[0:01] All right, I call to order the regular city council

[0:03] meeting for August 18, 2026.

[0:07] City clerk roll call, please.

[0:09] Council members, Breitenbucher.

[0:10] Here.

[0:11] Halford.

[0:11] Here.

[0:12] Morowit.

[0:12] Here.

[0:13] Vice Mayor Lackey.

[0:14] Here.

[0:16] We'll move on to the next item, which is invocation and flag

[0:19] salute.

[0:19] And we are here with Mrs. Marcia Munroe from the Baha'i Faith.

[0:33] [INAUDIBLE]

[0:36] --the republic, one nation, under God, indivisible--

[0:42] [INAUDIBLE]

[2:31] Thank you.

[2:35] We will go ahead and move on to agenda review

[2:37] and supplemental reports.

[2:39] Mayor and council, we have the following supplemental reports.

[2:41] Communication received from the public for item C.15 Petition

[2:46] and communications received from the public for item D.2.

[2:49] Communications received from the public for item D.5.

[2:54] And an updated PowerPoint for item D.4 from city staff.

[2:58] As for agenda review, all city council meetings

[3:00] shall be conducted in orderly and efficient manner

[3:02] without willful disruption by any person

[3:04] or persons in attendance.

[3:06] The city has also adopted a decorum policy

[3:09] that governs public meetings, which

[3:11] states that all city council meeting attendees shall refrain

[3:13] from behavior that disrupts or that threatens to disrupt

[3:17] city government operations.

[3:19] This includes, but is not limited to harassment

[3:21] and/or intimidation of city staff, elected officials,

[3:24] or members of the public.

[3:26] Please be advised that should a disruption

[3:28] occur, a member of the city council

[3:30] shall issue the person or persons an initial warning.

[3:34] Should a second disruption occur by the same person or persons,

[3:36] a member of the city council shall ask the person or persons

[3:39] to leave the meeting.

[3:40] And Mayor and council [INAUDIBLE].

[3:42] All right, thank you, city clerk.

[3:45] Go ahead and move on to the next section, which is disclosure

[3:48] of ex parte communication.

[3:50] Anything from the council?

[3:52] OK, seeing none, we'll go ahead and head over down here

[3:55] for presentations.

[3:57] If the council can join me.

[3:59] First one.

[4:01] A.1, proclamation proclaiming August 2 through 8th,

[4:05] 2026 as national health center week.

[4:08] We have the director of government and community affairs

[4:11] at Golden Valley Health centers to accept tonight.

[4:50] Not yet.

[4:51] Not yet.

[4:56] Whereas community health centers have

[4:58] been providing high quality, affordable, comprehensive,

[5:01] primary and preventive health care for more than 60 years,

[5:06] positively impacting America's health care system.

[5:08] And--

[5:11] Whereas community health centers now serve more than 52 million

[5:14] Americans at over 17,000 service delivery sites across

[5:19] the country, providing care to individuals and families from

[5:22] all walks of life, regardless of background, income,

[5:25] insurance status or ability to pay.

[5:28] And--

[5:30] Whereas Golden Valley Health centers has served as a trusted

[5:33] provider in California's Central Valley since 1972, today,

[5:37] it operates 50 locations across Merced, San Joaquin,

[5:41] Stanislaus counties in delivering more than 786,000

[5:45] visits to over 161,000 patients annually.

[5:49] And--

[5:51] Whereas during national health center week,

[5:54] we celebrate the legacy of America's community health

[5:57] centers and their vital role in shaping the past, present,

[6:00] and future of America's health care system.

[6:02] And--

[6:05] Now, therefore, I Gary Singh, mayor of the city of Manteca,

[6:08] on behalf of the city council, do hereby recognize August 2

[6:12] through the 8th, 2026 as National Health Center Week.

[6:16] I encourage all residents to learn

[6:18] about the support and essential services

[6:21] provided by Golden Valley Health centers

[6:23] and other community health centers in our community.

[6:34] Would you like to step?

[6:35] Yes.

[6:38] Hi.

[6:39] My name is [INAUDIBLE].

[6:40] I'm the center manager for Golden Valley Health Care Center

[6:43] here in Manteca.

[6:44] We do have two locations, one for family medicine

[6:47] at 302 Northgate Drive, which offers pediatrician and family

[6:51] med services.

[6:53] And then we have an urgent care services

[6:56] located at 250 Northgate Drive, where

[6:58] we offer urgent care services.

[7:00] We just extended our hours until 9:00 PM.

[7:03] And we also offer same day sports

[7:06] physicals for the kids who are playing sports this year.

[7:09] So you guys can come and stop on by if you have children

[7:11] that need to have those done.

[7:13] Also, I wanted to mention that we

[7:15] did expand our PACE program for our elderly patients

[7:18] to the San Joaquin County area.

[7:20] So Manteca patients are also covered by PACE.

[7:25] [APPLAUSE]

[8:01] That will bring us to item A.2, certificates of recognition

[8:04] presented to American Legion Auxiliary Girls State Conference

[8:08] participants.

[8:09] Tonight, we have American Legion Auxiliary delegates to accept.

[8:16] All right, so first one is Adriana Rattaro.

[8:26] Udyati Tewai.

[8:29] Come on up.

[8:42] [SIDE CONVERSATION]

[8:54] Do you want to come up too, Chris?

[9:06] All right, this is certificate of recognition

[9:08] presented to Udyati Tewai.

[9:10] The Manteca City Council proudly recognizes you

[9:13] for being selected as Sierra High School's representative

[9:17] to attend the American Legion Auxiliary Girls State

[9:21] Conference.

[9:22] This prestigious selection reflects your leadership,

[9:25] character, and dedication to civic involvement.

[9:28] Congratulations on this outstanding achievement

[9:32] and for representing your school and community with pride.

[9:36] Go, Timberwolves.

[9:37] [APPLAUSE]

[9:48] Did you want to say anything?

[9:50] I knew you would.

[9:51] [LAUGHTER]

[9:52] There's nobody watching.

[9:55] And this is for Adriana.

[9:58] Thank you so much.

[10:01] Do you want to talk a little bit about the program

[10:04] and what it is?

[10:08] So the American Legion Auxiliary has

[10:10] been sending girls to Girls State for the last 83 years,

[10:15] I believe.

[10:16] And we have been able, through in Manteca,

[10:19] to send a girl from all five of our high schools.

[10:23] We do this total by charitable donations, which

[10:28] we work all year to raise.

[10:30] So it's a week long conference, where they

[10:32] learn about state government.

[10:34] They form cities, and city councils, and so on.

[10:43] [APPLAUSE]

[10:50] Wait, group picture, so one more.

[11:05] [APPLAUSE]

[11:20] All right, mayor and council, that

[11:21] will bring us to item A3, which is receive

[11:24] a brief presentation regarding the Community Budget Engagement

[11:28] Initiative, including a public survey and upcoming workshops.

[11:32] Tonight we have budget manager, Lana McBroom,

[11:34] to present that brief presentation for you.

[11:42] Good evening, mayor and council.

[11:44] Tonight, I'm introducing finance's new Community Budget

[11:47] Engagement Initiative, which includes an online survey

[11:50] and follow up workshops.

[11:55] We're gathering information for input before fiscal year

[11:59] '28 recommendations are developed

[12:01] so community priorities can be considered earlier

[12:03] in the process.

[12:05] Responses will help us design workshops

[12:08] around the budget topics and questions

[12:10] that residents want to explore.

[12:12] This earlier, broader engagement supports transparency

[12:16] and expands our public engagement practices.

[12:21] The survey asks which city services and priorities

[12:24] matter most.

[12:27] Sorry.

[12:28] Where future resources could make the greatest difference

[12:31] and how residents envision Manteca's future.

[12:35] The survey is open through August 31.

[12:38] You can use the online link found

[12:40] on the city of Manteca budget's page

[12:42] or you can scan the QR code that is on the screen.

[12:47] After the survey closes, staff will summarize the key themes

[12:51] and help shape September workshops

[12:53] and guide future council discussions.

[12:56] Results are one source of community input, not

[12:58] a final budget decision.

[13:00] Final priorities and appropriations

[13:02] remain subject to available resources, legal requirements

[13:06] and, of course, council action.

[13:08] We have some flyers on the back table.

[13:11] And you can also scan the QR code that is on the screen.

[13:14] We want to thank everyone for their participation.

[13:17] And we look forward to continuing the conversation

[13:19] at upcoming workshops.

[13:21] Thank you.

[13:23] Thank you.

[13:24] [APPLAUSE]

[13:28] Thank you all for doing this, and also

[13:31] getting this going for asking for community output.

[13:37] All right, with that, we'll go ahead

[13:39] and move on to section B, which is public comments.

[13:42] Mayor, at this time, you may call for public comment

[13:44] for items not listed on the agenda.

[13:47] Via Zoom, webinar, or in person, public comment

[13:49] is limited to three minutes per person.

[13:54] All right, let's start with Zoom.

[14:10] I have attendees, but no hands raised.

[14:13] OK, nobody on Zoom.

[14:14] Do you have any comment cards?

[14:15] The first comment card I have is Brad.

[14:20] Brad, come on up, sir.

[14:47] How's that?

[14:47] Good?

[14:49] Go ahead and start.

[14:50] Howdy, man.

[14:52] Hello.

[14:52] So what do we do here?

[14:56] Yeah, you have time and anything you would like to tell us.

[15:00] I got to push a button?

[15:01] Nope, just start talking.

[15:02] OK, terrific.

[15:05] Yeah, I just here-- basically I'll

[15:07] get to the nut in the shell.

[15:09] I'm here to complain about the systemic pattern

[15:12] of non-compliance with ADA violations, especially Title II.

[15:18] And I think it would be under Chapter 28, Section 35 1.51,

[15:26] as well as Chapter 24, part 2 chapter--

[15:34] actually, part 2 and section 11b 705 of the California Building

[15:42] Code, as well as California Civil Code 54.

[15:47] And it's been a systemic problem with this city.

[15:50] I've been here since 1973.

[15:52] And I watched the ADA grow up around me.

[15:55] And the noncompliance and the systemic pattern of--

[15:59] I don't know if you want to call it obfuscating, or deflecting,

[16:03] or just noncompliance as you go down

[16:06] the road doing a certain repavement projects and things.

[16:12] But there is an ongoing pattern.

[16:14] I've got a list of about 35 right here that I've done.

[16:18] And I could do this seven days a week, 24/7,

[16:21] which I probably will be doing.

[16:23] And I'll be filing formal grievances.

[16:25] I just wanted this on the public record

[16:27] because there could be a injunctive order issued,

[16:30] possibly down the road.

[16:32] So I highly recommend the city get very active

[16:37] and show proactive action, some issues taken

[16:43] care of immediately and specifically the golf

[16:46] course, who violate my civil rights,

[16:48] as well as the folks behind me back here.

[16:51] If you could see them in kind of shortened wheelchairs.

[16:54] But anyways, it's not only me, it's

[16:56] the disabled community wide at large.

[16:59] Not me, it's the blind, and disabled, the hearing,

[17:02] whatever it may be.

[17:03] But absolutely, they need to so show some actionable results

[17:09] on what they're going to do about the problems

[17:11] that I've been bringing to the city.

[17:13] And there's more to come.

[17:14] A lot of it.

[17:17] So

[17:17] I got about 48 seconds.

[17:19] I would like to mention that over here, for instance,

[17:22] on 2010, the ADA Title II Standard of Building

[17:28] was implemented in March 15 of 2012.

[17:33] And Northgate Commons is in direct violation

[17:36] with the workout equipment because it's not mirroring

[17:40] exactly like it is.

[17:41] I go 4 miles each direction to work out at Woodward Park daily.

[17:45] And I would recommend anybody within city council chambers

[17:47] that's interested in my issue, I can be contacted and found

[17:51] very easily through the City of Manteca or any other spot.

[17:54] And that's about all I need to say.

[17:56] And if anybody's got any questions, feel free to answer.

[17:59] But there's time constraints.

[18:00] So I know you guys got budget constraints too,

[18:03] but that's not relevant according to ADA.

[18:06] Thank you.

[18:07] Thank you, sir.

[18:11] The next public comment card I have is Darryl.

[18:22] I don't know if I can do this very fast either.

[18:24] I totally support what he's referring to.

[18:29] Anyway, I got some work for the City of Manteca

[18:32] on behalf of Union Pacific Railroad and particularly

[18:36] their police department.

[18:37] And I've talked to officers of our department.

[18:41] And we'd very much like you guys to trim the oleander bushes

[18:46] over there off of Manteca Avenue and Yosemite Avenue

[18:52] over there at the railroad crossings, which

[18:55] is city property.

[18:56] And the thing I want to bring out

[18:59] is they have to be able to see down at the Center Street

[19:04] crossing when they do their patrols.

[19:07] And I wanted to mention, too, that there's

[19:09] a sidewalk that's broken that the city is not fixed.

[19:13] It's about 25 feet to the crossing.

[19:17] I have a real problem on my scooter

[19:20] trying to dump over that way.

[19:21] But sometimes I have to get over for people coming my direction

[19:27] and trying to watch the traffic, the trains,

[19:30] and get over for everybody.

[19:32] And it should have been fixed a long time ago.

[19:35] But anyway, I'm sure that we'll get the proper cooperation

[19:42] on that, if you guys would.

[19:44] The next is noise ordinance regarding motels and hotels.

[19:51] And we've had a problem with one of the guys

[19:56] out there at the inn motel, actually, my neighbor in room

[20:01] 11.

[20:02] Anyway, I looked up the city ordinance

[20:05] because when I first moved there,

[20:06] we had a situation that the rules of the place

[20:12] was on the city-- on the ordinance on noise.

[20:16] You couldn't run your TV from 10 o'clock at night till, I think,

[20:22] it's 8 o'clock in the morning, currently.

[20:26] Anyway, that was put in.

[20:28] It wasn't a rule that the park outfit had

[20:35] or the motel management had.

[20:37] This is actually Manteca city law.

