a final map.

3. .Streets and Fire Department Access Drives within the subdivision shall meet City of Manteca Standard for all weather roadways prior to the issuance of any building permits.

4. Fire protection systems (fire hydrants, water mains, etc.) shall be installed, tested and approved by the City prior to the issuance of any building permit.

5. Fire hydrants shall be located and installed according to City of Manteca standards.

City of Manteca Information Technology Department Conditions

1. Notify GIS staff when the parcel has been officially annexed to the City and send GIS staff the official annexation documents when available.

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

City of Manteca Parks Department Conditions
General Conditions

1. Streetscape plans were completed for the Atherton Drive extension (Atherton Homes at Woodward Park – Unit III), however not installed due to SSJID issues.

The work should be installed by Hat Ranch with the Atherton drive extension with funds provided by Atherton Homes for the future installation of the improvements.

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

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

4. Each Park shall have an overall style that is different and unique from other parks within the proposed development.

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

ATTACHMENT 17
Hat Ranch Subdivision
24 6. Any landscape needs to comply with current Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) requirements.

7. Developer shall submit a final subdivision map to the Parks Planning & Projects Division with recommended street trees for each street within the development to the City Arborist for review and approval. Plans shall be submitted in tandem with the streetscape and basin construction plans.

8. Prior to final map the final design and phasing plan for the park and streetscape improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks Planning & Projects Division and Community Development Department prior to approval of first final map to ensure adequacy and phasing of facilities to be installed.

9. 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 determined by Engineering Department.

10.Developer shall provide maintenance vehicle turnouts in the following locations:

On Atherton north of the side street, on Antone Raymus west of the side street, on Antone Raymus east of Evans Estates and on Pillsbury midway to project.

11.Depending upon materials used and park layout, additional comments may be made during the construction plan phase.

Low Impact Development

12.Low Impact Development (LID) improvements, locations and details shall be reviewed and be approved by Engineering and Parks Department 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.

13.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.

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

15.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.

16.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.

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

General Park/Storm Basin
ATTACHMENT 17
Hat Ranch Subdivision
25 19. Provide 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 Park Planning & Projects Division.

20. Park improvements and design shall follow the City of Manteca Standards and Specifications For Landscape Development and shall be approved by the Parks Planning & Projects Division.

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

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

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

24. Bench minimum at top of basin shall be 8 feet per current Landscape Development Standards and Specifications.

25. 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.

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

27. Locations of in-ground and above-ground utility structures within park/basin are subject to prior review and approval of the Parks Planning & Projects Division.

Utilities shall not be placed near playground areas, field activities or obstruct the overall design of the upland park area. Within the bottom of basin the Engineer shall coordinate with Landscape Architect to make sure that drainage structures are outside the field of play (10’ min.). This is for safety, playability and aesthetic reasons.

28. Park/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.

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

30. Traffic calming measure shall be implemented around all streets directly adjacent to parks. Examples of acceptable measure would be speed lumps, bulb outs, traffic circles or traffic tables.

West Neighborhood Park:

31.Dog Park exact location shall be determined during preliminary construction documents.

ATTACHMENT 17
Hat Ranch Subdivision
26 32.Active play zone shall include zip line play equipment, gravity rail play system or other approved unique play/exercise equipment.

33.Lawn Bowling area shall be synthetic turf.

34.Pickleball courts, full basketball court, playgrounds, shade shelters and other general amenities proposed in the conceptual design are acceptable. Exact locations to be determined during preliminary construction documents.

East Neighborhood Park (Possible Joint Use):

35.Water play zone area shall meet all state and federal guidelines.

36.Half basketball court, playgrounds, shade shelters, restroom/bathroom/shower and other general amenities proposed in the conceptual design are acceptable.

Exact locations to be determined during preliminary construction documents.

37.Fence separating school property shall have a pedestrian and equipment/vehicle gate.

38.Provide infrastructure for LED field lighting for proposed three soccer fields.

Infrastructure to include electrical point of connection and conduit around field on city property and stub to adjacent school property.

Streetscapes/Medians/Landscape areas

39.Streetscape//medians/roundabout/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.

40.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 Parks Planning & Projects 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 City of Manteca Parks Planning & Projects Division.

41.No turf grass is permitted in any streetscapes, unless approved by the Parks Planning & Projects Division.

42. A minimum 20% of the total square footage of streetscape shall utilize non-irrigated materials. Examples of acceptable materials would be cobble, aggregate, decomposed granite and/or artificial turf.

Community Facilities District (CFD) Formation/Annexation Requirements

43.CFD or other approved funding source shall be formed, at the developer’s expense, to provide for the maintenance of the park/basin, streetlights, open spaces and all streetscape/median/roundabout landscape improvements and the negative fiscal impacts associated with the provision of police protection, fire ATTACHMENT 17
Hat Ranch Subdivision
27 suppression and road maintenance services for new development. Said CFD, or other funding source, shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first building permit for a production home and as further defined in the City of Manteca Parkland Construction Policy.

44.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.

South San Joaquin Irrigation District

1. Any proposed disposal of storm water that will ultimately discharge into District facilities shall conform to the District's current policy relative to storm drainage.

Hydraulic calculations and plans for proposed storm system shall be provided to the District for review and approval and shall conform to the approved Storm Drainage Master Plan and Storm Drainage Agreement between the District and the City.

2. All District irrigation and drainage facilities which are determined by the District to be affected by the proposed development, shall be replaced with rubber gasket reinforced concrete pipe and shall be relocated, if necessary, to District approved locations. Facilities assumed to be affected by this development include Laterals “Xb”, “X-66dd”, and “X-66-26dd”.Further, hydraulic calculations to determine pipe size will be required for any design changes or relocations that are proposed on District facilities. In accordance with District standards, construction on District facilities is not allowed between February 15th and October 15th of any given year.

As such, plans for pipeline improvements need to be received no later than midJuly (3 months before the end of water season), so that all construction work can be completed during the provided window period.

3. All improvements to the District facilities shall comply with the District's current standards, drawings, and policies. The developer shall enter into the necessary agreements, permits, etc., required by the District for construction of District facilities.

4. District facilities within the development, or impacted by the development, which provide storm water drainage or irrigation spill functions, shall not be abandoned, relocated, or replaced, unless alternate provisions are made to handle such drainage in accordance with District approval.

5. The property owner and/or developer shall execute Irrigation Service Abandonment Agreements and provide for the removal of irrigation and drainage facilities and structures on property no longer requiring irrigation service. The method of abandonment and extent of such removal shall be determined by District. Private irrigation facilities and easements shall be provided for private use to accommodate property that will maintain the option for District service to irrigate adjacent to the development. The proposed connection of any such private facility to district facilities shall be approved in advance by the District.

6. Easements for all District facilities shall be dedicated on current District forms.

Additional easements shall be dedicated for access to all manholes and control structures. All District easements shall be shown on the final map together with the ATTACHMENT 17
Hat Ranch Subdivision
28 District's standard acknowledgment. Easements for pipelines shall be a minimum of 30 ft. in width. A title report shall be provided to District for its use in preparation of all required documents and to ascertain if the District has a fee interest in the proposed development.

7. Improvement plans for both off-site and on-site improvements shall be submitted for review and approval by the District's Board of Directors. Prior to plan submittal, the developer shall submit a retainer for plan check and inspections required for the project in accordance with the current established fee schedule.

8. Upon completion of the project, the developer shall provide one complete set of "Record Drawings" to the District for its future use.

9. The following statement shall be affixed or otherwise included within the approved development plans: SSJID has adopted time limits limiting the period of its approval should the landowner/developer fail to substantially complete his development project in a timely manner and as per approved development plans. a. These time limits adopted by SSJID are in most cases equal to those utilized by the governmental agency or institution responsible for development approvals. Should the time limit be exceeded, SSJID reserves the right to then apply any of its current development standards and requirements.
b. The District reserves the right to apply additional conditions if development does not occur within one (1) year of the Planning Commission's approval.

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 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 EHD (San Joaquin County Development Title, Section 9-1115.3 and 9-1115.6).

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. Refer to the letter from Laurel Boyd, SJGOC dated 12/17/2019 for appropriate process.

ATTACHMENT 17
Hat Ranch Subdivision
29 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 17
Exhibit C
General Plan Map
Existing Land Use Designation
Proposed Land Use Designation
ATTACHMENT 17
Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
Consideration

HAT RANCH PROJECT
February 2023
Prepared for:

City of Manteca
Development Services Department
1215 W. Center Street, Suite 201
Manteca, CA 95337
(209) 456-8500
Prepared by:

Raney Planning and Management, Inc.
1501 Sports Drive, Suite 1
Sacramento, CA 95834
(916) 372-6100
ATTACHMENT 17

1. Introduction
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) requires the City of Manteca (City), as the CEQA lead agency, to: 1) make written findings when it approves a project for which an environmental impact report (EIR) was certified, and 2) identify overriding considerations for significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR. (Pub. Resources Code,
§ 21081.)
This document explains the City’s findings regarding the significant and potentially significant impacts identified in the environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for the Hat Ranch (Project) and the City decision-makers’ ultimate determinations of the feasibility of the project alternatives considered in the EIR. The statement of overriding considerations identifies the economic, social, technical, and other benefits of the Project that the City decision-makers have determined should override any significant environmental impacts that would result from the Project.

As required under CEQA, the Final EIR describes the Project, adverse environmental impacts of the Project, and mitigation measures and alternatives that would substantially reduce or avoid those impacts. The information and conclusions contained in the EIR reflect the City’s independent judgment.

The Final EIR (which includes the Draft EIR, comments, responses to comments, and revisions to the Draft EIR) for the Project, examined the proposed Project and several alternatives to the Project including.

The Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations are presented for adoption by the City Council, as the City’s findings under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., title 14, § 15000 et seq.) relating to the Project. The Findings provide the written analysis, substantial evidence, and conclusions of this City Council regarding the Project’s environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives to the Project, as well as the overriding considerations, which in this City Council’s view, justify approval of the Project, despite its environmental effects.

2. DISCUSSION
Notice of Preparation Public Circulation
On January 22, 2021, the City issued a Notice of Preparation announcing the intended preparation of the Draft EIR and describing its proposed scope. The public review period for the Notice of Preparation complied with the required 30-day requirement, extending from January 22 until February 23, 2021. The City held a public scoping meeting for the Draft EIR on February 10, 2021 for the purpose of informing the public and receiving comments on the scope of the ATTACHMENT 17
environmental analysis to be prepared for the Project. The scoping meeting was held online, via Zoom.

The City received twenty (20) comment letters and emails during the comment period on the Notice of Preparation from public agencies and individuals, included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR.

Preparation of the EIR
The City completed the Draft EIR for the Project and, beginning on September 8, 2022, the City made the Draft EIR available for review and comment. A Notice of Availability was published and the period for receipt of comments on the Draft EIR remained open for 45 days, closing on October 24, 2022. Copies of the Draft EIR document were made available at the Community Development Department, 1215 W. Center Street, Suite 201, Manteca, CA 95337, and on the City’s website at:
https://www.manteca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/planning-divisiondocuments/-folder-328 The City received seven comment letters during the comment period, and two following the close of the comment period for the Draft EIR. The letters were authored by three State agencies, and the remaining comment letters were received from interested individuals.

The Final EIR was completed and available to commenting public agencies on or before June 23, 2023.

The Final EIR contains all of the comments received during and immediately after the public comment period, together with written responses to significant environmental issues raised in those comments, which were prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

The City Council finds and determines that the Final EIR provides adequate, good faith, and reasoned responses to all comments raising significant environmental issues.

Absence of Significant New Information
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires that a lead agency recirculate an EIR for further review and comment when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of a Draft EIR, but before certification of the Final EIR. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project proponent declines to implement. Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. The Guidelines provide examples of significant new information under this standard, which include the following:

1. A new significant environmental impact that would result from the Project (or any ATTACHMENT 17
alternative) or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.

2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.

3. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the Project (or an alternative), but the Project's proponents decline to adopt it.

4. The Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

Having reviewed all the information in the record, the City Council finds that no significant new information has been added to the Final EIR since public notice was given of the availability of the Draft EIR. No new or substantial changes to the Draft EIR were proposed as a result of the public comment process. The Final EIR responds to comments and makes only minor technical changes, clarifications or additions to the Draft EIR. The minor changes, clarifications, or additions to the Draft EIR do not identify any new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts, and do not include any new mitigation measures that would have a potentially significant impact. Therefore, the City Council finds that recirculation of the EIR is not required.

Differences of Opinion Regarding the Impacts of the Project In making its determination to certify the Final EIR and to approve the Project, the City Council recognizes that a range of technical and scientific opinion exists with respect to certain environmental issues. The City Council acknowledges that it has acquired an understanding of the range of this technical and scientific opinion by its review of the Draft EIR, the comments received on the Draft EIR and the responses to those comments in the Final EIR, as well as testimony, letters, and reports regarding the Final EIR and its own experience and expertise in these environmental issues. The City Council acknowledges that it has reviewed and considered, as a whole, the evidence and analysis presented in the Draft EIR, the evidence and analysis presented in the comments on the Draft EIR, the evidence and analysis presented in the Final EIR, the information submitted on the Final EIR, and the reports prepared by the experts who prepared the EIR, by the City’s consultants, and by staff, addressing those comments. The City Council acknowledges that it has gained a comprehensive and wellrounded understanding of the environmental issues presented by the Project. The City Council acknowledges that in turn, this understanding has enabled the City Council to make its decisions after weighing and considering the various viewpoints on these important issues. The City Council accordingly certifies that its findings are based on full appraisal of all of the evidence contained in the Final EIR, as well as the evidence and other information in the record addressing the Final EIR.

Discussion of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Identified in the Final EIR The City Council acknowledges that these findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of the City Council regarding the environmental impacts of the Project and the mitigation measures identified by the Final EIR and adopted by the City Council as conditions of approval ATTACHMENT 17
for the Project.

The City Council acknowledges that in making these findings, the City Council has considered the opinions of other agencies and members of the public, including opinions that disagree with some of the analysis and significance thresholds used in the EIR. The City Council finds that the determination of significance thresholds is a judgment within the discretion of the City Council; the significance thresholds used in the EIR are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the expert opinion of the EIR preparers and City staff; and the significance thresholds used in the EIR provide reasonable and appropriate means of assessing the significance of the adverse environmental effects of the Project.

In particular, the EIR relied on significance criteria for evaluating impacts that are tailored to this type of project. The criteria used in this EIR to determine whether an impact is or is not “significant” are based on (a) CEQA-stipulated “mandatory findings of significance” listed in CEQA Guidelines section 15065; (b) the relationship of the Project effect to the adopted policies, ordinances and standards of the City and of responsible agencies; and (c) commonly accepted practice and the professional judgment of the EIR authors and City staff.

The below findings summarize the environmental determinations of the Final EIR about the Project’s significant impacts before and after mitigation. This summary does not describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the Final EIR. Instead, it provides a summary description of each significant impact, describes the applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and recommended for adoption by the City Council, and states the City Council’s findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures.

A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the Final EIR and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in the Final EIR supporting the Final EIR’s determinations regarding the Project’s impacts and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts. In making these findings, the City Council ratifies, adopts, and incorporates the analysis and explanation in the Final EIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates in these findings the determinations and conclusions of the Final EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these findings.

The City Council adopts, and incorporates as conditions of approval of the Project, the mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to reduce or avoid the potentially significant and significant impacts of the Project. The City Council acknowledges that in adopting these mitigation measures, the City Council intends to adopt each of the mitigation measures recommended for approval by the Final EIR. Accordingly, in the event a mitigation measure recommended in the Final EIR has inadvertently been omitted from the MMRP, such mitigation measure is hereby adopted and incorporated in the findings below by reference. In addition, in the event the language describing a mitigation measure set forth in the MMRP fails to accurately reflect the mitigation measures in the Final EIR due to a clerical error, the language of the mitigation measure as set forth in the Final EIR shall control, unless the language of the mitigation measure has been specifically and expressly modified by these findings.

The City Council hereby finds that the adopted mitigation measures are changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen ATTACHMENT 17
the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR.

Mitigation Measures 4.6-3, 4.10-1(a) and 4.10-1(b), 4.10-2, and 4.12-2, underwent staff-initiated revisions. The revisions are for clarification purposes only, and do not alter the analysis or conclusion presented in the EIR. Modifications were not made to any other mitigation measures in response to comments.

Significant and Unavoidable Impacts Identified in the Final EIR Even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures and consideration of alternatives, the Project would nonetheless cause a direct significant and unavoidable impact related to the following:

1. Impacts related to the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance Farmland to non-agricultural use.

2. Impacts related to compliance with the policies of San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) pertaining to the conversion of agricultural land.

3. Generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

4. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), during Existing Plus Project Conditions.

5. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), during Cumulative Plus Project Conditions.

Specific economic, environmental, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the Final EIR to reduce the above impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Summary of Discussion of Alternatives in the Final EIR
The Final EIR evaluates three potential alternatives to the Project. The EIR examines the environmental impacts of each alternative in comparison with the Project and the relative ability of each alternative to satisfy project objectives.

Findings Relating to Alternatives
In making these findings, the City Council certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in the Final EIR, including the information provided in comments on the Draft EIR and the responses to those comments in the Final EIR.

The Final EIR’s discussion and analysis of these alternatives is not repeated in these findings, but the discussion and analysis of the alternatives in the Final EIR is incorporated in these findings by reference.

The Final EIR briefly considers but dismisses an Off-Site Alternative, as well as describes and evaluates in detail three alternatives to the Project. The City Council acknowledges that the reasons for the City Council’s decision to approve the Project instead of the remaining alternatives are presented below. The City Council finds that the Project would satisfy the Project ATTACHMENT 17
Objectives, and the remaining alternatives are unable to satisfy the Project Objectives to the same degree as the Project. The City Council further finds that, on balance, none of the remaining alternatives has environmental advantages over the Project that are sufficiently great to justify approval of such an alternative instead of the Project, in light of each such alternative’s inability to satisfy the Project objectives to the same degree as the Project. As such, the alternatives are found to be infeasible for environmental reasons and/or because they fail to satisfy most of the basic Project objectives. Accordingly, the City Council has determined to approve the Project instead of approving one of the remaining alternatives.

Description of Project Objectives
The project objectives are:

1. Establish a 184.7-acre, well-planned community, which incorporates152.4 acres of LowDensity Residential Land to accommodate approximately 634 single-family homes and 104 half-plex units, a 16.1-acre elementary/middle school site, and two neighborhood parks totaling 16.2 acres.

2. Design a land use plan with uses complementary to existing surrounding Low Density Residential neighborhoods and in symmetry with the larger Manteca community including approximately 634 single-family homes and 104 half-plex units.

3. Provide housing opportunities responsive to the needs of Manteca, the region and market conditions, to serve a range of family incomes and household types.

4. Provide a pedestrian-friendly community that provides connections and access between the existing communities and Hat Ranch to the recreational areas within the public parks within the project.

5. Provide a land use plan, design standards, and guidelines consistent with Manteca General Plan goals and policies for Low Density Residential neighborhoods, incorporate marketacceptable design features, and foster an attractive, well-maintained community.

