Semantics could determine whether Manteca now has higher odds of being sued after altering its general plan in a fairly significant way just 8 months into a 20-year plan.

And it could be seen as a way out of the settlement agreement the city negotiated with Delicato Family Wines to derail what would likely be a divisive and contentious Nov. 5 ballot referendum.

That referendum, that will only be stopped if Delicato pulls the plug 88 days before the election, is on the overall general plan.

The war over words reached a crescendo Tuesday when the City Council approved a general plan amendment (GPA) forged initially in a desire to appease the winery.

It is the same general plan amendment that adds a second 50-acre community park site along Union Road just to the northeast of Del Webb.

 It also establishes a general corridor for the Roth Road extension. There is also language stating the need for Roth Road to have an interchange with Highway 99.

The primary word causing rumblings from the winery and development community is “immediately.”

Specifically, it is how the word is applied to a requirement that all development essentially going forward in the long shadow cast by the world’s fifth largest winery must have a plan in place to finance all required infrastructure.

That must be done before a single almond tree is replaced by a house or even a business park.

Delicato demanded — but didn’t get — language in the general plan amendment approved Tuesday by the City Council that would have required developers to essentially have all cash on hand before a project could break ground.

The cash would need to cover the cost of the complete build out of every square inch of arterial streets and such that projects are conditioned with before any physical site work starts.

Developers preferred language that didn’t basically require a binding financial plan for a whole project in place upfront instead of tying it to each phase.

And the City Council, for its part, was tired of Manteca experiencing large gaps in widening key streets that could take years, if not a decade or so more, to complete.

The council - even though they were clearly risking Delicato playing the referendum card - on Tuesday staked out a middle ground.

They unanimously required the 498 acres the general plan amendment applies to near the winery to have an acceptable financing plan attached at the time of development approval.

It also eschewed the “immediate” burden of having the cash on hand to do the work all at once.

The wording calls for a legally binding financing plan for infrastructure to be in place upfront to “the fullest extent allowed by law.”

It reflected the reality of project financing that is critical for anything to be built.

An “all-upfront cash approach” for everything a project is conditioned with even if the likelihood exists it would take years at best to build the last house or distribution center, would be virtually impossible to do.

“In reality, we need to do what is best for the city,” Councilman Charlie Halford said. “Hopefully, it is reasonable to all other parties involved.”

Whether the adopted general plan amendment for infrastructure financing prompt Delicato to use what some view as a nuclear option — green lighting  the  Nov. 5 referendum, is not the only potentially contentious issue ahead in north Manteca.

Issues the public raised Tuesday underscores that point.

*Does the agricultural wastewater that Delicato has fought to assure it could apply to hundreds of acres instead of using expensive above ground treatment have the potential to pollute drinking water sources that nearby wells tap into?

*Will the future Roth Road/Highway 99 interchange when a site is officially settled on sacrifice a dozen or so homes along the Frontage Road?

To contact Dennis Wyatt, email dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com