[20:40] I don't have the exact update on what the current thing is.

[20:49] What I'd like for you guys to do is pass an ordinance with that

[20:55] that if somebody is going to use either a television

[20:57] set or a radio, that they either have to use after 10 o'clock,

[21:02] that they have to use either a plug-in headphones.

[21:06] And that they have these other wireless ones now on Bluetooth,

[21:13] if you have the TV that will operate off that.

[21:16] Most of the new ones do.

[21:18] That way, if a person does run their TV all night

[21:22] or whatever the other person don't hear it.

[21:28] Reason I mentioned that was that that place was built in 1929.

[21:33] Sir.

[21:34] [INAUDIBLE] no soundproofing?

[21:37] Yes, sir.

[21:38] Sir, you're three minutes,

[21:40] And I had some other safety--

[21:43] Thanks.

[21:49] The next public comment card I have is Mike.

[22:06] Good evening.

[22:07] My name is Mike DeAnda.

[22:08] I'm the senior business rep for Operating Engineers Local 3.

[22:12] As you know, labor contract negotiations have stalled.

[22:17] This year's classification comp study

[22:18] identified many classifications well below market

[22:22] due to the subpar wages given in the past

[22:24] and takeaways the city asked the employees

[22:26] to sacrifice due to their poor fiscal position.

[22:31] In comparison to other similar cities,

[22:33] the city needs to bring their wages up to market

[22:35] and structure these increases so they don't fall behind

[22:37] during the duration of this contract.

[22:40] Without a fare increase, many of our members

[22:42] salaries will fall behind the market

[22:43] this year because the proposed three-year increase structure

[22:46] does not account for wage increases already being

[22:50] paid by the comparable agencies and the current inflation

[22:53] numbers.

[22:55] Again, the current offer has a structure

[22:57] that will ensure the workers, their salaries

[22:59] won't fall behind, as they have in the last 10 years,

[23:03] due to the COLAs that were well below the CPI numbers.

[23:07] Currently, the city has proposed increases starting at 2%.

[23:11] Again, well below the inflation rate.

[23:14] Meanwhile, management was given raises up to or above 20%.

[23:20] We want the same method of the wage increases management

[23:23] recently received-- increase the low end of the wages being

[23:27] offered to at least match the current inflation rate.

[23:32] No percentage cap in each year and front load

[23:35] the wages in year one.

[23:37] If no changes are made, our members and your employees

[23:41] will be performing their same essential duties with less

[23:43] spending power than before.

[23:45] This will or may force the skilled workforce out

[23:48] of their jobs, which will reflect negatively on the city.

[23:53] Back in 2008 and the years to follow,

[23:56] the current negotiations--

[24:00] back in 2008 and the years to follow

[24:04] showed significant losses and wages to the employees.

[24:07] And the message I want to get today

[24:11] is the current negotiations is not about just negotiations.

[24:14] It's about the past increases that were below market

[24:17] and lacked increases with no raises.

[24:20] During the 2008 recession, after year one

[24:23] of the contract, which was 4% a year,

[24:26] the employees were asked by the city

[24:28] to sacrifice three years of wages totaling 12%.

[24:32] This also included furloughs.

[24:34] The city stated they would make up these cuts,

[24:37] but they were forgotten and never happened.

[24:39] So this is the history we want you to understand what

[24:41] this current negotiations is.

[24:45] The employees request to catch up and stay caught up

[24:48] during the duration of this proposed contract.

[24:51] You have the opportunity today to make sure these workers who

[24:55] have been pushed aside for too long,

[24:57] receive the respect they deserve.

[24:59] These workers have done their part

[25:01] to create a stronger future for the city and its citizens.

[25:05] And we now respectfully request you do the same.

[25:08] [APPLAUSE]

[25:19] The next public comment card we have is Troy.

[25:33] Good evening, Mr. Mayor, council members.

[25:36] My name is Troy Stine.

[25:37] I am the CEO and founder of Stop Human Trafficking,

[25:40] an organization that serves right here in Northern

[25:42] California and tries to eradicate

[25:44] human trafficking of every kind, including labor trafficking, sex

[25:48] trafficking, organ trafficking, and benefits trafficking.

[25:52] One in six.

[25:54] One in six teenagers, stats will tell us,

[25:58] are currently being exploited online, one in six.

[26:02] The trauma and the pain, the relationship

[26:04] and family problems that awaits them if it is not interrupted

[26:09] is vast.

[26:10] Not to mention a lot of tears.

[26:13] I've served for many years in various capacities

[26:16] in the fight against human trafficking,

[26:18] a lot of which was focused on the restoration

[26:21] of the victimized.

[26:23] I heard the stories.

[26:24] I saw the agony and the anguish they

[26:27] experienced and certainly the tears.

[26:31] In May of 2025, just a little over a year ago,

[26:34] I launched stop human trafficking because we must

[26:37] alert our citizens and train our professionals to recognize

[26:41] the flags, the signs, and the tactics of human trafficking

[26:45] and exploitation before another young person is exploited

[26:49] or, God forbid, even trafficked.

[26:51] Recently, right here in Manteca, I was able to speak--

[26:54] we've currently done over 50 town hall meetings

[26:57] and presentations in just the last year,

[26:59] with distributing over 10,000 resources and worked with a lot

[27:02] of various community agencies.

[27:05] I was at the Thomas Toy Center.

[27:06] There was just about 31 kids.

[27:07] There wasn't a lot of kids there.

[27:09] But at the end of that presentation called

[27:11] Teen Empowerment Online Safety Strategies,

[27:14] it was discovered that four young people were

[27:16] being exploited online and they didn't even

[27:18] know that was happening to them until they were taught about it.

[27:24] And the tears.

[27:26] We want freedom for all young people, which is why I'm here,

[27:30] today, promoting an awareness event that we are hosting right

[27:34] here in Manteca on Saturday, November the 7th.

[27:37] It will be held at the Library Park, starting there.

[27:41] It's called the Freedom Walk.

[27:42] And I am asking for your support and for you

[27:45] to help me get the word out for this powerful community

[27:48] awareness event, where together we will walk one mile.

[27:52] And we will share signs, homemade, and so forth,

[27:55] not in protest but in awareness, that human trafficking is taking

[27:59] place right here at home.

[28:01] We must, get the word out and we must support our community.

[28:06] While we serve all 48 counties in Northern California,

[28:09] I live here.

[28:09] I've lived here for about 18 years.

[28:11] My four daughters live here with their husbands and my eight

[28:14] grandchildren.

[28:15] And it is imperative to me that we stop human trafficking.

[28:19] I'm going to present to you, in just a moment, a folder that

[28:22] has some information, as well as a flyer in it.

[28:24] And as I present this to you, I'm

[28:26] also going to give you a little jar.

[28:28] I've been a Christian for a long time.

[28:29] The Bible says that God stores our tears in a jar,

[28:31] and I would like that jar for these young people to be empty.

[28:34] Thank you.

[28:35] [APPLAUSE]

[28:48] Thank you sir.

[28:48] And yes, we definitely will help promote the event.

[28:53] And we would love for human trafficking

[28:56] to stop, especially in our city.

[29:00] The next public comment card I have is Jennifer.

[29:11] Hello, I'm back.

[29:13] Good afternoon or evening, I should say.

[29:15] My name is Jennifer Greenwood.

[29:17] I am a resident of Manteca, as well as the city employee

[29:20] of more than 21 years.

[29:22] And I'm currently the president of the Manteca Technical Support

[29:25] Services Association or as we know, MTSSA.

[29:29] I'm here tonight as a spokesperson for our membership,

[29:32] if I can get them to please stand.

[29:35] Not on behalf of myself.

[29:37] I am one vote, just like every other member.

[29:40] MTSSA represents a wide range of positions in every department

[29:44] in the city.

[29:45] Our jobs may be different, but our members

[29:47] are united in their concerns about wages, recruitment,

[29:51] retention, and the future of our workforce.

[29:54] Before negotiations began, we asked our membership

[29:56] to submit their priorities.

[29:58] They were more vocal than they have been in previous years.

[30:01] And from that process came 19 proposals.

[30:04] And getting our membership heard was a priority.

[30:08] MTSSA voted down our city's proposal in May.

[30:12] The primary concern was that the proposed 2% to 7% increases

[30:16] do not provide a COLA equally across the board.

[30:20] Some positions would receive a 2% per year.

[30:23] Most positions would be brought to median market over three

[30:26] years but without a COLA.

[30:28] And seven positions currently representing four employees

[30:31] would not reach full median.

[30:33] That means three years from now, we

[30:34] could be right back where we started,

[30:36] falling behind the market without a true cost of living

[30:39] adjustment.

[30:40] Inflation is currently approximately 3.8%,

[30:44] while many of the cities we compete with for employees

[30:47] are providing 3% to 4% COLAs.

[30:49] The Gallagher report itself recognized that its market

[30:54] data would no longer accurately reflect those changes as of July

[30:57] 1, 2026.

[31:00] I also want to clarify our total compensation.

[31:03] MTSSA does not receive certification pay

[31:07] or an annual stipend.

[31:08] And we did not get a reduction in the percentage

[31:10] of what we contribute to our PERS retirement.

[31:13] We do receive wellness hours, which

[31:15] were provided in lieu of additional personal income

[31:18] in previous contract.

[31:20] We are grateful to be in the upper echelon

[31:22] when it comes to benefits, but those benefits

[31:24] were factored in into the compensation

[31:27] offer from the city.

[31:28] It was recently reported that five of the seven bargaining

[31:31] units have signed.

[31:32] The other side of the story is that two

[31:34] of the units that have not signed

[31:37] represent more than 200 employees or over 40%

[31:40] of the city's full time workforce.

[31:43] And I think it needs--

[31:44] we need to be honest about the larger picture.

[31:46] And I'm quoting you cannot substantially increase

[31:50] compensation at the top, build out administration,

[31:53] and repeatedly ask residents to pay more,

[31:56] then suddenly preach fiscal restraint when the employees

[31:59] keeping the city running asked to be valued.

[32:02] MTSSA is not asking for proverbial key

[32:06] to the municipal cash box.

[32:09] Our current counter proposal is simple-- a 1% COLA each year,

[32:13] totaling 3% over the next three years.

[32:16] Equaling for our membership and bringing those seven positions

[32:19] to full meeting, which is, frankly, I

[32:21] do not believe 1% is enough and, we believe, a fair compromise.

[32:25] I'll finish up there.

[32:26] I think we got the point.

[32:27] Thank you.

[32:28] [APPLAUSE]

[32:39] The last card I have is [INAUDIBLE].

[32:49] Good evening, council.

[32:51] Thank you for the opportunity.

[32:55] I keep hearing that schools are not

[32:58] the responsibility of the city.

[33:00] It's only the MUSD.

[33:03] But I want to clarify that a misinformation is

[33:06] being spread so much that--

[33:10] let's discuss about the facts.

[33:13] The school district builds school,

[33:15] but the sites to be provided, adequate sites

[33:19] lies with the responsibility of the city.

[33:22] We treat Manteca general plan as a bible.

[33:26] And there are quite a few goals which

[33:31] says to provide adequate site for the neighborhood growth.

[33:37] And in two decades this has been not accomplished,

[33:42] though it's there in the bible.

[33:44] So let me read a couple of them which are there

[33:49] in the Manteca general plan.

[34:01] Yeah, so the goal is community design 4.7.

[34:08] Each neighborhood shall include a distinct center

[34:12] such as an elementary school.

[34:14] I repeat, such as an elementary school, neighborhood parks,

[34:18] and/or mixed use commercial area within a reasonable walking

[34:23] distance of the homes, approximately one half mile.

[34:28] So why is this not a walk to school?

[34:32] I hear from the council, there is no walk to school at all.

[34:38] But the Manteca general plan, I don't know when it was written.

[34:43] And there are a couple of other goals also.

[34:46] The goal land use 7, provide adequate land for development

[34:50] of public and quasi public uses, including parks, schools,

[34:56] and community facilities to support existing

[35:00] and new development and the community needs.

[35:03] These goals are never followed for the two decades.

[35:07] And residents are thrown under the bus.

[35:15] Kids future.

[35:16] They are commuting three to four hours for a commute to school

[35:21] and they are being misinformed that city doesn't

[35:25] have any responsibility.

[35:27] Please read through the Manteca general plan

[35:32] and implement infrastructure first.

[35:34] Infrastructure is not only about roads,

[35:37] it about schools, libraries, fire station, police station,

[35:44] and everything that is needed for the growth and the existing

[35:51] facility.

[35:51] Thank you.

[35:55] [APPLAUSE]

[35:58] That's all the cards that have been

[36:00] submitted for public comment.

[36:01] OK, anybody else would like to speak on item

[36:06] that's not on the agenda?

[36:10] Come on up, sir.

[36:21] Make this short.

[36:29] My name is Frank Granelas.

[36:30] I'm a resident of District 1.

[36:32] First and foremost, I'd like to give these individuals here,

[36:36] men and women, my empathy.

[36:38] I know what it is to grind every single day to work for a city

[36:42] and not be appreciated.

[36:43] Sometimes we even get hurt.

[36:45] Thank you for your service.

[36:46] From the police, the fire department, the people that

[36:50] clean the streets, the garbage men, every single one of you.

[36:53] Never compromise your value.

[36:56] You bring substance and value to this community.

[36:59] You are the backbone of this community.

[37:02] [APPLAUSE]

[37:09] Second of all, I'd like to just speak about the Manteca Arch.

[37:16] Stay with me because I'm going to go somewhere with this.

[37:18] This arch that we have on Main Street

[37:21] was approved by the city of Manteca, the city

[37:24] manager, and the city council.

[37:27] It started in September of 2025.

[37:30] Somebody might ask, well, who paid for that.

[37:34] Over $300,000 came from the ARPA,

[37:38] which is the American Rescue Plan Act,

[37:41] which is government funded, which means it was taxpayer

[37:45] funded.

[37:47] Another $300,000 came from the City General Fund,

[37:58] which is also taxpayers' money.