6. Establish a land use and circulation system that promotes convenient mobility, completes the extension of Pillsbury Road to Antone Raymus Parkway, and provides a setting that is safe, accessible, and convenient for all modes of travel.

7. Provide offsite improvements for Atherton Drive and Antone Raymus Parkway to complete the circulation routes as planned in the Circulation Element of the City of Manteca’s General Plan.

8. Provide a comprehensive infrastructure system, including parks, open space, storm water quality facilities, roadways, and utilities infrastructure sized to serve the project and adjacent properties.

Discussion and Findings Relating to the Alternatives Evaluated in the Draft EIR Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR evaluates the following three alternatives, which are summarized below:

1. No Project (No Build) Alternative;

2. Reduced Density Alternative; and
ATTACHMENT 17

3. Agricultural Character Alternative.

No Project (No Build) Alternative
Under CEQA, a “No Project (No Build) Alternative” compares the impacts of proceeding with a proposed project with the impacts of not proceeding with the proposed project. A No Project (No Build) Alternative describes the environmental conditions in existence at the time the Notice of Preparation was published, along with a discussion of what would be reasonably expected to occur at the site in the foreseeable future, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.

The No Project (No Build) Alternative is defined in the Draft EIR as the continuation of the existing conditions of the Project site, which is currently planted with vineyards and contains a large barn, an office structure, a tree-lined driveway, and a 20,000-square-foot residence.

Because implementation of the No Project (No Build) Alternative would result in the site remaining under current conditions, physical environmental impacts would not occur, and none of the project objectives would be met.

On balance, the environmental benefits that might be achieved with this Alternative are outweighed by its failure to achieve any of the project objectives, and the City Council rejects this Alternative.

Reduced Density Alternative
The Reduced Density Alternative would consist of buildout of the project site with standard R-1 lots on 168.6 acres, as well as 16.2 acres of parkland. The standard R-1 lots would be built out at a maximum density of 2.1 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) for a total of 354 residential units.

As such, the Reduced Density Alternative would result in the development of approximately 385 less units than the proposed project. In addition, the 16.4 acres of Public/Quasi-Public land would not be included as part of the Reduced Density Alternative. Nonetheless, the Reduced Density Alternative would still require approval of an Annexation, a General Plan Amendment, Prezone, a Tentative Map, a Development Agreement, and Design Review Guidelines, similar to the proposed project. The Reduced Density Alternative would also require on- and off-site roadway and utility improvements, similar to the improvements considered for the proposed project.

The Draft EIR determined that the Reduced Density Alternative would achieve only half of the Project’s objectives. The Alternative would result in similar or fewer impacts to most resource areas, but would still result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to agricultural resources and transportation.

On balance, the environmental benefits that might be achieved with this Alternative are outweighed by its failure to achieve a majority of the project objectives and its inability to avoid significant and unavoidable impacts related to agricultural resources and transportation, and the City Council rejects this Alternative.

Agricultural Character Alternative
The Agricultural Character Alternative would consist of buildout of the western half of the project ATTACHMENT 17
site as proposed under project conditions, while the eastern half of the site, which includes the existing vineyards, large barn, office structure, tree-lined driveway, and 20,000-sf residence, would remain as is. The Agricultural Character Alternative would develop 281 single-family detached units, as well as 48 half-plex units for a total of 329 residential units. In addition, a total of 6.9 acres of parkland would be developed under the Alternative. As such, the Agricultural Character Alternative would result in the development of approximately 410 less residential units, and approximately 9.3 acres of parkland less than the proposed project. In addition, the

16.4 acres of Public/Quasi-Public land proposed under project conditions would not be included as part of the Alternative.

The Agricultural Character Alternative would still require approval of an Annexation, a General Plan Amendment, Prezone, a Tentative Map, a Development Agreement, and Design Review Guidelines, similar to the proposed project. On- and off-site roadway and utility improvements would still be required under the Agricultural Character Alternative, similar to the improvements considered for the proposed project.

The Draft EIR determined that the Agricultural Character Alternative would achieve only half of the Project’s objectives. The Alternative would result in fewer impacts to most resource areas, but would still result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to agricultural resources and transportation.

On balance, the environmental benefits that might be achieved with this Alternative are outweighed by its failure to achieve a majority of the project objectives and its inability to avoid significant and unavoidable impacts related to agricultural resources and transportation, and the City Council rejects this Alternative.

Findings Regarding Reasonable Range of Alternatives
The City Council finds that the range of alternatives evaluated in the EIR reflects a reasonable attempt to identify and evaluate various types of alternatives that would potentially be capable of reducing the Project’s environmental effects, while accomplishing most but not all of the project objectives. The City Council finds that the alternatives analysis is sufficient to inform the City Council and the public regarding the tradeoffs between the degree to which alternatives to the Project could reduce environmental impacts and the corresponding degree to which the alternatives would hinder the City’s ability to achieve the project objectives.

Statement of Overriding Considerations
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15092, the City Council finds that in approving the Project it has eliminated or substantially reduced all significant and potentially significant effects of the Project on the environment where feasible, as shown in the EIR and described in these findings.

Even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures and consideration of alternatives, the Project would nonetheless cause a direct significant and unavoidable impact related to the following:

1. Impacts related to the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance Farmland to non-agricultural use.

ATTACHMENT 17

2. Impacts related to compliance with the policies of San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) pertaining to the conversion of agricultural land.

3. Generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

4. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), during Existing Plus Project Conditions.

5. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), during Cumulative Plus Project Conditions.

In the City Council’s judgment, the Project and its benefits outweigh its unavoidable significant effects. The following Statement of Overriding Considerations identifies the reasons why, in the City Council’s judgment, the benefits of the Project, as approved, outweigh its unavoidable significant effects.

Any one of the stated reasons is sufficient to justify approval of the Project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every reason set forth in this Statement is supported by substantial evidence, the City Council finds that any individual reason is separately sufficient. This Statement is supported by the substantial evidence in the record of proceedings, including but not limited to, the Draft EIR, the Final EIR, the findings set forth above, and the documents incorporated by reference.

The following considerations support approval of the Project:

1. The Project would provide citywide and regional economic benefits through tax revenues and project fees.

2. Considering the nature and size of the Project, a substantial amount of construction workers would likely be needed in construction of the proposed residential uses and other proposed improvements, thereby creating jobs for local residents. Additionally, building materials would likely be purchased in the area, stimulating the local economy and businesses.

3. The Project would provide additional housing opportunities in the City of Manteca. Based on the City’s 2016 Housing Element Update, the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the years 2023-2031 would require 5,120 residences. The Project would contribute an additional 738 residential units to increase the City’s housing supply, which would help the City satisfy its RHNA goals, as well as the goals of the California Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Senate Bill No. 330).

4. The Project would provide off-site improvements to Antone Raymus Parkway to help complete the circulation routes as planned in the Circulation Element of the City of Manteca’s General Plan.

The City Council has considered these benefits and considerations and has considered the significant unavoidable environmental effects of the Project. The City Council has determined that the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project outweigh the identified impacts. The City Council has determined that the Project benefits set forth above override the significant and unavoidable environmental effects associated with the Project.

ATTACHMENT 17
The City Council adopts the mitigation measures in the final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, incorporated by reference into these findings, and finds that any residual or remaining effects on the environment resulting from the Project, identified as significant and unavoidable in the Findings of Fact, are acceptable due to the benefits set forth in this Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council makes this Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines in support of approval of the Project.

ATTACHMENT 17

4.1 INTRODUCTION
Section 15097 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires all State and local agencies to establish monitoring or reporting programs for projects approved by a public agency whenever approval involves the adoption of either a “mitigated negative declaration” or specified environmental findings related to an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

The following is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Hat Ranch Project (proposed project). Unless otherwise noted, the cost of implementing the mitigation measures as prescribed by this MMRP shall be funded by the project applicant.

4.2 COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
The MMRP contained herein is intended to satisfy the requirements of CEQA as they relate to the EIR for the proposed project prepared by the City of Manteca. This MMRP is intended to be used by City staff and mitigation monitoring personnel to ensure compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation. Mitigation measures identified in this MMRP were developed in the EIR that was prepared for the proposed project.

The Hat Ranch Project Draft EIR presents a detailed set of mitigation measures that will be implemented throughout the lifetime of the project. Mitigation is defined by CEQA Guidelines, Section 15370, as a measure that:
• Avoids the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; • Minimizes impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation;
• Rectifies the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment; • Reduces or eliminates the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the project; or
• Compensates for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

The MMRP will provide for monitoring of construction activities as necessary and in-the-field identification and resolution of environmental concerns.

Monitoring and documenting the implementation of mitigation measures will be coordinated by the City of Manteca. The table in Section 4.3 of this chapter identifies the mitigation measure, the monitoring action for the mitigation measure, the responsible party for the monitoring action, and timing of the monitoring action. The applicant will be responsible for fully understanding and effectively implementing the mitigation measures contained within the MMRP. The City will be responsible for monitoring compliance.

4. MITIGATION MONITORING AND

REPORTING PROGRAM
ATTACHMENT 17

4.3 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The following table indicates the mitigation measure number, the impact the measure is designed to address, the measure text, the monitoring agency, implementation schedule, and an area for sign-off indicating compliance.

ATTACHMENT 17

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Hat Ranch Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off

4.2 Agricultural Resources

4.2-1 Impacts related to the
conversion of Prime
Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance
Farmland to nonagricultural use.

4.2-1 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1. See Impact

4.4-1
See Impact 4.4-1

4.2-3 Impacts related to
compliance with the
policies of San Joaquin
LAFCo pertaining to the
conversion of agricultural
land.

4.2-3 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1. See Impact

4.4-1
See Impact 4.4-1

4.3 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy

4.3-7 Generate GHG
emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact
on the environment.