[38:00] So we paid for that arch.

[38:03] In closing, if we can afford to put an arch that cost over

[38:08] $600,000, then we can afford to pay these individuals what they

[38:12] are worth.

[38:14] [APPLAUSE]

[38:23] In closing, I am not complaining, just

[38:26] simply making an observation.

[38:28] Thank you for your service.

[38:29] I appreciate every single one of you.

[38:31] Thank you.

[38:33] [APPLAUSE]

[38:41] Anyone else like to speak on an item that is not on the agenda?

[38:53] OK, seeing none, we'll go ahead and move on to the next section.

[39:04] All right, with that, we'll go ahead and go to consent items.

[39:11] We'll wait for room to clear.

[40:08] All right, we're going to consent items.

[40:12] Charlie Gina.

[40:16] C.15.

[40:20] OK, David and Mike.

[40:24] C.3, C.12, C.15.

[40:28] C.3, C.12, and C.15.

[40:37] All right, and I had C.15 also.

[40:40] With that, I can entertain a motion for all items not pulled.

[40:45] So moved.

[40:46] I have a motion from council member Breitenbucher.

[40:48] A second from Council Member Halford.

[40:50] All in favor, say aye.

[40:52] Aye.

[40:53] Opposed?

[40:53] Motion carries 5-0.

[40:55] Mayor, can I get clarification that you also pulled C.15?

[40:59] Yeah.

[40:59] That's the only one you pulled?

[41:00] Yeah.

[41:01] C.3.

[41:06] All right, C.3 adopt a resolution accepting--

[41:10] Mayor, we also had a member of the public pull C.6

[41:15] Oh, OK.

[41:17] Go ahead and add that on there.

[41:20] C.6.

[41:21] Do we need to redo the motion or are you good?

[41:27] As long as the maker of the motion

[41:29] is comfortable with C.6 being pulled as well, no need.

[41:33] OK with that, Dave?

[41:35] C.6?

[41:38] You made the motion.

[41:39] Yeah.

[41:40] And the second is good?

[41:41] All right.

[41:43] C.6 goes ahead.

[41:45] C3, adopt a resolution accepting the donation

[41:49] of one refurbished 8 by 40 insulated dog kennel container

[41:54] from Vault, Co.

[41:55] for use of the city's unsheltered emergency center

[41:58] and authorize the city manager or designee

[42:00] to execute agreement in all necessary documents

[42:02] to accept the donation.

[42:04] Tonight, we have Homeless and Housing Services Manager,

[42:07] Vielka Guarascio.

[42:12] Hi, there.

[42:13] Good evening, Mayor, Council.

[42:15] Vielka Guarascio, Homeless and Housing Services Manager.

[42:18] I'm here to answer any questions you may have.

[42:21] But before, I want to just take this time

[42:23] and thank Vault, Co. as well as Jill for the generous donation

[42:28] of the dog kennel for our unsheltered emergency

[42:31] center for unhoused, as well as a future program

[42:34] and collaboration that we are doing with hold for program

[42:38] for future individuals who are seeking sober living environment

[42:42] programs or other type of programming

[42:45] and their barrier is their pet.

[42:48] And they are unable to enter these programs because

[42:51] of finding either a family member or someone

[42:56] that they can trust.

[42:58] So with this dog kennel that will be going to 555,

[43:01] it will allow for these individuals

[43:04] to allow their pets to go to 555.

[43:07] And our His Way Refuge Center staff

[43:09] will be the ones overseeing and taking care of their pets.

[43:12] So I definitely want to take this moment

[43:14] and thank Doug and Jill for the great generosity and donation

[43:17] for these dog containers.

[43:20] I don't know if you want to invite them up

[43:22] if they'd like to say anything.

[43:23] Absolutely.

[43:24] Come on up.

[43:25] Doug.

[43:25] And Vielka, why don't you share, too--

[43:28] we have a lot of people here tonight.

[43:29] We've already had a success with it.

[43:32] And I think it's worth sharing because I think

[43:35] it's going to be a way bigger value than we're anticipating

[43:40] it to be.

[43:41] Absolutely.

[43:42] Well, in the meantime, if I can please

[43:43] have Jill and Doug come up and join me.

[43:48] You're not going to get away, Doug.

[43:50] [LAUGHTER]

[43:55] So go ahead and I will jump in.

[43:56] So one of the things that caught us

[43:58] on this whole situation of donating a kennel--

[44:01] I take homeless veterans off the street

[44:02] at our business in Stockton.

[44:04] And I happen to have a guy who came to me.

[44:06] And I kept wondering why he was missing his appointments.

[44:09] And I didn't understand that he didn't have anybody

[44:12] to set his dog with.

[44:13] And the places where they're putting him

[44:14] were these cages with plastic over them.

[44:17] And it was a horrible situation.

[44:18] So I own moving and portable storage.

[44:21] So we took an old insulated 40 foot container

[44:23] and turned it into a pretty exciting dog kennel

[44:26] that the homeless people are going

[44:27] to be able to use and put their dog in and go

[44:29] to their appointment, get them back.

[44:31] Get them spayed and neutered, is the goal by Jill.

[44:35] And that's the deal and helping out with the homeless program.

[44:38] So we also build some of our containers.

[44:42] And we make them into housing.

[44:43] So you guys have taken them in nicely and it was fun to donate.

[44:47] So we appreciate it.

[44:49] We got more coming.

[44:51] [APPLAUSE]

[44:56] I would just like to express my gratitude

[44:58] to this council and the city manager

[45:01] for accepting this container.

[45:06] It's going to be life changing for people and pets.

[45:10] And I truly appreciate it.

[45:12] Thank you.

[45:13] Thank you.

[45:15] Thank you.

[45:16] [APPLAUSE]

[45:19] Sorry, Mayor.

[45:20] Let me go ahead and just interject one second there.

[45:22] So I do want to take this time-- and I

[45:24] know city manager may announce this later,

[45:26] but we will be having a ribbon cutting for the dog containers,

[45:30] as well as a transitional housing containers that'll

[45:32] be going on at 555.

[45:34] So that is on Wednesday, September 9 at 10:00 AM.

[45:37] So I definitely would like to invite the public

[45:40] to see this ribbon cutting.

[45:42] And just to elaborate, it's just a great program

[45:44] that we'll be able to initial initiate

[45:49] at 555, because we've come that with our outreach.

[45:52] And the different individuals that we are coming across,

[45:55] the barrier is their pets.

[45:57] They take care of their pets better than themselves.

[46:00] So we're just creating this program

[46:02] to allow them to seek the services and the help

[46:04] that they need.

[46:05] Thank you.

[46:06] Thank you, Vielka.

[46:08] All right, now, let me ask council member Morowit,

[46:12] who pulled the item, if you actually

[46:14] have questions or comments.

[46:16] Well, a lot of questions have been answered.

[46:17] I had the pleasure of meeting Doug a few weeks ago when

[46:19] I went out with city staff.

[46:21] And we toured his business in Stockton.

[46:24] And he had a lot of different models

[46:27] that he used for homeless veterans, for folks.

[46:31] And these are just containers that are just very simple.

[46:34] But they were made into livable conditions

[46:36] with lighting, air conditioners for people.

[46:39] And then he showed us this very, very, very nice kennel.

[46:44] And it was designed with air conditioning as well.

[46:48] The floors are slatted so you could wash them down easily.

[46:51] And then they had ropes that opened up

[46:53] to the back of the vault of the building

[46:58] and went outside to another enclosed area, where

[47:01] you would feed the animals.

[47:03] And then they would go back and forth, so that way,

[47:06] it's basically very similar to what

[47:08] we have in our own animal control shelter

[47:11] that we have in Manteca.

[47:13] And when we were talking, he was very generous with his time.

[47:18] And we had other people there.

[47:19] And we were walking.

[47:21] And he showed a lot of interest in this.

[47:23] And I think before we even got back to town,

[47:26] I believe, he called our city manager-- we were in the car,

[47:28] and pretty much said, you know what?

[47:30] I'm going to donate one of these to the city.

[47:32] I think it's really important.

[47:34] And I can tell you how important it

[47:36] is because myself and Council Member Breitenbucher

[47:39] are on the 2 by 2 homeless and housing committee.

[47:42] And we go out on outreach every other week.

[47:45] And we also go out once a month usually for the operations

[47:49] quality of life operations.

[47:51] And I can tell you that the first time we did this,

[47:53] probably about three years ago, 2 and 1/2 years ago,

[47:56] we encountered a homeless individual that unfortunately

[47:59] got arrested and she had a dog.

[48:02] And it was horrible to take that dog away from her

[48:06] and separate her because she was so upset.

[48:09] She wasn't upset about going to jail.

[48:10] She understood that she had a warrant.

[48:12] She was fine with that, but she wanted

[48:14] to know what's going to happen to my dog.

[48:17] And a lot of people-- so that initiated another program where

[48:21] we have animal control follow along during those enforcements

[48:25] to take the dogs away, hold them until these individuals

[48:29] can be released from jail.

[48:32] But then the other encounter is when

[48:34] we're out on these outreaches, that when people want to go

[48:39] and we tell them, hey, why don't you go to the shelter?

[48:41] Why don't you go spend the day?

[48:42] Why don't you do this, spend the night?

[48:44] Their first idea is, I don't want

[48:45] to leave my dog outside in a crappy cage,

[48:48] out in the elements.

[48:50] Well, I can tell you, that's not the situation now.

[48:54] I mean, this is no different than any other home.

[48:57] It is like some temperature controlled.

[49:00] It's safe for them.

[49:01] They're not intermingled in little cages

[49:03] on top of other cages.

[49:05] They're separated.

[49:06] So when we went on that tour and this gentleman,

[49:10] Doug, offered that, I think he knows what he's done.

[49:13] But I can tell you that he's done a lot more than people

[49:17] could imagine because, like I say,

[49:19] you can't convince someone to go to a shelter for themselves

[49:23] if they don't think their animals are well taken care of.

[49:25] So this was a big deal to get this vault delivered.

[49:30] So I just want to say that's why I pulled it.

[49:33] Everybody looked at me.

[49:34] Why did you pull it?

[49:35] Because it deserves more than just that, yes,

[49:37] thanks for giving it to us.

[49:39] It really does.

[49:40] It really means a lot to our homeless.

[49:41] And it's going to help encourage homeless folks

[49:44] to go into the shelter with their animals,

[49:46] knowing that they're not left outside in that crappy cage,

[49:49] as I was told by this woman.

[49:51] So thank you, I appreciate that.

[49:54] Thank you, Council Member Morowit.

[49:57] Yes.

[49:58] So I wasn't able to go to the vault, but I did go by 555

[50:03] and take a tour of the unit.

[50:05] I had my granddaughter with me.

[50:06] And we went in there and it was nice and cool.

[50:09] It was very nice.

[50:11] This is a refrigerated unit that they've converted.

[50:13] And it had 10 stalls in there with doors on the side

[50:17] to go out.

[50:19] His Way is going to put artificial turf in the outside,

[50:22] so they're not on the asphalt. It was really nice.

[50:24] Today when we were out on outreach,

[50:27] I talked to a gentleman.

[50:28] He has a job but he's trying to get a place in Tracy, a room

[50:33] to rent.

[50:33] But he doesn't know if he can get enough hours

[50:35] to afford the room.

[50:36] And when I talked to him, go to 555.

[50:38] Have you ever tried there?

[50:39] He goes, no, I don't want my dog outside.

[50:43] So I told him, well, guess what?

[50:45] We got that problem solved.

[50:47] We have a kennel that you can put your dog in.

[50:50] It's air conditioned inside.

[50:51] And he goes, really?

[50:52] I go, yes.

[50:52] And he goes, OK, I'd like that.

[50:55] So we're already starting to fill it up.

[50:57] So we might want to be asking for a second.

[51:00] And then I was talking to another elderly lady

[51:03] who's hardcore, doesn't want to go in because of her pet.

[51:06] Told her the same thing and she was like, OK, yes, I'm

[51:10] going to think about that.

[51:11] It gives them now an option.

[51:13] And that's great because that's more

[51:16] that we can get into the program and get them moving forward.

[51:20] So thank you.

[51:21] Thank you very much for that.

[51:24] Thank you, Dave.

[51:27] Vice Mayor.

[51:29] You guys are angels.

[51:30] Seriously.

[51:31] Thank you so much for everything that you've

[51:34] done for our navigation center.

[51:37] To echo what the council members are saying,

[51:40] I was out on the quality of life operations

[51:43] and spoke to a lady who has a dog.

[51:46] And she would not go to 555 because why would she

[51:50] be comfortable in air conditioning

[51:52] while her pet is outside suffering?

[51:55] And they truly do take care of their pets.

[51:58] That is their emotional support.

[52:01] That is their safety.

[52:02] That is their security blanket, if you will.

[52:05] And the fact that we now have these air conditioned kennels

[52:11] shows them that we see the value of their family member.

[52:16] And that's what they are.

[52:18] They might be four legged, but their family.

[52:21] And so I don't know that this would

[52:25] have happened without you guys.

[52:27] So thank you so much for caring and to pouring

[52:31] into our community.

[52:32] It's very much appreciated.

[52:35] Thank you.

[52:36] Charlie.

[52:38] Thank you.

[52:39] I won't repeat everything they've said.

[52:43] And I'll just add that, definitely, you guys

[52:46] came through.

[52:46] And it's going to be such an asset for our navigation center.

[52:50] And it's already making a difference.

[52:52] So thank you so much for having the heart to do this.

[52:55] And pets are very important to people as I know.

[52:59] So with that, I'll entertain a motion.

[53:01] Motion for approval.

[53:04] I'll second.

[53:09] I vote yes.

[53:11] OK, all right.

[53:13] I have a motion from Council Member Morowit and a second

[53:17] from Vice Mayor Lackey.

[53:18] All in favor, say aye.

[53:19] Aye.

[53:21] Opposed?

[53:21] Motion carries 5-0.

[53:24] That takes us to--

[53:27] that takes us to C.6.

[53:30] C.6.

[53:32] Approved traffic calming measures along Sandra Street,

[53:36] Leo Street, Elm Street, Fishback Road, Coffeeberry Lane

[53:42] and direct staff to take all appropriate actions

[53:45] necessary to implement the measures in accordance

[53:48] with the City of Manteca Traffic Calming Program 2025

[53:53] city-wide guidelines.

[53:54] Mayor and council, tonight we have deputy director

[53:56] of engineering, Somporn.

[53:59] Somporn.

[54:02] Traffic calming, my favorite.

[54:05] Good evening, Mayor and city council members.

[54:07] So tonight, we have five street sections.

[54:10] They were nicely listed already.

[54:13] That has gone through the five steps-- four step

[54:18] process, excuse me, that was approved as part of the 2025

[54:21] traffic calming measures.

[54:24] So those five steps, just as a reminder.

[54:27] Step one is there's a request from the community, just one

[54:31] member of the community.

[54:33] Step two is the community member has

[54:34] to reach out to other members along their street segments.

[54:39] There is a requirement for a 2/3 commitment to installing

[54:43] an actual traffic calming device.

[54:46] Once we get that 2/3 vote, it gets turned over to engineering.

[54:50] We do the data gathering.

[54:51] We actually send folks out there and collect data

[54:54] during the mornings and the afternoon peaks.

[54:57] And then once we determine that there

[54:59] is a valid concern about traffic calming needs,

[55:04] we do the actual design.

[55:05] And here we are, tonight, looking for your approval

[55:08] on those designs and implementation.

[55:11] All right, thank you, Somporn.

[55:14] I think this was pulled by members of the public.

[55:19] Darryl.

[55:20] Darryl, come on up, sir.

[55:23] I want to give my support to this and what these are.

[55:27] You call them lumps.

[55:28] I call them speed bumps.

[55:29] Same thing.

[55:30] Anyway, I've been out there on this Elm Street Avenue

[55:35] and Argonaut Avenue.

[55:37] I sometime go out to Dave Thompson's church out

[55:39] at the brethren church.

[55:41] And I don't know how many times I've

[55:43] had to call the police on speeders in that area.

[55:46] It's that bad.

[55:48] And I urge the city council to pass this whole thing.

[55:53] I would make one real quick comment that we still

[55:57] need to get a speed bump thing down there on Maple

[56:00] Street from Manteca Avenue, or reverse Manteca Avenue

[56:05] and make it a one way.

[56:07] But the stop sign down there at the post office always being

[56:12] run.

[56:13] And it's bad enough that the postmaster took the mailbox

[56:19] across the street on Center Street.

[56:21] They removed it.

[56:22] And the reason they removed it, they

[56:24] didn't want to endanger their employees for going

[56:29] over picking the mail up.

[56:30] It's that bad.

[56:32] It's calmed down considerably.

[56:34] Of course, I haven't been downtown a few times

[56:36] in the heat, so I'm not sure exactly what's going on,

[56:39] but it's warranted to.

[56:42] Thank you.

[56:43] Thank you.

[56:48] Yes, I'm a believer in speed bumps, humps, lumps.

[56:53] Somporn, if you could tell me, do you know how many of these

[56:58] are on the list?

[56:59] I know there's a bunch of them that we're working on

[57:02] and a bunch on the list that also need to be installed still.

[57:05] I wouldn't be able to give you a number of the top of my head,

[57:08] but I do know the last time I checked,

[57:11] I want to say there was about 35 that was on the list.

[57:14] And we are slowly making our way through it.

[57:16] Requests do come in.

[57:18] And as they come in, they get added to the list.

[57:20] Right now, in terms of delivery, we typically

[57:24] give one out anywhere between six to nine months.

[57:27] So it does take some time to collect those signatures.

[57:30] We do need to also reach out to the residents

[57:33] to make sure that if you are the resident that's

[57:36] having these lumps right in front of your house,

[57:39] we do give you an opportunity to provide your feedback.

[57:42] And then we also have to collect the data to support the design.

[57:46] And then the ones that are already approved,

[57:49] are they all already installed or are they still waiting?

[57:52] So typically, once it's approved by city council,

[57:55] it takes another two to four weeks, sometimes six.

[57:59] It is installed by city staff, so it is installed

[58:01] by our streets department.

[58:05] I'm not sure if you want to chime in.

[58:06] Yes, I can chime in on that.

[58:08] So typically, once they've been approved by council and come in,

[58:13] we're about 30 to 60 days to do the install.

[58:15] There has been, excuse me, some of the new areas

[58:19] that are being--

[58:21] asphalt improvements.

[58:22] Those are taking a little bit longer to get done.

[58:23] They're being done by the contractor.

[58:25] But we try to do as they come within that 30 to 60 day window.

[58:28] So in the last two months, I think

[58:30] there's been 12 sets of lumps installed

[58:33] in various parts of town.

[58:35] And we have supply of them or are we still waiting on?

[58:39] No, we have, I don't know, 30 sets of lumps sitting in my yard

[58:44] right now.

[58:45] So yes, there's quite a bit to go.

[58:46] Some just came in the last week.

[58:48] Perfect.

[58:50] All right, any other questions from council?

[58:54] OK, no other questions.

[58:56] I'll entertain a motion.

[59:00] OK, I have a motion from Vice Mayor Lackey.

[59:02] Second from Council Member Halford.

[59:03] All in favor, say aye.

[59:04] Aye.

[59:05] Opposed?

[59:06] Motion carries 5-0.

[59:08] That will go ahead.

[59:08] Move on to C.12.

[59:10] Approve a professional services agreement with RRM Design Group

[59:15] in an amount not to exceed $554,054 to provide

[59:21] comprehensive architectural and engineering services

[59:26] for development of Manteca Fire Station Number 6 and authorize

[59:29] the city manager to sign the agreement and any associated

[59:31] documents.

[59:32] Mayor and council, tonight, we have Fire Chief Steven Islas.

[59:36] Do present.

[59:38] Good evening.

[59:39] So a brief update on where we're at.

[59:41] We're trying to get the plans completed

[59:43] for the new company six.

[59:46] In the process of doing so, it was the most--

[59:50] the most expedited and economical way

[59:52] to do that is to utilize plans that were used for company five.

[59:57] It's a really good firehouse.

[59:58] It's a good layout.

[1:00:00] It's got scalability to it, pace of growth.

[1:00:03] The issues that require changes to the plans.

[1:00:09] We need a longer apparatus.

[1:00:11] Right now it only fit one piece of apparatus per side.

[1:00:14] So that's been a--

[1:00:18] it was designed that way.

[1:00:19] So it wasn't a flaw but it's a poor design.

[1:00:21] So we needed that changed.

[1:00:22] And then because of the time, we need updates to code.

[1:00:27] So moving forward with that, there

[1:00:29] were two vendors that worked on those plans.

[1:00:32] The first was RRM.

[1:00:33] And they brought it to a 30%.

[1:00:36] And then it was kicked over to the design

[1:00:38] and build process to PBA.

[1:00:40] So because of the rights from those architectures,

[1:00:42] those were the options that we had

[1:00:45] moving forward with this plan.

[1:00:48] You have the amount from the proposal from RRM.

[1:00:52] And the amount from PBA was $733,325.

[1:00:59] So RRM came in substantially lower.

[1:01:03] That's where we're at with the process.

[1:01:07] And then how long do you think this process will take?

[1:01:11] The process of architecture?

[1:01:12] Yeah.

[1:01:13] The code up and the changes, I'm being told,

[1:01:17] will take approximately 60 to 90 days.

[1:01:21] Perfect.

[1:01:23] I like that we're going to go with double base

[1:01:25] because we have more space at the new station.

[1:01:30] Councilman Morowit.

[1:01:31] Yes.

[1:01:31] So I'm glad you mentioned station 5.

[1:01:34] I was on council when we broke ground on station 5.

[1:01:36] So it's good that you've made improvements

[1:01:39] because I've heard that there were some modifications that

[1:01:41] need to be made.

[1:01:42] Most importantly, what I wanted to bring to light

[1:01:45] is we are starting to build station six.

[1:01:48] You start someplace.

[1:01:50] And station 6 is the direct benefit from Measure Q.

[1:01:54] I mean, we talked about Measure Q and what it would do.

[1:01:56] And what we said we would do with it.

[1:01:58] So for folks that probably weren't excited about 3/4

[1:02:01] percent sales tax, I think this was a great start.

[1:02:04] I mean, this is what a directly benefit of the 3/4 percent sales

[1:02:09] tax.

[1:02:11] Fire station 6 is going to be built.

[1:02:14] And that's because of that.

[1:02:15] So I pulled it because this is the very first stage of building

[1:02:19] something, as you have to have a good design.

[1:02:21] And I think we've done a good job as far as what

[1:02:23] it costs to do the design.

[1:02:25] But now moving forward, it's actually going to happen.

[1:02:28] And that's going to give a great amount of protection

[1:02:30] to southwest Manteca and all of the city

[1:02:32] because, as we've talked about before,

[1:02:34] that fire stations, when occurrences happen

[1:02:37] on the south side, we pull from the north

[1:02:39] and we bring them south.

[1:02:40] So it's very important that we have a fire station 6 and a 5.

[1:02:45] And that gives protection along the 120 as well.

[1:02:48] So I'm just glad we're bringing it forward

[1:02:50] and we're starting the process now.

[1:02:52] So I'm looking forward to the groundbreaking in about a month

[1:02:54] or so.

[1:02:55] Yes, thank you.

[1:02:57] Thank you.

[1:02:58] Yes, and I agree.

[1:02:59] The other big win is for staff to be

[1:03:02] working on and saving money by using the plans from station 5.

[1:03:06] And just adding to them and not having to start from scratch.

[1:03:10] So definitely kudos to that too.

[1:03:17] Any of you guys want to add anything?

[1:03:19] District 1 over there.

[1:03:22] It's a first step in probably what, a two-year process,

[1:03:25] to get the station built. Not only is Measure Q

[1:03:29] helping pay for the station, it's already

[1:03:31] paying for the staff that we'll be staffing.

[1:03:35] Nine firefighters.

[1:03:36] Yeah, so there's nine firefighters.

[1:03:38] Well, three firefighters, three engineers, and a captain that

[1:03:41] are being paid for by Measure Q that are already on board

[1:03:45] and running a second engine out of station [INAUDIBLE].

[1:03:48] We're making progress.

[1:03:51] We'll get there hopefully before I get reelected.

[1:03:56] And the apparatus.

[1:03:58] Yeah, all the money adds up.

[1:04:02] All right.

[1:04:05] Any other comments from council?

[1:04:07] I will open this up for public comments.

[1:04:11] I got excited last time.

[1:04:16] Anybody on Zoom?

[1:04:22] I have no hands raised on Zoom for comment on item C.12.

[1:04:27] OK, no comment cards?

[1:04:28] No comment.

[1:04:29] OK, come up.

[1:04:36] Good evening.

[1:04:38] Thank you.

[1:04:39] I appreciate city for bringing fire station 6.

[1:04:42] And hopefully it operates in 2028.

[1:04:50] So I want to get a clarification on the site that is required.

[1:04:56] So I heard it is two acres or is it 2.82?

[1:05:02] 2 acres.

[1:05:03] Sorry?

[1:05:05] 2.82.

[1:05:07] [INAUDIBLE]

[1:05:09] I can't hear.

[1:05:10] 2 acres.

[1:05:11] 2 acres, OK.

[1:05:15] City has acquired 1.82 from the private developer and 1 acre

[1:05:22] from the school district.

[1:05:26] So city identifies the fire station 5

[1:05:32] is a 0.75 acre and a need to have a 2 acre fire station.

[1:05:38] Why doesn't city understand that school district also

[1:05:42] requires to support the growth, not reduce their school site?

[1:05:48] And the PQP area should be balanced

[1:05:52] as per the Manteca general plan-- the land use

[1:05:57] to provide adequate land.

[1:05:59] I appreciate that fire station is being taken care and also

[1:06:04] wish the city fulfill their responsibility to provide

[1:06:10] adequate land for the growth.

[1:06:13] The school capacity is 1,000.

[1:06:17] Sorry, for 1,000 kids capacity to support,

[1:06:21] a minimum of 15 acres is required.

[1:06:24] But the current site itself is 15.87 of the school district.

[1:06:31] And if 1 acre is given and it is 14.87 and it's not adequate

[1:06:39] for 1,000 kids.

[1:06:40] But how many kids in the region?

[1:06:42] There are 3,000 kids.

[1:06:44] What is the adequate planning missing by the city?

[1:06:47] Why doesn't it fulfill its responsibility for the kids

[1:06:51] along with the much needed both fire station and schools.

[1:06:58] All the public infrastructure are equally

[1:07:00] important for benefiting.

[1:07:02] For one, we should not dig a grave

[1:07:05] for the other public facility.

[1:07:08] Thank you.

[1:07:11] OK, thank you.

[1:07:15] Brad, can you clarify this whole 1.82, 2.82 situation

[1:07:21] or having one of you guys.

[1:07:23] Yeah, good evening, Mayor and council, Brad Wungluck,

[1:07:25] director of government services.

[1:07:27] So there are currently two sites.

[1:07:29] We have a site for the school that's

[1:07:31] 15.87 acres and a high density residential parcel that's 11.22.

[1:07:38] In discussions with the school district several months back,

[1:07:41] there was communication regarding the potential

[1:07:44] for a fire station along one of those sites

[1:07:49] with the previous fire chief.

[1:07:50] And the size that was determined that was necessary was 2.8.

[1:07:55] In conversations with the school district,

[1:07:57] there was the opportunity to acquire

[1:08:01] or for them to donate 1 acre of that land

[1:08:04] to the city that would not affect their design

[1:08:06] or the number of students on the site.

[1:08:08] So with that, there will be an item coming forward later that

[1:08:12] will essentially proposes to increase

[1:08:16] the acreage of public quasi public or public use

[1:08:19] on those parcels from the 15.87 to 16.87,

[1:08:24] reducing the high density residential,

[1:08:26] which will allow for the school to be built as designed

[1:08:31] and for the city to construct the two-acre fire station

[1:08:34] site as well.