4.3-7 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.3-8. See Impact

4.3-8
See Impact 4.3-8

4.3-8 Conflict with an
applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing
the emissions of GHGs.

4.3-8 Prior to issuance of any grading or building
permits, Project Building Plans shall
demonstrate compliance with the following
applicable measures included in the City’s
Climate Action Plan, to the satisfaction of the
City of Manteca Development Services
Department:
• Provide proof (through calculations
or other) that the proposed project
would exceed current Title 24
Energy Efficiency Standards by 10
percent. If the project design cannot
City of
Manteca
Development
Services
Department
Prior to the issuance
of any grading or
building permits
ATTACHMENT 17

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Hat Ranch Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
meet this requirement, the project
applicant shall coordinate with the
City to determine alternative options
(e.g., exterior lighting, water
savings, etc.); and
• Provide proof (through calculations,
notation on project plans, or other)
that the proposed project shall
implement a recycling or waste
diversion program sufficient to
exceed the State recycling and
diversion targets by at least 10
percent.

4.4 Biological Resources

4.4-1 Have a substantial
adverse effect, either
directly (e.g., threaten to
eliminate a plant or
animal community) or
through habitat
modifications, on any
plant or wildlife species
identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or specialstatus species in local or
regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the
CDFW or USFWS.

4.4-1 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
City of
Manteca
Development
Services
Department
San Joaquin
Council of
Governments
(SJCOG)
Prior to the
commencement of
any grading activities
ATTACHMENT 17

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Hat Ranch Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
SJMSCP would fully mitigate all habitat
impacts on covered special-status species.

4.4-6 Conflict with the
provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or
other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan.

4.4-6 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1. See Impact

4.4-1
See Impact 4.4-1

4.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources

4.5-2 Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to Section
15064.5 or disturb any
human remains,
including those interred
outside of formal
cemeteries.

4.5-2(a) If potentially significant archaeological
resources are encountered during
subsurface excavation activities, all
construction activities within a 100-foot
radius of the resource shall cease until a
qualified archaeologist determines whether
the resource requires further study. The City
shall require that the applicant include a
standard inadvertent discovery clause in
every construction contract to inform
contractors of this requirement. Any
previously undiscovered resources found
during construction shall be recorded on
appropriate Department of Parks and
Recreation forms and evaluated for
significance in terms of California
Environmental Quality Act criteria by a
qualified archaeologist. Potentially
significant cultural resources consist of but
are not limited to stone, bone, fossils, wood,
or shell artifacts or features, including
hearths, structural remains, or historic dump
City of
Manteca
Development
Services
Department
Qualified
archaeologist
During subsurface
excavation activities
ATTACHMENT 17

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Hat Ranch Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
sites. If the resource is determined to be
significant under CEQA, the City and a
qualified archaeologist shall determine
whether preservation in place is feasible.

Such preservation in place is the preferred
mitigation. If such preservation is infeasible,
the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and
implement a research design and
archaeological data recovery plan for the
resource. The archaeologist shall also
conduct appropriate technical analyses,
prepare a comprehensive written report and
file it with the appropriate information center
(California Historical Resources Information
System), and provide for the permanent
curation of the recovered materials.

4.5-2(b) If previously unknown human remains are
encountered during construction activities,
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and
Safety Code applies, and the following
procedures shall be followed: In the event of
an accidental discovery or recognition of any
human remains, Public Resource Code
Section 5097.98 must be followed. Once
project-related ground disturbance begins
and if there is accidental discovery of human
remains, the following steps shall be taken:
• There shall be no further excavation
or disturbance of the site or any
nearby area reasonably suspected
to overlie adjacent human remains
City of
Manteca
Development
Services
Department
San Joaquin
County
Coroner’s
Office
Native
American
Heritage
Commission
(NAHC)
During construction
activities
ATTACHMENT 17

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Hat Ranch Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
until the San Joaquin County
Coroner’s Office is contacted to
determine if the remains are Native
American and if an investigation into
cause of death is required. If the
coroner determines the remains are
Native American, the coroner shall
contact the NAHC within 24 hours,
and the NAHC shall identify the
person or persons it believes to be
the “most likely descendant” of the
deceased Native American. The
most likely descendant may make
recommendations to the landowner
or the person responsible for the
excavation work, for means of
treating or disposing of, with
appropriate dignity, the human
remains and any associated grave
goods as provided in Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98.

4.5-3 Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a Tribal
Cultural Resource as
defined in PRC, Section
21074, 5020.1 or 5024.

4.5-3 Implement Mitigation Measures 4.5-2(a) and

4.5-2(b).

See Impact

4.5-2
See Impact 4.5-2

4.5-4 Contribute incrementally
in conjunction with
cumulative development
in the City of Manteca
and its sphere of
influence to the regional

4.5-4 Implement Mitigation Measures 4.5-2(a) and

4.5-2(b).

See Impact

4.5-2
See Impact 4.5-2
ATTACHMENT 17

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Hat Ranch Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
loss of tribal cultural,
historical, and/or
archeological resources
in San Joaquin County.

4.6 Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources

4.6-1 The proposed project
could cause potential
substantial adverse
effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death
involving rupture of a
known earthquake fault,
strong seismic ground
shaking, seismic-related
ground failure, including
liquefaction, and
landslides.

4.6-1(a) Prior to approval of improvement plans for
the project, the applicant shall submit to the
Engineering Division, for review and
approval, a design-level geotechnical
engineering report that is produced by a
California Registered Geotechnical
Engineer and addresses the findings and
recommendations of the geotechnical
studies prepared for the proposed project.

The design-level geotechnical report shall
evaluate site soil conditions using a
subsurface field investigation program
consisting of both soil borings using
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampling
and Cone Penetration Tests (CPT). The
report shall address and make
recommendations on the following aspects
of the project:
• Road, pavement, and parking area
design;
• Structural foundations, including
retaining wall design (if applicable);
• Grading practices;
• Erosion/winterization;
• Special problems discovered onsite, (i.e., groundwater, expansive/unstable soils, etc.);
City of
Manteca
Engineering
Division
City Engineer
Prior to approval of
improvement plans
for the project
ATTACHMENT 17

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Hat Ranch Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
• Slope stability (if applicable to any
required trenching activities);
• Estimates related to ground-shaking
intensity, seismic settlement, and
liquefaction potential; and
• Site-specific geotechnical design
parameters for development
(allowable bearing capacity,
subsidence/settlement analysis,
etc.)
The recommendations on the
aforementioned aspects shall ensure that if
implemented, all identified potential project
impacts would be reduced to less-thansignificant levels. All recommendations set forth in the design-level geotechnical
engineering report shall be implemented into
the final improvement plans for the proposed
project, which shall be subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer.

4.6-1(b) All grading and foundation plans shall be
reviewed and approved by the Engineering
Division and the Building Safety Division,
respectively, prior to issuance of building
permits to ensure that all geotechnical
recommendations specified in the
geotechnical report(s) are properly
incorporated and utilized in the design and
reduce all identified potential project impacts
to a less-than-significant level.

City of
Manteca
Engineering
Division
City of
Manteca
Building Safety
Division
Prior to issuance of
building permits
ATTACHMENT 17

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Hat Ranch Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off

4.6-2 The project could be
located on a geological
unit or soil that is
unstable, or that could
become unstable as a
result of the project, and
potentially result in on or
off-site lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse, or be located
on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1B of
the Uniform Building
Code.

4.6-2 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.6-1(a) and
Mitigation Measure 4.6-1(b).

See Impact

4.6-1
See Impact 4.6-1

4.6-3 The project could directly
or indirectly harm or
destroy a unique
paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic
feature.

4.6-3 Prior to grading permit issuance, the
applicant shall submit plans to the City of
Manteca Development Services Department
for review and approval which indicate (via
notation on the improvement plans) that if
construction or grading activities result in the
discovery of unique paleontological
resources, all work within 100 feet of the
discovery shall cease immediately. The
applicant shall notify the City of Manteca
Development Services Department, and the
resources shall be examined by a qualified
paleontologist at the applicant’s expense, for
the purpose of recording, protecting, or
curating the discovery as appropriate. The
paleontologist shall submit to the
Development Services Department for
review and approval a report of the findings
and method of curation or protection of the
City of
Manteca
Development
Services
Department
Qualified
paleontologist
Prior to grading
permit issuance
ATTACHMENT 17

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Hat Ranch Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
resources. Work may only resume in the
area of discovery when the preceding work
has occurred.

4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.7-2 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.

4.7-2(a) Prior to Improvement Plan approval, the
project applicant shall hire a qualified
geotechnical engineer to identify the location
of any groundwater wells in the East Parcel.

If groundwater wells are not found, further
mitigation is not required. If groundwater
wells are identified within the East Parcel,
the project applicant shall hire a licensed
well contractor to obtain a well abandonment
permit from the SJCEHD for all on-site wells
in the parcel, and properly abandon the onsite wells, pursuant to Department of Water Resources Bulletin 74-81 (Water Well
Standards, Part III) for review and approval
by the SJCEHD.

4.7-2(b) Prior to Improvement Plan approval, the
project applicant shall hire a qualified
geotechnical engineer to identify the location
of any septic systems in the East Parcel. If
septic systems are not found, further
mitigation is not required. If septic systems
are identified in the East Parcel, the project
applicant shall hire a licensed contractor to
abandon any on-site septic system in
compliance with applicable SJCEHD
standards. Verification of abandonment shall
be ensured by the SJCEHD.

San Joaquin
County
Environmental
Health
Department
(SJCEHD)
SJCEHD
Prior to improvement
plan approval
Prior to improvement
plan approval
ATTACHMENT 17

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Hat Ranch Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off

4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality

4.8-1 Violate any water quality
standards or waste
discharge requirements
or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or
ground water quality.