[1:08:37] And the developer is not gaining any more acres?

[1:08:43] The private developer is losing 1 acre as part of--

[1:08:48] they're going from 11.22 to 10.22.

[1:08:52] OK, thank you.

[1:08:54] Any other public comments?

[1:08:58] You've already spoken, sir.

[1:09:04] OK, seeing none, I'll bring it back.

[1:09:09] If no other comments or questions from council,

[1:09:11] I'll entertain a motion.

[1:09:12] I do.

[1:09:13] Go ahead.

[1:09:14] So I'm going to go back a little ways in history

[1:09:16] for Manteca Fire.

[1:09:20] When I started, there was three stations.

[1:09:23] One was at Lincoln or on Powers, next to Lincoln School.

[1:09:27] Station 2 was on Center Street, next to Yosemite School.

[1:09:33] Station 3 was on Louise, across from Golden West.

[1:09:37] So when Manteca started building stations,

[1:09:40] they put them next to schools.

[1:09:42] And we, of course, we went to Del Webb to the north side

[1:09:45] because we needed one there.

[1:09:46] And five had to go to the southeast side

[1:09:49] at Woodward and Atherton.

[1:09:52] I'm glad to see that we are putting another station

[1:09:54] next to a school.

[1:09:58] That is what they should be.

[1:10:00] They should be there to protect the kids.

[1:10:04] And in the location it is, it will also

[1:10:07] provide coverage within the five minutes and make it safer.

[1:10:13] Measure Q staffed the engine at station 1.

[1:10:17] We're going to be looking at ways to get staffing

[1:10:20] for station 6.

[1:10:22] I don't see us wanting to go back

[1:10:24] to where we had the truck running first out, especially

[1:10:28] in that area.

[1:10:29] It'll be just as bad as it was at once.

[1:10:32] And so yes, Measure Q helps staffing,

[1:10:35] but that was to staff the engine at once

[1:10:37] to get the truck over where it needs to be.

[1:10:39] But it does not to be running first out.

[1:10:41] So that's what I have.

[1:10:44] Thank you.

[1:10:46] All right, I'll entertain a motion now.

[1:10:49] Motion to approve.

[1:10:50] Second.

[1:10:51] OK, I have a motion from Council Member Halford.

[1:10:53] Second from Council Member Morowit.

[1:10:54] All in favor, say aye.

[1:10:55] Aye.

[1:10:57] Opposed?

[1:10:58] Motion carries 5-0.

[1:11:00] Takes us to C.15.

[1:11:03] Adopt a resolution approving amendment number one to contract

[1:11:07] services agreement with Flock Safety for the addition of six

[1:11:11] Flock Condor cameras at an annual cost of $18,000

[1:11:16] for the remaining three years of the agreement,

[1:11:18] plus a one time installation fee of $1,500 for a total contract

[1:11:27] amount not to exceed $55,500.

[1:11:31] And further authorizing the city manager

[1:11:34] without further council action to procure additional Flock

[1:11:40] Condor cameras under the same type in future years,

[1:11:46] subject to appropriated funding within the police department

[1:11:50] approved annual budget and compliance

[1:11:52] with the city's purchasing policy.

[1:11:54] Mayor and council, tonight we have

[1:11:56] Police Chief, Stephen Schluer.

[1:11:58] All right, Chief.

[1:12:02] Good evening, Stephen Schluer, Chief of Police.

[1:12:05] First, I just want to say that these are condor cameras not

[1:12:09] ALPR cameras.

[1:12:10] However, they do have a capability of ALPR,

[1:12:12] but they're a condor camera.

[1:12:15] And there are five of them.

[1:12:16] And we're working jointly with parks, recreation, and transit

[1:12:20] to strategically place these five in our parks

[1:12:24] that are being vandalized and are being broken into.

[1:12:28] We plan on putting them in Northgate Park, two of them.

[1:12:33] One near the snack bar area and then one under the gazebo.

[1:12:37] Lincoln Park, one looking at the entrance of the pool,

[1:12:43] as well the outside of the restroom area

[1:12:46] there, that's in the middle of the park and under the gazebo.

[1:12:51] The next one is going to be the Skate Park.

[1:12:55] It will overlook the entire Skate Park.

[1:12:58] Morenzone Park is the next one that

[1:12:59] will be on the west side of the ball diamond

[1:13:04] there, looking at the side there,

[1:13:07] and the restroom area that's constantly being vandalized.

[1:13:10] And then Woodward Splash Pad will have one.

[1:13:14] And it'll be focused on the pump house

[1:13:18] and outside of the restroom area there for vandalism.

[1:13:24] I also have, Ian Osborne here, who

[1:13:26] is our Flock guru or our Flock guy

[1:13:30] here to answer any really specific questions that I

[1:13:32] may not be able to answer.

[1:13:36] Council, we want to start with questions or do you

[1:13:38] want me to open it up for public?

[1:13:42] OK, we'll open it up for public comment first.

[1:13:47] Anybody on Zoom?

[1:13:54] I have attendees on Zoom.

[1:13:56] However, no hands are raised for public comment on C.15.

[1:14:01] OK, comment cards?

[1:14:02] No comments.

[1:14:03] Anybody who would like to speak on item C.15?

[1:14:08] Come on up, sir.

[1:14:10] I wasn't familiar with what these are exactly,

[1:14:14] but I learned from the police department how these function.

[1:14:19] And I just want to tell you these cameras

[1:14:22] do a tremendous job.

[1:14:25] And the amount of violence down there at library park

[1:14:29] that these cameras have cut has been phenomenal.

[1:14:33] And there's been situations that we've

[1:14:35] had with vandalism to Union Pacific rail line that has

[1:14:41] been curbed by those cameras.

[1:14:43] And I am 100% in favor of them.

[1:14:47] And I back them all the way.

[1:14:49] They've been a big help to the police

[1:14:51] department and the general public at large.

[1:14:55] Sure.

[1:14:57] Anybody else who would like to speak on this item?

[1:15:04] OK, seeing none, we'll bring it back.

[1:15:06] We'll start with Vice Mayor.

[1:15:11] Thank you.

[1:15:12] OK, so I've done a lot of research this past week.

[1:15:17] I've asked a lot of questions for both Sergeant Osborne

[1:15:21] and Chief.

[1:15:23] And I'm going to play a little bit of devil's advocate here.

[1:15:28] Flock cameras, as we know, that's

[1:15:29] a very hot topic in the news right now.

[1:15:31] And I know that a lot of news that's coming out

[1:15:35] is misinformation.

[1:15:39] One of the things that has come out

[1:15:41] is the misuse of information collected from the cameras

[1:15:44] in another state, not here.

[1:15:47] It's brought out questions regarding regulation processes,

[1:15:51] sharing of information, and potential violation

[1:15:54] of constitutional rights.

[1:15:57] So at what point do we say-- and like I said,

[1:16:00] I'm playing devil's advocate here.

[1:16:03] At what point do we officially say

[1:16:04] that we are becoming a surveillance state?

[1:16:08] We have cameras on the streets.

[1:16:10] We have cameras on buildings, parks, trackers

[1:16:12] in our phones and cars.

[1:16:14] All are the result of trying to eliminate a problem.

[1:16:18] People are out there vandalizing.

[1:16:20] We put up cameras, they find a new place to vandalize.

[1:16:23] We put up more cameras.

[1:16:25] Eventually, cameras are everywhere.

[1:16:28] Just the other day, I was walking down the street,

[1:16:32] crossing the street, and a house very

[1:16:34] proudly announced that I was being recorded.

[1:16:37] I was on the other side of the street already,

[1:16:39] but that's how far their camera reached.

[1:16:43] It's my understanding that these new cameras

[1:16:45] are going to be placed at five parks that are known

[1:16:47] for a high rate of vandalism.

[1:16:49] So unfortunately, we live in a society

[1:16:51] where people think it's OK to destroy

[1:16:53] what doesn't belong to them.

[1:16:56] As a result, we're considering putting more eyes up

[1:16:59] to keep an eye on the areas that we can't physically be there.

[1:17:03] Our PD is good.

[1:17:04] They're really good.

[1:17:06] They can't be everywhere at once.

[1:17:08] And I understand this.

[1:17:10] So I've asked a lot of questions.

[1:17:12] I've done a lot of research.

[1:17:13] So a couple of questions just to put out there

[1:17:18] that I've already asked both of you that I think

[1:17:21] would be beneficial for the public to hear--

[1:17:26] these cameras, these condor cameras, are they the same

[1:17:28] as the pan-tilt cameras that you were talking to me about?

[1:17:31] Yeah, so condor is the pan-tilt zoom or PTZ camera

[1:17:36] that Flock offers.

[1:17:38] So and my understanding is that it's set on a fixed point

[1:17:45] unless somebody's at a computer changes

[1:17:48] the vantage point of that camera and circulates it around.

[1:17:53] Is that right?

[1:17:54] That's correct.

[1:17:54] That's how all of our cameras are currently set up.

[1:17:57] There is an option to monitor for movement.

[1:18:00] And so if it picks it up, it'll track the person

[1:18:02] until it goes out of frame.

[1:18:04] We don't use that currently, which

[1:18:06] we might with these ones because in the parks

[1:18:08] it makes more sense to do that.

[1:18:10] How clear is the picture?

[1:18:12] Does it pick up facial recognition

[1:18:15] or is it just like with the ALPR,

[1:18:18] it's distinguishing clothing colors, stuff of that nature?

[1:18:23] Yeah, so as they're defaulted right now-- well,

[1:18:26] let me back up.

[1:18:27] There is no facial recognition built

[1:18:28] into this software whatsoever.

[1:18:31] Currently, they're on poles 35, 40 feet in the air that

[1:18:36] are just general broad views.

[1:18:39] You cannot generally see faces.

[1:18:42] Sometimes you can't tell the gender,

[1:18:43] but you can tell if it's black pants, black shirt,

[1:18:47] if they have a backpack, or if they're riding a bicycle.

[1:18:51] So if it doesn't pick up facial recognition,

[1:18:54] how is it going to assist you in identifying those

[1:18:57] who are vandalizing our parks?

[1:18:59] Well, so facial recognition is computer software.

[1:19:02] We're old school, and we have officers that review the footage

[1:19:06] and are able to say, hey, that guy looks like Joe Schmo, who

[1:19:09] I contacted two days ago.

[1:19:12] We know most of our clientele.

[1:19:14] And so that's how most of the people

[1:19:16] get identified is just from other officers.

[1:19:18] And to clarify that, the difference

[1:19:21] between facial recognition and a video

[1:19:23] being able to pick up someone's face or two

[1:19:25] totally different things.

[1:19:26] Like Lieutenant Osborne said facial recognition

[1:19:28] would be taking that face that it picks up,

[1:19:30] putting it into a software program

[1:19:32] and then spitting out who that person is,

[1:19:35] where it will be able to pick up their face and their body.

[1:19:42] Then we look at that to determine who that person is.

[1:19:47] It's not just their clothing, but it

[1:19:48] will be able to track their clothing

[1:19:50] and be able to say, OK, so we have

[1:19:53] a guy with a black sweatshirt, white backpack, blue jeans

[1:19:58] shorts, and a green bike.

[1:20:00] And then we can look at the other cameras

[1:20:02] to see where that person may have gone

[1:20:05] or the direction of travel that person has gone.

[1:20:08] Does that make sense?

[1:20:14] OK, we're good.

[1:20:20] You'll be able to prosecute based off of the video

[1:20:23] that it takes or to be able to collect damages, however,

[1:20:29] that works out with the court systems?

[1:20:30] Yeah, at that point, it becomes evidence

[1:20:32] that is used throughout the court process.

[1:20:36] And so I know that Flock, because of the issues

[1:20:40] that they've been having nationwide,

[1:20:43] they're actually changing their policies.

[1:20:46] And they've been adjusting the way that their practices are

[1:20:50] happening.

[1:20:50] So instead of holding for 30 days evidence,

[1:20:53] they're holding for seven.

[1:20:54] And that's going to be applicable

[1:20:56] based on each jurisdiction.

[1:20:59] So we're still sticking with the 30 days?

[1:21:03] Correct, yes.

[1:21:04] We will stay with the 30 days because we're not only

[1:21:06] using these cameras in the park areas

[1:21:08] for the vandalism, which is a property crime.

[1:21:11] We also have these in other areas throughout the city.

[1:21:15] Let's take the jugging that just happened at the bank.

[1:21:21] They usually come in and they will surveil

[1:21:24] or they'll scan an area prior to doing their crime.

[1:21:28] They may come back a week later, or two weeks later,

[1:21:31] or jugging weeks later, or come back several times before they

[1:21:35] commit the actual crime.

[1:21:37] And then like with the jugging, we

[1:21:40] were able to get the person who was doing

[1:21:44] the jugging at the bank, and then

[1:21:47] go back and see that he was at the other locations

[1:21:51] up to 30 days prior.

[1:21:53] And so we were able to charge him

[1:21:54] with several other instances of doing the same crime.

[1:22:00] Chief, can you just define the definition

[1:22:02] of jugging for the folks?

[1:22:05] Those of us that aren't hip enough to know.

[1:22:07] OK, So Ian can do that.

[1:22:09] So jugging is a term-- it is a real thing.

[1:22:12] It's not something we made up.

[1:22:14] Essentially, a criminal will surveil the bank

[1:22:17] and wait for victims to come out where they're

[1:22:19] carrying obvious money bags.

[1:22:21] And it's not always the business type money bags.

[1:22:24] Sometimes it's just the envelope of cash.

[1:22:27] And sure enough, victims do walk out

[1:22:29] just carrying it in their hand.

[1:22:32] They will then leave the bank and either be robbed down

[1:22:35] the road or, in this case, this suspect,

[1:22:38] he was breaking into the vehicles at their next stop.

[1:22:41] So they get out of the bank, go to the grocery store.