4.8-1(a) Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan –
Project Construction
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the
project applicant shall prepare and submit to
the City Public Works Department and
Central Valley RWQCB a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) detailing
measures to control soil erosion and waste
discharges during construction. The SWPPP
shall include an erosion control and
restoration plan, a water quality monitoring
plan, a hazardous materials management
plan, and post-construction BMPs. The
BMPs shall be maintained until all areas
disturbed during construction have been
adequately stabilized.

Prior to commencement of construction
activities (as they are phased), including
grading, the project applicant shall submit a
Notice of Intent (NOI) to the SWRCB for
coverage under the General Construction
Permit. Specific BMPS shall be determined
during the final states of project design.

However, the SWPPP shall include specific
practices to minimize the potential that
pollutants will leave the site during
construction. Such practices include, but are
not limited to, establishing designated
equipment staging and washing areas,
City of
Manteca Public
Works
Department
Central Valley
Regional
Water Quality
Control Board
(RWQCB)
State Water
Resources
Control Board
(SWRCB)
Prior to issuance of
grading permits
Prior to
commencement of
construction
activities (as they are
phased)
ATTACHMENT 17

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Hat Ranch Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
protecting spoils and soil stockpile areas,
and identifying equipment exclusion zones.

4.8-1(b) Water Quality BMPs – Project Operation
Prior to the City’s approval of final
improvement plans, the applicant shall
submit a master drainage plan, subject to the
review and approval by the City Engineer.

This plan shall address the following
requirements:
• Calculations of pre-development
runoff conditions and postdevelopment runoff scenarios, using appropriate engineering methods, to
evaluate potential changes to runoff
through specific design criteria and
account for increased surface
runoff;
• Assessment of existing drainage
facilities within the project area and
an inventory of necessary upgrades,
replacements, redesigns, and
rehabilitation;
• List all BMPs for water quality
protection, source control, and
treatment control, which shall be
developed in accordance with the
Multi-Agency Post-Construction
Stormwater Standards Manual;
• A proposed maintenance program
for the on-site drainage system; and
City Engineer Prior to the City’s
approval of the final
improvement plans
ATTACHMENT 17

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Hat Ranch Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
• Phasing standards for drainage
systems to be installed on a projectand parcel-specific basis.

Drainage systems, including any detention
basin(s), shall be designed in accordance
with the City’s and other applicable flood
control design criteria. As a performance
standard, measures to be implemented from
the master drainage plan shall provide for no
net increase in peak stormwater discharge
relative to current conditions, ensure that 10-
year flooding events and their potential
impacts are maintained at or below current
levels, and ensure that people and
structures are not exposed to additional
flood risk.

Prior to issuing a grading permit for any/each
phase of the project, the City shall require
the project applicant to demonstrate that the
portion of the project subject to the grading
permit is consistent with the
recommendations and conclusions of the
master drainage plan and shall implement
the measures identified in the plan. If the
plan does not adequately address the
drainage impacts of the specific
development, the City shall require the
applicant to prepare additional analysis and
incorporate measures consistent with the
scope and performance standards
City of
Manteca
Engineering
Division
Prior to issuing a
grading permit for
any/each phase of
the project
ATTACHMENT 17

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Hat Ranch Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
associated with the plan to ensure that
drainage and flooding impacts are avoided.

4.8-3 Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern
of the site or area,
including through the
alteration of the course of
a stream or river or
through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would
result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or
off-site or create or
contribute runoff water
which would exceed the
capacity of existing or
planned stormwater
drainage systems or
provide substantial
additional sources of
polluted runoff.

4.8-3 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.8-1(a) and

4.8-1(b).

See Impact

4.8-1
See Impact 4.8-1

4.10 Noise

4.10-1 Generation of a
substantial temporary
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.

4.10-1(a) Noise-generating construction activities
associated with the proposed project shall
only occur within the hours identified in City
of Manteca Municipal Code Section

17.58.050. The above language shall be
included on final project improvement plans,
grading plans and building plans prior to
approval by the City of Manteca
Development Services Department.

City of
Manteca
Development
Services
Department
During project
construction
activities
ATTACHMENT 17

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Hat Ranch Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off

4.10-1(b) To the maximum extent practical, as
determined by the City of Manteca
Development Services Department, the
following measures shall be implemented
during project construction:
• All noise-producing project
equipment and vehicles using
internal-combustion engines shall
be equipped with manufacturersrecommended mufflers and be maintained in good working
condition;
• All mobile or fixed noise-producing
equipment used on the project site
that are regulated for noise output
by a federal, State, or local agency
shall comply with such regulations
while in the course of project
construction;
• Electrically powered equipment
shall be used instead of pneumatic
or internal-combustion-powered
equipment, where feasible;
• Material stockpiles and mobile
equipment staging, parking, and
maintenance areas shall be located
as far as practicable from noisesensitive receptors;
• Project area and site access road
speed limits shall be established
and enforced during the
construction period; and
City of
Manteca
Development
Services
Department
During project
construction
activities
ATTACHMENT 17

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Hat Ranch Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
• Nearby residences shall be notified
of construction schedules so that
arrangements can be made, if
desired, to limit their exposure to
short-term increases in ambient
noise levels.

The above requirements shall be included
via notation on project grading plans, subject
to review and approval by the City of
Manteca Development Services
Department.

4.10-2 Generation of a
substantial 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.

4.10-2 Prior to the approval of improvement plans,
the improvement plans shall show a six-foottall traffic noise barrier, which shall be subject to review and approval by the City of
Manteca Development Services
Department, which would ensure traffic
noise levels from the road are reduced to the
normally acceptable 60 dB Ldn standard at
the first-floor backyard of residences along
Antone Raymus Parkway. The noise
barriers shall take the form of a masonry
wall, earthen berm, or combination of the
two. Other materials may be acceptable, and
shall be reviewed by an acoustical
consultant, prior to approval and
construction.

City of
Manteca
Development
Services
Department
Prior to the approval
of improvement
plans

4.12 Transportation

4.12-2 Conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section
15064.3, subdivision (b),

4.12-2 Prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy, transportation demand
management measures shall be
implemented to the maximum extent
City of
Manteca
Planning
Division
Prior to issuance of a
certificate of
occupancy
ATTACHMENT 17

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Hat Ranch Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
during Existing Plus
Project Conditions.
feasible, subject to the approval of the City
of Manteca Planning Division. Potential
transportation demand management
measures include, but are not limited to:
• Increase residential density;
• Limit residential parking supply;
• Improve street connectivity;
• Provide ride-share program;
• Implement subsidized or discounted
transit program;
• Provide bicycle facilities at the
proposed school;
• Provide community-based travel
planning;
• Provide pedestrian network
improvement;
• Construct or improve bike facility;
• Construct or improve bike
boulevard;
• Expand bikeway network;
• Implement conventional or electric
carshare program;
• Implement pedal or electric
bikeshare program;
• Implement scooter-share program;
• Extend transit network coverage or
hours;
• Increase transit service frequency;
• Implement transit-supportive
roadway treatments; and
• Reduce transit fares.

ATTACHMENT 17

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Hat Ranch Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off

4.12-4 Conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section
15064.3, subdivision (b),
during Cumulative Plus
Project Conditions.

4.12-4 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.12-2. See Impact

4.12-2
See Impact 4.12-2
ATTACHMENT 17

2.1 INTRODUCTION
The Responses to Comments chapter contains responses to each of the comment letters received during the Hat Ranch Project (proposed project) Draft EIR public review period.

2.2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Each bracketed comment letter is followed by numbered responses to each bracketed comment.

The responses amplify or clarify information provided in the Draft EIR and/or refer the reader to the appropriate place in the document where the requested information can be found. Comments that are not directly related to environmental issues (e.g., opinions on the merits of the project that are unrelated to its environmental impacts) are either discussed or noted for the record.

Where revisions to the Draft EIR text are required in response to the comments, such revisions are noted in the response to the comment, and are also listed in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR Text, of this Final EIR. All new text is shown as double underlined and deleted text is shown as struck through.

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
ATTACHMENT 17
Letter 1
1-1
1-2
1-3
ATTACHMENT 17
Letter 1 cont.
1-4
1-5
1-6
1-7
1-8
1-9
1-10
1-11
1-12
ATTACHMENT 17
Letter 1 cont.
1-12 cont.
1-13
1-14
1-15
ATTACHMENT 17
Letter 1 cont.

ATTACHMENT 17
LETTER 1: TOM DUMAS, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 10
Response to Comment 1-1
The comment is an introductory statement and introduces requests for revisions that will be made in subsequent comments regarding the Transportation Analysis prepared for the proposed project by Fehr and Peers (see Appendix K of the Draft EIR).

Response to Comment 1-2
The electronic Synchro analysis files were submitted to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for its use in reviewing the Draft EIR and Transportation Analysis prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix K of the Draft EIR). As detailed in the Intersection Analysis Methodology section, which starts on page 14 of the Transportation Analysis, the analysis used procedures and methodologies contained in the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual, Sixth Edition. The aforementioned methodologies were applied using the Synchro 10 software, which considers traffic volumes, lane configurations, signal timings, signal coordination, and other pertinent parameters of intersection operations.

Response to Comment 1-3
In accordance with the requirements for analyzing potential transportation-related impacts under CEQA and guidance from the City of Manteca, the Transportation Analysis includes trip generation analysis (single-family detached housing and school-related vehicle trips), vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis (per single-family household), and intersection level of service (LOS) (AM and PM peak hour) analysis.

Furthermore, as part of the Traffic Operations Analysis Report (TOAR) prepared by Fehr and Peers for the Project Approval/Environmental Document for the State Route 99/State Route 120 Improvement Project, a detailed queueing analysis was submitted to Caltrans; however, the request for a queueing analysis for the proposed project is outside the scope of requirements for a CEQA Traffic Impact Study. Therefore, the discussions and analyses in Chapter 4.12, Transportation, of the Draft EIR are adequate.

Response to Comment 1-4
The VMT analysis, included in Tables 3 and 4 of the Transportation Analysis on pages 16 and 17, respectively, was derived from the City of Manteca Travel Demand Model that was developed for the City’s General Plan Update.

As detailed on page 11 of the Transportation Analysis, the Base Year Travel Forecasting Model (TFM) used as part of the study’s VMT forecasting incorporated base year land use data for dwelling units (single family and multi-family) and employment (food, retail, office, industrial, medical, government, and school), as well as the roadway network (lanes, speed, and capacity class), based on existing data (i.e., 2019). The TFM trip generation rates were derived from the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation Manual and include appropriate inbound/outbound trip generation rates for residential and employment land uses for AM and PM peak hour conditions. In addition, the Cumulative Year 2040 TFM used as part of the Transportation Analysis was developed based on expected future land uses and the future transportation network in the City of Manteca and adjacent areas in 2040. Similar to other cities in the Central Valley region, the City of Manteca is projecting a large amount of growth for both ATTACHMENT 17
housing and employment in the next 20 years. The Cumulative Year 2040 TFM scenario was developed in coordination with both the cities of Manteca and Lathrop to ensure that the TFM represents market-based demand for future growth in both housing (population) and employment, and therefore, does not underestimate or overestimate traffic demand volumes.

Response to Comment 1-5
As stated on page 7 of the Transportation Analysis prepared for the proposed project, “The established Cumulative VMT per single family household is 91.4. Therefore, single family residential projects that exceed 77.7 VMT per household (a 15 percent reduction compared to the cumulative 91.4 VMT) would be considered to have a significant transportation impact. Projects that generate less than 77.7 VMT per household would be considered to have a less than significant transportation impact.” Accordingly, the 77.7 VMT threshold was used in Table 4 on page 17 of the Transportation Analysis in order to determine if the Hat Ranch Project Cumulative (2040) VMT Per Single Family Household of 83.0 would result in a VMT transportation impact. As detailed on page 4.12-18 of the Draft EIR, because the proposed project would generate an estimated average of 83.0 VMT per single-family household under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions, which represents an approximately 6.8 percent increase from the Cumulative VMT threshold conditions, the project would generate vehicle travel exceeding 15 percent below the established baseline, and a significant impact could occur. The Draft EIR requires that Mitigation Measure 4.12-4 be implemented to address the potential impact; however, even with implementation of the mitigation measure, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

Response to Comment 1-6
Traffic count data collected in 2019 (pre-COVID) were adjusted (i.e., increased) to represent Existing AM and PM peak hour conditions (2021). Figures 2a, 2b, and 2c of the Transportation Analysis display the intersection turning movement counts at study intersections under Existing conditions. Figure 2a presents Intersections 1 through 9, Figure 2b presents Intersections 10 through 18, and Figure 2c presents Intersections 19 through 28.

Response to Comment 1-7
Traffic count data collected in 2019 (pre-COVID) were adjusted (i.e., increased) based on growth factors derived from the City of Manteca General Plan Update Travel Forecasting Model and ranged from two to five percent per year, from 2019 to 2021.

Response to Comment 1-8
Figures 2a, 2b, and 2c display the Existing Year 2021 intersection turning movement counts at the study intersections.

Response to Comment 1-9
The Synchro signal timings used for the State Route (SR) 120/Main Street interchange intersections are based on the Existing signal timings from Caltrans District 10 Signal and Ramp Meter Unit.

Response to Comment 1-10
The analysis of Austin Road/SR 99 Northbound Ramps (Intersection 11) was revised from side street stop control to all-way stop control in Table 5 and Table 8 of the Transportation Analysis.

Minor changes to the delay and LOS would not modify the conclusion that the City of Manteca is working with the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) and Caltrans to improve the SR ATTACHMENT 17
120/SR 99 freeway-to-freeway interchange, which would result in LOS C conditions or better during both AM and PM peak hour conditions.

Response to Comment 1-11
With 738 single family dwelling units and a K-8 school located within the project site, a reduction for school-related trips was incorporated to represent students walking/biking and parents dropping off and picking up kids on their way to work or other activities (i.e., a linked vehicle trip).

During the AM peak hour, this represented a 30 percent reduction. During the PM peak hour, this represented a nine percent reduction. On a daily basis, this represented a 10 percent reduction.

Reductions are assumed based on trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition.

Response to Comment 1-12
The City of Manteca Engineering Division will coordinate with Caltrans District 10 in the review and approval of improvements at the following four Caltrans intersections:

1. SR 120 Eastbound Ramps/Main Street;

2. SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp/Moffat Boulevard;

3. Moffat Boulevard/Austin Road/SR 99 Southbound On-Ramp; and

4. Austin Road/SR 99 Northbound Off-Ramp.

The interim improvement for the SR 120 Eastbound Ramps/Main Street intersection will be determined in coordination with the City of Manteca and Caltrans District 10.

The timeline for construction for the proposed project and the Phase 1A improvements of the State Route 99/State Route 120 Improvement Project will be coordinated with the City of Manteca and Caltrans District 10; however, the improvements are anticipated to be open to traffic by 2024.

If the proposed project is constructed before the Phase 1A State Route 99/State Route 120 Improvement Project, interim improvements for the following intersections will be identified and coordinated with the City of Manteca and Caltrans District 10:

1. SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp/Moffat Boulevard;

2. SR 99 Southbound On-Ramp/Moffat Boulevard/Austin Road; and

3. SR 99 Northbound Off-Ramp/Austin Road.

If the proposed project is constructed after the State Route 99/State Route 120 Improvement Project Phase 1A improvements, then project traffic that would have used the SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp and SR 99 Northbound On-Ramp would use the SR 120/Main Street interchange.

Response to Comment 1-13
The VMT-reducing measures listed in MM-TRA-1 on page 53 of the Transportation Analysis were extracted from and are consistent with the City of Manteca 2040 General Plan Update. The City of Manteca is implementing citywide goals and policies to reduce VMT through increasing land use density and increasing multi-modal accessibility to key destinations. Both of the aforementioned VMT-reducing options have been incorporated into the proposed project by increasing the density of the single-family dwelling units per acre, incorporating pedestrian and bicycle amenities, and including a K-8 school site for the 738 dwelling units.

ATTACHMENT 17
Response to Comment 1-14
Both of the interchange improvement projects are identified as Tier 1 Projects in SJCOG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The SR 120/Main Street interchange will be open to traffic by 2033. The State Route 99/State Route 120 Improvement Project Phase 1A improvements will be open to traffic by 2024. The Phase 1B improvements will be open to traffic by 2026, and the Phase 1C improvements will be open to traffic by 2040.

Response to Comment 1-15
The City of Manteca Active Transportation Plan and the Manteca General Plan Update policies are consistent with Caltrans’ recommendation for the establishment of programs or methods to reduce VMT and support appropriate bicycle, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure. The comment is noted for the record and will be forward to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.

ATTACHMENT 17
Letter 2
2-1
2-2
ATTACHMENT 17
2-2 cont.

ATTACHMENT 17
2-2 cont.

ATTACHMENT 17
2-2 cont.

ATTACHMENT 17
2-2 cont.
2-3
ATTACHMENT 17
LETTER 2: PETER MINKEL, CENTRAL VALLEY REGIONAL WATER

QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
Response to Comment 2-1
The comment is an introductory statement and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 2-2
The comment lists various regulatory and permitting requirements set forth and administered by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB); however, the comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

Please see Chapter 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, which includes discussions and evaluation of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable regulations and standards set forth by the RWQCB.

Response to Comment 2-3
The comment is a conclusion and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment is noted for the record.

ATTACHMENT 17
Letter 3
3-1
3-2
ATTACHMENT 17
3-2 cont.

Letter 3 cont.
3-3
3-5
3-4
ATTACHMENT 17
3-5 cont.
3-6
Letter 3 cont.

ATTACHMENT 17
3-6 cont.
3-7
Letter 3 cont.

ATTACHMENT 17
3-8
3-9
Letter 3 cont.

ATTACHMENT 17
ATTACHMENT 17
LETTER 3: KEVIN THOMAS, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND

WILDLIFE
Response to Comment 3-1
The comment is an introductory statement and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 3-2
The comment provides background information on the regulatory role of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and cites applicable sections of State codes that provide CDFW with regulatory authority to ensure the State’s plant, wildlife, and habitat resources are conserved, protected, and managed properly. The comment is an introductory statement and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 3-3
The comment summarizes the project components and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 3-4
The commenter introduces primary concerns about specific special-status species, which are discussed further in subsequent comments below.

As detailed on page 4.4-24 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project is required through Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 to seek coverage under the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) and to mitigate for habitat impacts to covered species through applicable SJMSCP requirements, including compliance with the adopted Incidental Take and Minimization Measures (ITMMs). As such, the proposed project will comply with California Endangered Species Act (CESA) take requirements for special-status species.

Response to Comment 3-5
In response to the comment, the second paragraph under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) subheading on page 4.4-15 of the Draft EIR is hereby revised as follows:

CESA prohibits the taking of State-listed endangered or threatened plant and wildlife species. The CDFW exercises authority over mitigation projects involving State-listed species, including those resulting from CEQA mitigation requirements. Taking may be authorized by CDFW if an approved habitat management plan or management agreement that avoids or compensates for possible jeopardy is implemented. In addition, CDFW requires preparation of mitigation plans in accordance with published guidelines. CDFW may authorize the take of any such species if certain conditions are met. CESA take coverage options include, but are not limited to, an Incidental Take Permit (CFGC Section 2081[b]), Consistency Determination (CFGC Section 2080.1), and/or Safe Harbor Agreement (CFGC Sections 2089.2-2089.26).