[1:22:44] While the person was in the grocery store,

[1:22:45] they would break into the car and steal the cash.

[1:22:48] We didn't determine jugging.

[1:22:50] Somebody else somewhere-- it might even

[1:22:53] be in Webster's dictionary, I don't know,

[1:22:56] or the Urban Dictionary.

[1:22:59] All right, so it's my understanding

[1:23:01] that, Lieutenant Osborne, you conduct audits of the camera

[1:23:05] once a month.

[1:23:07] Or more.

[1:23:08] And Chief already informed me, but can you inform the public.

[1:23:14] Has Manteca ever uncovered any misuse of Flock information?

[1:23:19] No, it has not been uncovered doing a random audit.

[1:23:23] And we've never had any allegations that there

[1:23:29] was misuse of system.

[1:23:32] Can you tell I put a lot of thought into this this week?

[1:23:34] Yeah.

[1:23:40] Here's the issue that I'm having.

[1:23:43] Camera surveillance, the potential for it

[1:23:46] is really unlimited.

[1:23:47] We don't know where it's going in the future.

[1:23:51] We need to stay a step ahead and ensure that our residents are

[1:23:54] not only safe, but they're free to live

[1:23:56] with their constitutional rights.

[1:24:01] Most people I know are not in favor

[1:24:04] of being a surveillance state where every step they take

[1:24:08] is being tracked.

[1:24:10] With that being said, I am about kids.

[1:24:15] I am about families.

[1:24:16] And knowing that these cameras help with things such as Amber

[1:24:21] alerts.

[1:24:22] That's what triggers my brain.

[1:24:27] The way that this is written and the reason

[1:24:30] I'm going to decline on this is because I

[1:24:34] don't believe that council should be giving away

[1:24:42] their ability to decide on future Flock camera

[1:24:46] installation.

[1:24:48] I think that's something that needs

[1:24:50] to be decided as a council.

[1:24:54] Here, it states further authorizing city manager

[1:24:57] without further council action to procure additional Flock

[1:25:00] Condor camera units.

[1:25:02] I don't agree with that.

[1:25:03] I think that our ability to have surveillance around the city

[1:25:12] needs to have council consideration now

[1:25:14] and in the future.

[1:25:16] So that's where I'm at.

[1:25:19] So I have a question on that.

[1:25:20] So in the future, if we sign any new contracts, or extensions,

[1:25:24] or anything like that, is this item

[1:25:26] going to say that you're not coming back to council with it?

[1:25:30] It would come to council in the formal budget process.

[1:25:35] So say if they're--

[1:25:37] I'll give you a little bit of background and chief

[1:25:39] you can add to it as well.

[1:25:41] So we piloted the cameras like the camera

[1:25:45] that you saw at library park, that has really been

[1:25:49] a huge help in a lot of ways.

[1:25:51] It's even helping the local businesses

[1:25:53] downtown from vandalization.

[1:25:56] We had an incident at Lincoln Pool.

[1:25:58] We were able to arrest the suspects.

[1:26:01] So we've seen-- and we just piloted

[1:26:04] all different types of cameras.

[1:26:05] We were piloting Flock, ALPR.

[1:26:09] I mean, all of these brands.

[1:26:11] And they give them to you.

[1:26:12] It's a free demo.

[1:26:13] We're like, hey, let's try it out.

[1:26:15] Let's see what works.

[1:26:15] Let's see what happens.

[1:26:16] And we've seen a huge success.

[1:26:18] And so some of the reasons why we're

[1:26:20] bringing this forward tonight is we just invested $3.2 million

[1:26:25] in a beautiful splash pad for our community.

[1:26:29] And so at the end of the day, if there are issues with it

[1:26:32] or something happens with it being vandalized,

[1:26:35] we have to report to the public and say, we didn't know.

[1:26:38] We didn't have an officer there.

[1:26:40] So in some of these areas where we know that they're hot targets

[1:26:45] and as you know, the areas that are identified are.

[1:26:48] But at some point this gives the chief or I discretion.

[1:26:52] If we need to get one, it's in our operational means,

[1:26:55] we can do that.

[1:26:56] That doesn't mean we wouldn't notify you.

[1:26:58] It just may not come before council.

[1:27:00] And chief, you can add to that if you'd like as well.

[1:27:02] This also is for the condor camera,

[1:27:07] to procure additional condor cameras, which are not

[1:27:10] the ALPRs that you see at the intersections that are set up

[1:27:13] fixed to read license plates.

[1:27:15] These would be more a brand of security camera, not so much

[1:27:20] the ALPR that we have fixed throughout the city that

[1:27:27] are the license plate reader ones that pick up the vehicles.

[1:27:33] So these are more surveillance camera type things?

[1:27:35] These are just like a security camera, pan-tilt zoom security

[1:27:39] camera that Flock is the manufacturer.

[1:27:42] Is there an AI or a software attached to the back end

[1:27:45] of this for these condors?

[1:27:50] AI to do--

[1:27:52] A software to recognize?

[1:27:54] So it's not the facial recognition.

[1:27:58] It's the green bicycle and black shirt recognition.

[1:28:05] Also these cameras are a precursor to our [INAUDIBLE].

[1:28:13] And that's something which is the real time crime information

[1:28:16] center that we just are going to be receiving $750,000 from

[1:28:22] the federal government for to help build.

[1:28:27] And the cameras, although yet it does surveil certain areas

[1:28:34] or things that we have it up on, what they do on the back end,

[1:28:40] not on the back end of the system,

[1:28:41] but on the back end of the product is invaluable.

[1:28:45] One of the most recent-- we've had several cases to that we

[1:28:51] have solved major crimes with.

[1:28:53] A robbery recently.

[1:28:54] But most recently, as he was speaking about the human

[1:29:01] trafficking and stop, we did have a 12-year-old girl who was

[1:29:05] being lured online and left her family, went out.

[1:29:11] The Ring camera picked up a brief car

[1:29:14] that went by at her house.

[1:29:16] It also picked up her going out her front window of her bedroom.

[1:29:20] She went into that car and disappeared.

[1:29:24] No one knew where she went.

[1:29:25] We had a brief thing on the car.

[1:29:29] And we were able to, off of that Ring camera

[1:29:33] video, then take that description,

[1:29:36] put it into our Flock.

[1:29:37] And through our flock be able to pick up

[1:29:41] and realize what type of vehicle it was.

[1:29:44] Then another camera was able to pick up a plate.

[1:29:48] And we were able to backtrack.

[1:29:49] And then as we were getting ready to go to this person's

[1:29:54] house in Stockton that she fled to,

[1:29:56] she actually made it back home.

[1:30:01] And then there was some crimes that

[1:30:05] were alleged that occurred in Stockton with her.

[1:30:08] And so had we not had these Flock cameras that we have,

[1:30:13] had she not returned home, we would

[1:30:15] have been able to go to where we were able to find him

[1:30:18] at in coordination with our Flock, the Flock that's

[1:30:21] in the county, the Flock in Stockton

[1:30:24] and being able to put things together.

[1:30:28] Had she not returned home, I would

[1:30:30] like to think that we would have been able to do it--

[1:30:33] to safely get her out of harm's way.

[1:30:37] We had a robbery a couple of weeks ago at the convenience

[1:30:41] store at Yosemite and airport that a lady was inside the store

[1:30:49] when it was getting robbed.

[1:30:50] She calls.

[1:30:52] The person flees in a white, smaller vehicle.

[1:30:56] That was the description.

[1:30:57] We were able to pick it up on Flock and get a license plate

[1:31:00] and then eventually make an arrest at that person's home.

[1:31:03] And so they are great tools.

[1:31:07] And like with any tool, if they are misused,

[1:31:09] they can be a bad tool.

[1:31:11] And I'll be the first to admit that.

[1:31:13] However, we have safeguards in place at our police department.

[1:31:16] And I think the state of California

[1:31:17] does a pretty good job in having safeguards in place

[1:31:20] with the facial recognition and some of the other things.

[1:31:23] Yeah, we still have to do the old--

[1:31:25] one of the comments the other day

[1:31:27] that this takes away the gumshoe detective,

[1:31:29] but actually, it doesn't gives us

[1:31:31] leads to go and apprehend these suspects that

[1:31:36] are doing these crimes.

[1:31:37] Not all of them are just vandalism or drug use in a park.

[1:31:40] There are violent crimes that occur.

[1:31:43] Even in other cities.

[1:31:44] And in other cities, they can enter that license plate

[1:31:47] in, as it's called, a hot plate.

[1:31:49] Or hey, this person just robbed the AMPM

[1:31:53] at Wilson and the Crosstown.

[1:31:57] And put in that license plate so that if it comes into our town,

[1:32:01] we know.

[1:32:04] I've read things that say, oh, it's mistaken.

[1:32:07] People are being arrested for mistaken license plates or this,

[1:32:11] that, or the other, mistaken identity on the vehicle.

[1:32:18] When a car goes through and it picks up a hit,

[1:32:23] it'll send you a message.

[1:32:25] And it shows you a back picture of the vehicle and the license

[1:32:28] plate.

[1:32:28] And that portion-- and let's say the license plate was 1JTF 123.

[1:32:39] And there's a license plate frame or JT or JIE.

[1:32:44] And the license plate frame cuts it off

[1:32:47] and it shows that it says it's JTF instead of JTI.

[1:32:50] So it picks it up and we get a picture of that vehicle.

[1:32:54] And they'll tell you--

[1:32:55] Stockton, let's say, would say, hey,

[1:32:57] that's a green Toyota that did it.

[1:32:59] When it pops it up because it pictures the car,

[1:33:02] it comes back as, oh, no, that's a white Ford.

[1:33:07] And with this license plate, so you run it.

[1:33:09] Yeah, sure.

[1:33:10] The day is long.

[1:33:11] It comes back to a white Ford.

[1:33:13] And so that car wouldn't be stopped.

[1:33:16] But there are safeguards in place.

[1:33:17] And the human factor is very real in it with us.

[1:33:24] And I believe that they're invaluable to being safe.

[1:33:28] As far as the surveillance state, I've read the book, 1984.

[1:33:32] I was a government major.

[1:33:35] I know who Big Brother is.

[1:33:37] I don't think Orwell in that book was envisioning--

[1:33:45] he was envisioning the surveillance state.

[1:33:48] But we're not so much the surveillance state as people

[1:33:57] put us out to be.

[1:33:59] It's not the-- like I said, it's not the facial recognition.

[1:34:03] It's not the drive-through and it's picking up your IMEI

[1:34:06] on your phone.

[1:34:07] And people think, oh, because my phone's in my car.

[1:34:09] It picks up my phone.

[1:34:10] It knows where I'm at.

[1:34:11] That's not happening.

[1:34:13] It picks up a description of the vehicle, and the license plate.

[1:34:15] It doesn't pick up the person in the car.

[1:34:20] The condors that we'll have up at the other sites

[1:34:25] and the condors that we do have up now

[1:34:27] are targeted at high crime areas.

[1:34:30] We have one that's at a high crime area

[1:34:36] that we've had shootings at some establishments.

[1:34:41] And that's just so that it's reactive.

[1:34:44] And when we get RTCC in, in a few years,

[1:34:47] once our police department gets built,

[1:34:48] and we'll have personnel who will man it,

[1:34:52] not so much 24/7 because the evening or the morning hours

[1:34:55] don't need it as much.

[1:34:56] And so we'll have those people who are able to look at those.

[1:34:59] So to say that these cameras are something

[1:35:04] that is being used to surveil people

[1:35:11] know is to pick up criminal activity.

[1:35:13] And this here is just for condors

[1:35:15] and it's not for the ALPRs.

[1:35:19] Chief, how long have you had cameras in the city?

[1:35:24] Oh, geez.

[1:35:24] We started with a program called Vigilant.

[1:35:26] And it was a license plate reader.

[1:35:29] And Charlie maybe able to help us.

[1:35:32] We got those in '09, right after you left, maybe '10.

[1:35:37] Well, before that, we had a license plate readers

[1:35:39] on our cars.

[1:35:40] Yeah, we had license plate readers on our cars.

[1:35:43] We had Vigilant readers on our cars.

[1:35:44] So we've had them--

[1:35:47] that's before I was in Delta [INAUDIBLE].

[1:35:49] And so that was probably--

[1:35:51] we're looking like 2005, 2006.

[1:35:57] We've had video cameras.

[1:35:59] And the same thing with our body cameras, our body worn cameras.

[1:36:03] There's some misbelief about how these videos are stored.

[1:36:07] They're stored in the cloud.

[1:36:08] They can be accessed.

[1:36:10] All of our videos--

[1:36:11] Axon body worn cameras is the--

[1:36:14] even if you use the View, which got bought by Axon,

[1:36:17] all those are stored in the cloud.

[1:36:19] The proprietary access is to the police department.

[1:36:23] And same thing with Flock.

[1:36:25] It's stored in the cloud, but it's accessed by us.

[1:36:29] And we have agreements that that's accessed by us.

[1:36:34] All right, anybody else have comments.

[1:36:37] Just a brief comment.

[1:36:40] I think we go in every store, every market.

[1:36:43] I have them in my business.

[1:36:45] We have cameras everywhere.

[1:36:47] The only thing you do have to tell people

[1:36:49] is if you're doing audio, you have

[1:36:51] to let them know you're doing audio in your business,

[1:36:54] so that has to be told.

[1:36:56] My daughter is an attorney and she told me a long time ago

[1:36:59] there is no anticipation of privacy

[1:37:01] once you leave your home.

[1:37:03] That is just the way it is.

[1:37:05] Now, the question is who abuses it.

[1:37:07] I think the chief covered that well.

[1:37:09] Abuse is a potential problem, but not a problem in this city.

[1:37:14] I think the Lieutenant made it very clear that we

[1:37:17] have stops in place.

[1:37:20] We've checked.

[1:37:20] We've never had allegations of misuse.

[1:37:23] That is the proof in the pudding.

[1:37:25] Not a few complaints across the country

[1:37:27] or a few misguided officers.

[1:37:29] Bad apples, as I like to call them.