With respect to take coverage through an Incidental Take Permit, CFGC Section 2081(b) provides that CDFW may authorize, by permit, the take of an endangered species, threatened species, and candidate species, if all of the following conditions are met:

1. The take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity;

2. The impacts of the authorized take shall be minimized and fully mitigated. The measures required to meet this obligation shall be roughly proportional in extent to the ATTACHMENT 17
impact of the authorized taking on the species. Where various measures are available to meet this obligation, the measures required shall maintain the applicant’s objectives to the greatest extent possible. All required measures shall be capable of successful implementation. For purposes of this section only, impacts of taking include all impacts on the species that result from any act that would cause the proposed taking; and

3. The applicant shall ensure adequate funding to implement the measures required by paragraph (2), and for monitoring compliance with, and effectiveness of, those measures.

Pursuant to CFGC Section 2081(c), an Incidental Take Permit may not be issued as established by Section 2081(b) if issuance of the permit would jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered species, threatened species, and/or candidate species. CDFW determines issuance based on the best scientific and other information that is reasonably available. As part of the determination, CDFW considers a species’ capability to survive and reproduce, and any adverse impacts of the taking on those abilities in light of known population trends, known threats to the species, and reasonably foreseeable impacts on the species from other related projects and activities.

In addition, as established by CFGC Section 2800 et seq., a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) is the State counterpart to the federal Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). An NCCP provides a means of complying with the Natural Community Conservation Plan Act and securing take authorization at the State level. The Natural Community Conservation Plan Act is broader than FESA and CESA. The primary objective of the NCCP program is to conserve natural communities at the ecosystem scale while accommodating compatible land uses. To be approved by CDFW, an NCCP must provide for the conservation of species and protection and management of natural communities in perpetuity within the area covered by permits.

The above changes clarify the CESA take coverage options and do not alter the analyses or conclusions of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 3-6
The proposed project is required through Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 (see page 4.4-24 of the Draft EIR) to seek coverage under the SJMSCP and to mitigate for habitat impacts to covered species through applicable SJMSCP requirements, including compliance with the adopted ITMMs. As required by SJMSCP Section 5.2.2, project proponents must complete preconstruction surveys prior to ground-disturbing activities to determine if SJMSCP Covered Species have been successfully relocated and/or to determine if other ITMMs have been implemented. Thus, preconstruction surveys would be completed for burrowing owl, as well as other ground-nesting birds. Additionally, as required by SJMSCP Section 5.2.4.15, project proponents must prevent ground squirrels from occupying a project site early in the planning process through employing at least one of several practices set forth by the SJMSCP. If the aforementioned practices were not attempted or were attempted but failed, the SJMSCP further requires that burrowing owls, if onsite during the non-breeding season, must be passively relocated in accordance with the protocol described in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If on-site during the breeding season, the SJMSCP prohibits occupied burrows from being disturbed and requires a 75-meter protective buffer unless specific conditions are met.

Thus, through compliance with Mitigation Measure 4.4-1, the proposed project would be subject to sufficient requirements to prevent the take of burrowing owls. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.

ATTACHMENT 17
Response to Comment 3-7
As detailed under Impact 4.4-3 on page 4.4-25 of the Draft EIR, the majority of the project site is planted with grapes, with the only exception being where a large residence exists and landscape vegetation is planted. Pursuant to the Biological Resource Analysis (BRA) prepared for the proposed project by Monk & Associates, Inc., the project site does not include areas that would constitute farmed wetlands or would otherwise suggest agricultural activities converted waters of the U.S. into cropland. Similarly, areas designated for off-site improvements also do not include farmed wetlands or converted waters of the U.S., as locations for the proposed project’s off-site improvements consist of unpaved roadways adjacent to neighborhood communities and agricultural land uses. Based on the project existing setting, the Draft EIR concludes the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means, and a less-thansignificant impact would occur.

Furthermore, the Draft EIR discloses on page 4.4-2 that according to the 1972 USGS Manteca quadrangle, a dashed blue-line drainage cuts through the northwestern corner of the project site, exits the site, and then re-enters the northern end of the northeastern side of the site. However, as detailed in the discussion, the drainage appears to have been historically channelized and current evidence of the drainage does not exist on-site. Agricultural activities on- and off-site have likely changed the natural drainage patterns, resulting in the removal of this feature sometime in the distant past. As such, the Draft EIR does not identify heavily modified and potentially isolated aquatic features on the project site, as suggested by the commenter.

Response to Comment 3-8
The proposed project is subject to all applicable requirements set forth by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and will, therefore, comply with the provisions cited by the comment, including those pertaining to reporting of special-status species and payment of fees.

The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.

Response to Comment 3-9
The comment is a conclusion and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. As requested, the City of Manteca in its role as Lead Agency will notify CDFW in writing of the proposed actions and pending decisions related to the proposed project. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.

ATTACHMENT 17
Letter 4
4-1
4-2
ATTACHMENT 17
Letter 4 cont.
4-2 cont.

ATTACHMENT 17
Letter 4 cont.
4-2 cont.

ATTACHMENT 17
Letter 4 cont.
4-2 cont.

ATTACHMENT 17
Letter 4 cont.
4-2 cont.

ATTACHMENT 17
Letter 4 cont.
4-2 cont.

ATTACHMENT 17
Letter 4 cont.
4-2 cont.

ATTACHMENT 17
Letter 4 cont.
4-2 cont.

ATTACHMENT 17
Letter 4 cont.
4-2 cont.

ATTACHMENT 17
Letter 4 cont.
4-2 cont.

ATTACHMENT 17
Letter 4 cont.
4-2 cont.

ATTACHMENT 17
LETTER 4: MIKE AZEVEDO
Response to Comment 4-1
The comment is an introductory statement and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

However, the comment will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.

Response to Comment 4-2
The comment recommends modifications to the City of Manteca Standards and Specifications for Landscape Development, to which the commenter indicates future development projects, including the proposed project, should be subject. The comment does not specifically address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project. Please see the analyses and discussions in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, and Chapter 4.11, Public Services, Recreation, Utilities, and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR regarding the proposed project’s consistency with applicable regulations and standards related to visual quality and recreational facilities.

ATTACHMENT 17
Letter 5
5-1
5-2
5-3
ATTACHMENT 17
5-3 cont.
5-4
5-5
5-6
Letter 5 cont.

ATTACHMENT 17
Letter 5 cont.

ATTACHMENT 17
Letter 5 cont.

ATTACHMENT 17
LETTER 5: KAI LIU
Response to Comment 5-1
The comment is an introductory statement and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 5-2
The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Please see the discussions and analyses in Chapter 4.12, Transportation, of the Draft EIR. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.

Response to Comment 5-3
The comment does not specifically address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.

For informational purposes, the commenter is referred to Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, which details the proposed design of Antone Raymus Parkway. As discussed on page 3-12 of the Draft EIR, Antone Raymus Parkway would feature an east-to-west layout from Manteca Road to the Atherton Drive extension and would be constructed over two phases, interim condition and ultimate condition. The proposed project would be responsible for development of only the road’s interim condition. Under the interim condition, the project applicant would be required to dedicate right-of-way (ROW) to the City of Manteca to accommodate a 65.5-foot halfwidth street section. The project would construct a new street structural section, curb, gutter, an eight-foot-wide meandering sidewalk parallel to the north of the road, landscaping with trees and an automatic irrigation system, street lights, signage, and striping. The improvements would be constructed from Main Street to the Atherton Drive extension. The Antone Raymus Parkway/Pillsbury Road intersection would be stop-controlled.

Response to Comment 5-4
The comment does not specifically address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Chapter 4.12, Transportation, of the Draft EIR details potential impacts related to vehicle safety under Impact

4.12-3, which starts on page 4.12-16. As discussed therein, during project construction, equipment would be staged on-site. In addition, construction within the project site would not be anticipated to result in substantial road closures or otherwise interfere with citywide vehicle circulation. As a result, the Draft EIR concludes that impacts related to hazards and vehicle safety would not occur.

The comment regarding the timing of roadway construction is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.

Response to Comment 5-5
The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.

For informational purposes, the commenter is referred to Chapter 4.11, Public Services, Recreation, Utilities, and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR, which evaluates potential impacts related to substantial adverse physical impacts that could occur through the provision of or need ATTACHMENT 17
for new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. As detailed therein, the project site is located within the boundaries of the Ripon Unified School District (RUSD) and, thus, would be under the RUSD’s jurisdiction.

Response to Comment 5-6
The comment is a conclusion and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.

ATTACHMENT 17
Letter
6 6-1
ATTACHMENT 17
LETTER 6: PENNY MCNEALY
Response to Comment 6-1
The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.

ATTACHMENT 17
From: David Rashe; <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 12:38 PM
To: Simvoulakis, Lea <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Hat Ranch Project -SCH# 2013112049
WARNING! This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Lea,
Thank you. I’m concerned that other notified neighbors will not find the document either as the link provided in the letter does not even give the option to go to “Environmental" if the page they get to is the same as what I copied and pasted below.

Why do you suppose I got to the page I copied and pasted below and it is different than what you provided in the link below. This is a problem if you want the prescribed public comment period to follow law. If the public cannot access the information from the letter that was sent out in the notice then, it is essentially not posted and cannot be defended in court if the public comment period is challenged. It may be required for you to re-notice and provide the entire link, thus starting the public comment period over.

I’m going through the document and will forward my comments to you at a later date.

Thank you again for providing me the full link.