[1:37:31] And does not dictate the entire country.

[1:37:34] And these cities in California is probably especially tough

[1:37:40] on anticipation of privacy, especially

[1:37:43] by police departments and misuse.

[1:37:45] So I'm confident.

[1:37:47] These are specifically-- I think we're only here

[1:37:49] to decide if we want six cameras in high crime areas.

[1:37:53] And I think that's really what we have in front of us.

[1:37:56] All the other information-- although I appreciate.

[1:37:59] And I think we're going to have some type

[1:38:00] of a little briefing on that next month

[1:38:03] or something on Flock.

[1:38:05] I'll be asking that.

[1:38:06] Yeah, so that's going to be coming up.

[1:38:08] But in the meantime, six cameras, high crime areas,

[1:38:11] two of them in my district, I can tell you.

[1:38:13] You mentioned.

[1:38:15] The ones you also mentioned are areas

[1:38:17] that we have a lot of folks sleeping in barbecue areas

[1:38:20] and under coverings at night, burning up barbecues.

[1:38:25] We just reported a bunch of barbecues

[1:38:26] that are burnt up at Lincoln Park, Northgate, Woodward.

[1:38:30] This is not happening during the day, folks.

[1:38:32] This is happening at night.

[1:38:33] And we don't have enough police officers or people

[1:38:35] watching everything.

[1:38:36] So I'm looking forward to these cameras being there.

[1:38:39] I think it's going to help.

[1:38:40] Hopefully, you won't have any more problems.

[1:38:42] Maybe it'll be enough to deter people.

[1:38:44] But in the meantime, I'm in favor of it.

[1:38:47] And I like the way the program is set up

[1:38:48] as it is, especially to watch private property, vandalism,

[1:38:52] and crime.

[1:38:53] Thank you.

[1:38:54] Yeah, I agree.

[1:38:56] It doesn't matter how many officers we have.

[1:38:59] We never can be everywhere, every place.

[1:39:02] And these extra eyes help our officers, do their job better.

[1:39:08] And end of the day, I think they have helped tremendously

[1:39:12] in certain places.

[1:39:14] And the locations you mentioned are all been issues.

[1:39:18] And I think it will actually help

[1:39:20] people feel safer in the parks because they

[1:39:24] know that criminal activity is being watched.

[1:39:28] Eventually, like Chief said, with the Real Time Crime Center,

[1:39:32] this is vital to continue that going.

[1:39:36] I also feel that we do need to give some flexibility to-- we're

[1:39:41] not here to do the Chief's job and give him flexibility

[1:39:46] and the city manager to work together

[1:39:48] to move them around or also add another one depending on if they

[1:39:54] get other hot spots in the community,

[1:39:57] as long as we are told about them at the same time.

[1:40:00] So I think I'm good with the way it is also.

[1:40:03] And I think these need to happen.

[1:40:08] And I do feel that it has deterred a lot of crime,

[1:40:11] has solved a lot of crimes too.

[1:40:13] And something I will ask during my council comments

[1:40:17] tonight to give a thorough report on this

[1:40:20] into our next meeting.

[1:40:21] But for now, at least, let's look at C.15

[1:40:24] and see if we have consensus to move this forward.

[1:40:27] Motion for approval.

[1:40:28] Second

[1:40:30] OK, I have a motion from Council Member Morowit and a second

[1:40:33] from Council Member Breitenbucher.

[1:40:35] All in favor, say aye.

[1:40:37] Aye.

[1:40:38] And I had a comment or two.

[1:40:44] You gotta tell me.

[1:40:45] You gotta yell at me.

[1:40:47] You need to look this way.

[1:40:53] I'm very supportive of the cameras for a number of reasons,

[1:40:57] from both the prevention point of view

[1:40:58] and investigative point of view.

[1:41:00] The other reality of it is if we become

[1:41:02] known as not having cameras, guess who's coming to town?

[1:41:06] It'll be the people that we want on camera.

[1:41:10] The benefits of the cameras far outweigh any negative.

[1:41:14] And so I'm very supportive, both of the ALPR and the security

[1:41:20] cameras.

[1:41:21] They're a huge benefit.

[1:41:22] I mean, even to the point of if they

[1:41:23] get the call of an armed robbery at Wells Fargo,

[1:41:25] they can slave whatever cameras are in the neighborhood,

[1:41:28] in the area to look over and to see

[1:41:30] what is happening before the responding officers even get--

[1:41:35] with the Real Time Crime Center gets here.

[1:41:41] That's what that group would be tasked with because it's

[1:41:44] a little much to ask dispatch that they may or may not

[1:41:47] have time to do it right now.

[1:41:49] Tremendous benefit to the community, the safety.

[1:41:51] And I'm fully supporting.

[1:41:54] That's why I voted yes.

[1:41:56] Yeah, with the community, I think

[1:41:57] also it's a big win for our business owners

[1:42:00] and also encouraging more businesses

[1:42:02] to feel safe with retail crime in the city

[1:42:06] because we have these.

[1:42:07] And we've solved a lot of those cases too.

[1:42:10] Vice Mayor.

[1:42:12] I just want to be clear that I am support in support of our PD.

[1:42:18] And I do recognize the benefit of these cameras.

[1:42:22] And what I don't agree with on this particular item

[1:42:28] is the council giving the future ability

[1:42:34] to decide on whether or not procuring more Flock cameras

[1:42:38] is in the best interest of the community.

[1:42:42] Just as we have with this, we are given a recommendation.

[1:42:47] We are given all the information.

[1:42:49] And what this is stating is that the council,

[1:42:53] for future additional Flock Condor cameras,

[1:42:56] they just want to be known if they're going up.

[1:42:58] And I don't think that I can vote for that particular piece

[1:43:04] of this.

[1:43:04] Like I said, I recognize the benefit of these cameras.

[1:43:08] I do.

[1:43:10] And I said in the very beginning,

[1:43:11] I was playing devil's advocate.

[1:43:13] Our job is to speak for our constituents, for our people.

[1:43:17] And it has been a hot topic.

[1:43:20] But I truly believe that procuring additional condor

[1:43:25] cameras needs to be a council decision, which

[1:43:28] is why-- that is the reason why I'm voting no on this.

[1:43:31] OK, so it looks like we were in the middle of the motion,

[1:43:35] but I think it got done.

[1:43:38] Yeah, I think the vote occurred.

[1:43:39] You got that, Cass?

[1:43:42] Yeah, 4 yeses and 1 no.

[1:43:44] Yes.

[1:43:46] OK, with that, I think-- is that all the consent

[1:43:49] items that were pulled?

[1:43:51] It's all I have.

[1:43:52] OK, with that, I'm going to go ahead and do a 10-minute break.

[1:44:05] All right, we are back from break,

[1:44:06] and we have made it to public hearings.

[1:44:10] D1, conduct a public hearing and adopt

[1:44:13] a resolution approving the Manteca Transit Fixed-Route,

[1:44:17] redesign network, and authorizing implementation

[1:44:20] of the proposed redesign Fixed-Route network,

[1:44:23] effective October 1, 2026.

[1:44:26] Mayor and council, tonight we have transit manager,

[1:44:28] Juan Portillo.

[1:44:29] All right, transit my other favorite.

[1:44:37] Can you turn that microphone on?

[1:44:40] Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, city council members.

[1:44:43] Juan Portillo, transit manager with the Transit Division.

[1:44:47] This item is a public hearing to receive community input

[1:44:51] on the proposed Fixed-Route redesign network

[1:44:54] and adopt a resolution approving the network

[1:44:56] and authorize staff to implement the redesign.

[1:45:00] Effective October 1, 2026.

[1:45:04] The Transit Division began a comprehensive evaluation

[1:45:07] of the city's fixed-route transit system

[1:45:08] in the fall of 2025.

[1:45:11] The evaluation was initiated in response

[1:45:14] to continued residential and community growth,

[1:45:19] changing travel patterns, and evolving transportation needs

[1:45:23] of the community.

[1:45:25] The city retained Fehr & Peers consultants

[1:45:28] to evaluate the existing transit service,

[1:45:31] analyzing ridership and travel patterns,

[1:45:33] and identifying service gaps and opportunities,

[1:45:37] and to develop the recommended network.

[1:45:40] The proposed network would replace the existing four

[1:45:43] fixed-route service with five new routes.

[1:45:47] Routes 2, 4 and 5 would operate Monday through Saturday,

[1:45:50] while routes 1 and 3 would operate Monday through Friday.

[1:45:55] Weekday service will begin at 5:30 AM.

[1:45:58] Route 1, 3 would operate until 8:00 PM, while routes 2, and 4,

[1:46:03] and 5 would operate until 9:00 PM.

[1:46:06] Saturday service on routes 2, and 4,

[1:46:08] and 5 would operate from 8:30 AM to 6:00 PM.

[1:46:12] The proposed routes are intended to provide a simpler and more

[1:46:16] direct transit network.

[1:46:17] Paired routes would improve the two way travel

[1:46:20] on major corridors including Main Street, Union Road,

[1:46:23] Yosemite Avenue, and Louise Avenue,

[1:46:28] without requiring passengers to ride

[1:46:29] an entire loop to reach their destinations

[1:46:31] in opposite direction.

[1:46:34] Public participation was an important part

[1:46:36] of the design process.

[1:46:38] Outreach included four in-person workshops

[1:46:40] at the Manteca Transit Center.

[1:46:43] One was on January 29 and the other was May 11, 2026.

[1:46:48] We also had a virtual workshop on June 3, 2026.

[1:46:51] We had onboard and online surveys.

[1:46:54] And we did some outreach at the Manteca Senior Center

[1:46:56] and Eskaton Senior Living.

[1:46:59] And we participated in several community events.

[1:47:03] The outreach materials that was provided and surveys

[1:47:05] were also provided in Spanish.

[1:47:08] And the project consultant presented the proposed service

[1:47:11] concept to city council on June 16, 2026.

[1:47:16] And notice of tonight's public hearing

[1:47:17] was published in the Manteca Bulletin on July 10, 2026,

[1:47:22] at least 30 days before the hearing.

[1:47:25] I am available for any questions and invite

[1:47:27] the Mayor Singh to open the public hearing process.

[1:47:30] Thank you.

[1:47:32] All right, we will go ahead and open the public hearing at 8:15.

[1:47:44] Do we have any public comments on Zoom?

[1:47:52] I have attendees, but no hands raised for public comment

[1:47:55] on item D1.

[1:47:57] Any comment cards?

[1:48:01] I have no comment cards.

[1:48:03] Anybody in the public who would like to speak on item D1?

[1:48:08] I have a question.

[1:48:10] And I'm just wondering if this 5 o'clock in the morning

[1:48:15] start, it will have better service, maybe over to Lathrop,

[1:48:20] so we can catch the early morning ACE train?

[1:48:26] I think what they're asking is, Juan,

[1:48:29] is connection to the ACE station.

[1:48:31] Yes, correct.

[1:48:32] That's a great question.

[1:48:33] And because we're starting out at 5:30,

[1:48:35] we're able to add one early morning shuttle to the ACE

[1:48:39] train.

[1:48:40] So yes, we're going to provide one more.

[1:48:44] Looks like somebody's happy.

[1:48:48] All right, [INAUDIBLE] come on up, sir.

[1:48:54] So I appreciate city for extending the route

[1:49:00] to the neighborhood so that Sierra High School

[1:49:03] kids who were denied the bus service were able to use.

[1:49:08] But it's on the morning route only.

[1:49:11] But the evening route will take more than an hour to reach.

[1:49:16] Will the new change of routes will operate in both directions

[1:49:21] so that it will save time for the kids?

[1:49:23] Thank you.

[1:49:25] Juan, come on up.

[1:49:28] I believe the school that he's mentioned is Sierra high school.

[1:49:31] OK, perfect.

[1:49:32] So Sierra high school is--

[1:49:35] and Manteca High is one of the lucky schools

[1:49:37] because we're going to have four fixed routes in the PM

[1:49:40] to get them home.

[1:49:42] Currently, the students at Sierra High School

[1:49:44] are really taking advantage of the transportation system.

[1:49:47] Currently, they get picked up and they're

[1:49:49] taken to the Transit Center.

[1:49:50] And they can jump on different routes to get to their homes.

[1:49:54] The only reason why we did it in the morning

[1:49:56] was some communities there was a gap.

[1:50:01] A couple of south side communities

[1:50:04] didn't have the service.

[1:50:06] So what we did is we heard from the residents.

[1:50:09] And we had a tripper that gets them

[1:50:11] from this location like Crom up north

[1:50:14] and then straight to Sierra High School.

[1:50:16] But on the return, Sierra has many routes

[1:50:19] that will pick them up.

[1:50:20] They can go to the Transit Center.

[1:50:22] And then from there, they can take whichever route.

[1:50:24] There is a future route 6 that could

[1:50:27] be added that will do what the gentleman here is asking, is

[1:50:31] to pick up from Sierra and then go straight

[1:50:33] to the south side of Manteca.

[1:50:36] But there is other routes that do go south.

[1:50:39] It just doesn't go all the way south to,

[1:50:41] for example, Griffith Park or Woodward park.

[1:50:45] And I appreciate the route 5 and also appreciate

[1:50:49] the separate Sierra High School tripper.

[1:50:53] Anybody else in the public want to speak on this item?

[1:51:01] OK, seeing none, I'll go ahead and bring it back to council.

[1:51:05] I will go ahead and close the public hearing at 8:18.

[1:51:14] OK, council.

[1:51:15] Council Member, Halford.

[1:51:19] Sounds like a good plan.

[1:51:23] Vice Mayor.

[1:51:26] Thank you for all the work that you've put into this.

[1:51:28] I know it's been a long few months

[1:51:31] of making sure all this information gets out there.

[1:51:33] And I do appreciate the new route.

[1:51:39] Council Member Breitenbucher.

[1:51:41] Juan, thank you for listening to the citizens and their input

[1:51:45] and implementing into the route.

[1:51:47] So thank you again.

[1:51:48] Welcome.