David J. Rashé
On Sep 14, 2022, at 10:56 AM, Simvoulakis, Lea <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi David,
The link you pasted below takes you to the main Planning Division Documents Pages. From there you click Environmental, and the first item there is Hat Ranch.

The longer link is here:
https://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/CommunityDevelopment/Planning%20Division/Pages/planning-divisiondocuments.aspx?RootFolder=%2FCommunityDevelopment%2FPlanning%20Division%2FPlanning%20Division%20Documents%2FEnvironmental %2FHat%20Ranch%20EIR&FolderCTID=0x012000C1D839DE3D407540A4D0E9B464C9237D&View=%7BC6EEA1A9%2D842B%2D49CD%2D94D1 %2DE0D08910FEFD%7D
From: David Rashe; <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 10:44 AM
To: Simvoulakis, Lea <[email protected]>
Subject: Hat Ranch Project -SCH# 2013112049

WARNING! This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,

I received the mailing regarding the draft /EIR for the above mentioned project. I have attempted to find the document at the https://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/CommunityDevelopment/Planning%20Division/Pages/planning-division-documents.aspxper the letter but there is no such document posted at that web page address. Here are the documents posted to date 9.14.2022 <image001.gif> Name
<image002.png>
File Size
<image002.png>
Modified
<image002.png>
<image003.png> Union Crossing Planned Development 6330 KB 8/10/2020 5:24 PM <image001.gif> July 1 2020 Truck Route Video 445306 KB 7/20/2020 5:34 PM <image003.png> Residential Accessory Structure Development Std 444 KB 4/23/2019 10:27 AM <image003.png> Title 17 Zoning Rev May 5 2017 2753 KB 4/23/2019 10:27 AM <image003.png> Manteca Municipal Services Review July 2015 10834 KB 4/23/2019 10:27 AM Letter 7
7-1
7-2
7-3
ATTACHMENT 17
<image003.png> Growth Management Point Rating Criteria 174 KB 4/23/2019 10:27 AM <image003.png> Manteca Government Operations Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inv 224 KB 4/23/2019 10:27 AM <image003.png> Great Wolf Economic Opportunity Report 1254 KB 4/23/2019 10:27 AM <image003.png> Great Wolf Lodge Economic Development Subsidy Report 429 KB 4/23/2019 10:27 AM <image003.png> 2000 Manteca Census Data 99 KB 4/23/2019 10:27 AM <image003.png> Approved Street Trees List - Updated May 9, 2016 734 KB 4/23/2019 10:27 AM Please provide me with the document or a revised web page address that allows me access to the draft EIR.

Thank you.

David J. Rashé
7-3 cont.

Letter 7 cont.

ATTACHMENT 17
LETTER 7: DAVID RASHÉ
Response to Comment 7-1
As established by CEQA Guidelines Section 15203, a Lead Agency must provide adequate time for other public agencies and members of the public to review and comment on a Draft EIR that it has prepared. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15105(a), when a Draft EIR is submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by State agencies, the public review period must not be less than 45 days, unless a shorter period that is not less than 30 days is approved by the State Clearinghouse.

As detailed in Chapter 1, Introduction and List of Commenters, of this Final EIR, on September 8, 2022, the Draft EIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to State and local agencies, resulting in a 45-day public review period from September 8, 2022 to October 24, 2022.

On September 8, 2022, a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR was posted to the City’s website, and mailed to local agencies and interested members of the public. A physical copy of the Draft EIR was made available for review at the City of Manteca Community Development Department at 1215 West Center Street, Suite 201, Manteca, California 95337. The Draft EIR was also made available for online review by navigating from the City of Manteca Planning Division’s Documents website at https://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/CommunityDevelopment/Planning %20Division/Pages/Planning-Division-Documents.aspx. In addition, the Draft EIR was made available for online review through the CEQA website at https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/201311 2049/5.

Based on the above, in accordance with the requirements set forth by CEQA Guidelines Sections 15105(a) and 15203, the City of Manteca provided adequate time for other public agencies and members of the public to review and comment on the Draft EIR. However, the comment will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.

Response to Comment 7-2
The comment is a response to the commenter’s initial concerns related to accessing the Draft EIR. As demonstrated by the comment, the Draft EIR was made available for online review by navigating from the City of Manteca Planning Division’s website. Please see Response to Comment 7-1. The comment will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.

Response to Comment 7-3
Please see Reponses to Comments 7-1 and 7-2. The comment will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.

ATTACHMENT 17
Letter 8
8-1
8-2
ATTACHMENT 17
Letter 8 cont.
8-3
ATTACHMENT 17
Letter 8 cont.
8-3 cont.

ATTACHMENT 17
Letter 8 cont.
8-4
8-5
8-6
ATTACHMENT 17
LETTER 8: DAVID AND JACKIE RASHÉ
Response to Comment 8-1
With respect to the figures cited by the commenter from Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the Draft EIR incorporates the most current plan sheets in effect at the time of the start of the public review period for the Draft EIR. As such, the figures included in the Draft EIR correctly depict the layout of the proposed residences and are consistent with the project components.

With respect to proposed Lots 356, 357, and 358, the northern portion of the aforementioned lots is currently an undeveloped parcel identified by the City as Manteca Parcel ID 22637062 that is currently planted with landscaping vegetation. However, pursuant to the Manteca Zoning Portal, the parcel is zoned One-Family Dwelling Zoning District (R-1) and single-family dwellings are permitted by right at the location. As such, development of the parcel with single-family residences is consistent with the parcel’s zoning district.

Finally, Figures 3-4 and 3-7 on pages 3-9 and 3-14 of the Draft EIR, respectively, do not identify Mono Street as Woodward Park. Rather, the references to Woodward Park indicate that the existing Woodward Park single-family residential community is located immediately to the north of the parcel to be developed to the east of Pillsbury Road. As such, the figures cited by the commenter are correctly labeled.

Based on the above, the discussions and analyses included in the Draft EIR, including the incorporated project plan sheets, are adequate.

Response to Comment 8-2
Pursuant to the requirements set forth by CEQA Guidelines Section 15121, the Draft EIR assesses all potential project impacts that could occur to all environmental issue areas required for analysis under CEQA. As part of such assessment, the Draft EIR evaluates the proposed project’s consistency with applicable policies, regulations, and standards that are currently adopted at the federal, State, and local levels. Therefore, the Draft EIR’s analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with the currently adopted 2019 California Building Standards Code (CBSC) is adequate. The proposed project will be required to comply with the edition of the CBSC in effect at the time of building permit issuance. The 2022 CBSC builds upon, and is more stringent than, the 2019 CBSC. As such, through compliance with the 2022 CBSC, potential impacts related to energy consumption associated with the proposed project would be further reduced from the levels identified in the Draft EIR. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.

Response to Comment 8-3
As discussed in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR under Impact 4.1-3, which starts on page 4.1-15, the proposed project would be consistent with the proposed Planned Development standards, including standards related to setbacks, as well as applicable General Plan policies and Manteca Municipal Code development standards for the R-1 zoning district. As such, Impact

4.1-3 is concluded to result in a less-than-significant impact.

The comment does not specifically address the adequacy of the Draft EIR and, instead, addresses the design of the subdivision. The comment will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.

ATTACHMENT 17
Response to Comment 8-4
As detailed in Chapter 4.12, Transportation, of the Draft EIR on page 4.12-1, any project that did not initiate CEQA public review prior to July 1, 2020 must use vehicle miles traveled (VMT) rather than LOS as the metric to analyze transportation impacts. As such, the analysis in the Transportation chapter focuses on VMT. Thus, potential LOS effects that could occur from projectgenerated traffic, in conjunction with Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) operations, are not required to be discussed in the Draft EIR.

The Draft EIR includes analysis of potential impacts related to vehicle safety under Impact 4.12- 3, which starts on page 4.12-16 of the Draft EIR. As discussed therein, during construction equipment would be staged on-site and construction within the site would not be anticipated to result in substantial road closures or otherwise interfere with citywide vehicle circulation.

Adequate emergency access would be provided, and following development of the proposed project, geometric hazards would not exist on-site. Finally, with respect to potential safety impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed project related to the UPRR tracks parallel to Moffat Boulevard in the project vicinity, as discussed on page 4.12-17 of the Draft EIR, the existing UPRR track crossings located nearest to the project site are along Woodward Avenue and Austin Road.

Each crossing currently consists of crossing arms and lights to warn drivers of an approaching train. Neither are located along roadways that provide short driver sight distance of the crossing.

The proposed project would not result in changes to either crossing. Therefore, project-generated traffic would not result in safety impacts associated with the existing UPRR track crossings along Woodward Avenue and Austin Road. Based on the above, the Draft EIR concludes that the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards and a less-than-significant impact would occur. Therefore, potential impacts related to project construction and the UPRR are addressed in the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 8-5
The comment does not specifically address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The commenter’s opinions on the project design and recommendations for project revisions will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.

Response to Comment 8-6
The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. As discussed within the Introduction section of each technical chapter of the Draft EIR, the comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) related to the scope of the CEQA analysis and were carefully reviewed and considered by the City of Manteca and are reflected in the analysis of each technical chapter. Please see Responses to Comments 8-1, 8-3, and 8-5. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.

ATTACHMENT 17
Letter 9
9-1
ATTACHMENT 17
9-1 cont.

Letter 9 cont.

ATTACHMENT 17
9-1 cont.

Letter 9 cont.

ATTACHMENT 17
9-1 cont.

Letter 9 cont.

ATTACHMENT 17
LETTER 9: JASON AND THERESA HENDERSON
Response to Comment 9-1
Letter 9 is a duplicate of Letter 8. Please see Responses to Comments 8-1 through 8-6.

ATTACHMENT 17