[1:51:50] Council Member Morowit.

[1:51:52] I appreciate it.

[1:51:53] I think now we have a much more robust transportation

[1:51:56] in Manteca.

[1:51:57] Before people would complain.

[1:51:59] And now we have kids going to schools.

[1:52:01] We have more seniors involved.

[1:52:03] People can get from one place to the other.

[1:52:05] It used to be like an hour, hour and a half

[1:52:07] sometimes to wait if you missed the bus.

[1:52:09] So it's now becoming more with the Bay Area envision,

[1:52:11] where we envision what the Bay Area transit has done,

[1:52:14] so thank you.

[1:52:18] Yeah, I'd like to say thank you, Juan.

[1:52:20] Thank you for listening.

[1:52:22] Thank you for also getting out there in the public

[1:52:24] and sharing a lot of this information.

[1:52:25] We saw you at multiple events and community events.

[1:52:29] And also understanding some of the limitations

[1:52:33] when it comes to school district, and the bus service,

[1:52:35] and making sure we're also helping and doing our part

[1:52:38] in giving them access to the school.

[1:52:42] And especially the south side of the community,

[1:52:45] where some of the bus service is not available.

[1:52:48] I'm really liking the extra services.

[1:52:52] And then also a lot of the south that are taking the ACE train.

[1:52:56] So I like the ACE shuttle service also

[1:52:59] that can transfer and switch over once ACE is done.

[1:53:02] So this is great.

[1:53:04] And I think we're truly becoming transit

[1:53:08] oriented from where we started.

[1:53:10] We've come a long way.

[1:53:11] And I feel we're going to have that route 6 probably

[1:53:16] going to be coming soon in the horizon too.

[1:53:19] So thank you for all your work.

[1:53:20] And with that, I'll go ahead and entertain a motion.

[1:53:23] Second.

[1:53:24] OK, I have a motion from Vice Mayor Lackey,

[1:53:26] second from Council Member Breitenbucher

[1:53:29] to adopt a resolution approving the Manteca Transit Fixed-Route

[1:53:32] redesign network and authorizing the implementation

[1:53:35] of the proposed redesigned fixed route network.

[1:53:38] Effective October 1, 2026.

[1:53:41] All in favor, say aye.

[1:53:42] Aye.

[1:53:43] Opposed?

[1:53:43] Motion carries 5-0.

[1:53:45] Thank you.

[1:53:46] Thank you, Juan.

[1:53:48] D2, to conduct a public hearing and consider an addendum

[1:53:52] to the City of Manteca General Plan Update EIR prepared

[1:53:57] for the batch GPA sites 1 through 4,

[1:54:01] project pursuant to sections 15162

[1:54:05] and 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act

[1:54:10] guidelines, adopt a resolution approving General Plan

[1:54:14] Amendment, amending the land use designation of the project

[1:54:18] parcels identified in sites 1 through 4 project

[1:54:24] and waive the first reading by substitution of the title

[1:54:27] and introduce an ordinance of the City

[1:54:29] Council of the City of Manteca, State of California,

[1:54:32] amending the zoning map set forth in Section 17.20.040

[1:54:39] of chapter 17.20 of Title 17 of the Manteca Municipal Code

[1:54:45] by rezoning the project parcels identified in sites 1 through 4

[1:54:49] project.

[1:54:50] Mayor and council, tonight we have a associate planner, Sol.

[1:54:57] Good evening, Mayor and members of the city council.

[1:54:59] My name is Sol Jobrack, associate planner

[1:55:01] in development services.

[1:55:03] The resolution is-- it was a mouthful.

[1:55:04] I'm going to try to keep this item quicker for you all

[1:55:08] to enjoy.

[1:55:09] So this is a city initiated general plan amendment

[1:55:12] and zoning map amendment involving four sites located

[1:55:15] throughout the city.

[1:55:17] The four sites total approximately 32.91 acres.

[1:55:21] And the proposed amendments update the general plan

[1:55:23] and zoning designations for these properties.

[1:55:26] No specific developments are being approved tonight.

[1:55:29] The planning commission did approve this item 5 to 0

[1:55:34] on June 18.

[1:55:37] The amendments are intended to maintain consistency

[1:55:42] between the general plan and zoning maps,

[1:55:44] support future public infrastructure planning,

[1:55:47] and provide additional housing opportunities for the community.

[1:55:52] This slide here is proposing--

[1:55:54] it compares the existing and the proposed general plan

[1:55:56] designations.

[1:55:57] As you can see, site 1 adds a commercial area

[1:56:00] along East Bronson Road.

[1:56:02] Site 2 adjusts boundaries between a high density

[1:56:05] residential and a public quasi public area.

[1:56:08] Site 3 changes the northern portion

[1:56:10] from commercial to public quasi public.

[1:56:13] And site 4, while it's correct in the attachments tonight,

[1:56:18] this does show that the PQP.

[1:56:20] That is not the case.

[1:56:21] It is staying and remaining as commercial.

[1:56:23] The only change we're proposing is the medium density

[1:56:26] residential along the eastern portion of that property.

[1:56:30] The proposed zoning map amendments,

[1:56:33] are intended to correspond with the proposed general

[1:56:35] plan amendments.

[1:56:36] A very identifying or identical to the general plan

[1:56:40] designations.

[1:56:42] Staff finds that the amendments are consistent with the 2043

[1:56:46] general plan.

[1:56:48] These changes support orderly growth, additional housing

[1:56:50] opportunities, public facility planning,

[1:56:54] and a balanced mix of land uses throughout the city.

[1:56:58] An addendum to the general plan EIR was prepared.

[1:57:02] And staff determined that no subsequent or supplemental ER

[1:57:06] is required.

[1:57:07] Staff recommends that the city council consider the addendum,

[1:57:11] approve the general plan amendment

[1:57:12] and approve the zoning map amendment.

[1:57:16] That concludes staff's presentation.

[1:57:17] We're happy to answer any questions if you have any.

[1:57:19] Thank you.

[1:57:21] Thank you, Sol.

[1:57:24] OK, we'll go ahead-- and is there any questions from council

[1:57:27] before I open up the public hearing?

[1:57:30] OK, we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing at 8:25.

[1:57:37] Any questions or comments on Zoom?

[1:57:46] I have attendees, but no hands raised for public comment

[1:57:49] on item D2.

[1:57:51] OK.

[1:57:52] Comment cards?

[1:57:53] I have two comment cards.

[1:57:55] The first one is [INAUDIBLE].

[1:58:03] Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, council members,

[1:58:06] and the members of the public.

[1:58:08] My name is [INAUDIBLE], and I am a resident concerned about

[1:58:10] the proposed general plan amendment GPA 26-0052 and its

[1:58:16] impact on the site for proposed [INAUDIBLE] school.

[1:58:19] I want to bring attention to the city's existing general plan

[1:58:22] that has clear policies that require cooperation

[1:58:25] with this school district to protect school sites, which

[1:58:29] is the foundation for my opposition.

[1:58:31] I'm here to clarify that any amendment that

[1:58:33] fails to protect the school site or allows

[1:58:36] incompatible development on its land

[1:58:38] directly contradicts these existing policies.

[1:58:42] This land is intended to serve a public purpose, specifically

[1:58:45] as a future school site, as our community continues to grow.

[1:58:49] The need for educational facilities

[1:58:52] becomes increasingly important.

[1:58:54] Once land designated for public use

[1:58:56] is converted to residential or commercial development,

[1:58:59] it becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible,

[1:59:01] to recover suitable land for future school construction.

[1:59:05] My concern is not only the loss of the school site itself,

[1:59:08] but also the long term impact of residential development

[1:59:11] adjacent to the future school.

[1:59:13] Residential projects can create constraints on future school

[1:59:16] operations, including traffic circulation challenges, parking

[1:59:19] conflicts, noise complaints, student safety concerns,

[1:59:23] and limitations on future school expansion.

[1:59:26] These issues can complicate and potentially

[1:59:28] jeopardize the successful development of a school

[1:59:31] that our community may urgently need in the near future.

[1:59:35] Furthermore, approving rezoning the site

[1:59:37] may provide a short-term solution

[1:59:39] for housing or commercial needs while sacrificing

[1:59:41] a long-term community assets.

[1:59:44] Schools are critical public infrastructure that

[1:59:46] serves generations of families.

[1:59:50] We should be planning not only for today's need,

[1:59:52] but also for the needs for our children and future residents.

[1:59:56] I therefore demand the city commit

[1:59:58] in writing to upholding its policies, specifically

[2:00:01] policy PF-13 and PF P-32 by rejecting

[2:00:04] any land use changes that would jeopardize the school site.

[2:00:08] I respectfully ask the decision makers

[2:00:10] to consider the lasting value of preserving

[2:00:12] this land for public use and educational purposes.

[2:00:16] Before approving any zoning conversion,

[2:00:18] the city should conduct a thorough evaluation

[2:00:21] of future school needs, population growth projections,

[2:00:25] and alternative sites that could serve

[2:00:26] the public interest without eliminating a potential school

[2:00:30] location.

[2:00:31] Once the land is converted and developed,

[2:00:34] the opportunity to use it for a school may be lost forever.

[2:00:38] For that reason, I urge you to reject the proposed zoning

[2:00:41] amendment and preserve the site for its intended public purpose.

[2:00:45] In the end, I would like to reiterate

[2:00:47] that I oppose any amendment that does not explicitly

[2:00:49] protect the school from incompatible adjacent

[2:00:52] and on its land uses or reduce land availability.

[2:00:55] Thank you for your time and cooperation

[2:00:57] and thanks for the opportunity to speak up.

[2:01:00] Thank you.

[2:01:03] Next comment card.

[2:01:04] The last card I have is [INAUDIBLE].

[2:01:11] Good evening, council, fellow residents.

[2:01:18] This is regarding the site 2 and site 1.

[2:01:22] So both are interrelated.

[2:01:25] And while we appreciate the increase for 2 acre

[2:01:31] land for the fire station, the decrease

[2:01:34] of school site of 0.82 acre from PQP to HDR should be denied.

[2:01:45] And if city wants to use it for future use, public use,

[2:01:49] that's better for public use.

[2:01:52] And if it is unable to use for public use,

[2:01:55] it should be returned to MUSD.

[2:01:58] I'm not sure when 2 by 2 meetings with MUSD

[2:02:03] happens for the growth.

[2:02:06] When school district says it's a surplus land

[2:02:11] or it's not a building that is space allocated to that 1 acre.

[2:02:20] Why did the city not stand with public

[2:02:23] and ask, what about the future projection?

[2:02:27] So what about the future expansion.

[2:02:29] The three schools that were proposed,

[2:02:32] the Lathrop had a future building and a future bus drop

[2:02:38] off planning.

[2:02:39] Why did not city have requested for an adequate land

[2:02:45] to be allocated.

[2:02:47] Instead, it is being given to a high density residential.

[2:02:53] Also, there is no truth in loss of 1

[2:02:57] acre for the private developer.

[2:02:59] The site 1, which the city owns as an R1 zoning

[2:03:06] is being converted to commercial zone

[2:03:08] and given to the same private developer.

[2:03:12] The cost of the site 2 or a residential land is

[2:03:17] approximately 200k to 300k.

[2:03:20] So for the 1.82 acre that the private developer is giving,

[2:03:27] it costs around 400k, but the site he is receiving on the 0.94

[2:03:34] on the freeway exit being converted to commercial is close

[2:03:38] to a million.

[2:03:39] That means he has a profit of more than 500k profit.

[2:03:45] City could have requested more land

[2:03:47] for the exchange instead of reducing the school

[2:03:50] site from PQP to HDR.

[2:03:54] They could have asked 2 more acres

[2:03:57] to compensate the equal value so that we

[2:04:00] have enough public facilities.

[2:04:03] Thank you.

[2:04:04] And in that facility, there could

[2:04:06] have been a community [INAUDIBLE] program that

[2:04:11] can be distributed across four corners, which

[2:04:15] would be of a good public use.

[2:04:17] Thank you.

[2:04:21] That's all the cards.

[2:04:23] Anybody else in the public would like to speak on item D.2?

[2:04:33] OK, seeing none, I will go ahead and close the public hearing

[2:04:36] at 8:32.

[2:04:44] I have a question.

[2:04:48] Has the school, MUSD, ever approached

[2:04:51] the city regarding the site that they needed more space, they

[2:04:56] didn't want to do this change or anything from the school

[2:05:01] district that they need more space for their school?

[2:05:05] I can defer to the director on that question.

[2:05:09] I can unequivocally say, though, the school district has not

[2:05:12] made any comment about the loss of the 1 acre

[2:05:16] and how it might impact their school site.

[2:05:18] In fact, I can say that, in conversations with them,

[2:05:22] it does not jeopardize the number of students, the design

[2:05:24] of the school at all.

[2:05:27] And that's why when we went to the settlement negotiations,

[2:05:30] they were willing to transfer that 1 acre of land to the city,

[2:05:34] so that we do--

[2:05:36] are able to acquire the 2 acres to build the fire station.

[2:05:40] And they agree with this general plan amendment?

[2:05:43] We have been in communication as part of this.

[2:05:46] They're aware.

[2:05:47] They are also taking the 1 acre donation to the state,

[2:05:51] September 9th and 10th for their meeting,

[2:05:53] as part of this donation to the city.

[2:05:55] They're aware of the change, both to the HDR piece, as well

[2:05:59] as the PQP fire station site.

[2:06:01] They've been involved in the conversation for some time.

[2:06:04] Yeah.

[2:06:06] Do you know if there's going to be a bus stop over there?

[2:06:10] I am unaware if there will be a bus stop

[2:06:13] or where it would be located.

[2:06:14] I have not gotten into that conversation with the school

[2:06:17] district.

[2:06:23] All right, Council Member Morowit.

[2:06:29] So basically, this is because we're not using the school site

[2:06:33] and we're converting it back, is that basically the reason?

[2:06:37] Well, thank you, Council Member.

[2:06:39] So actually with these items, we don't consider uses.

[2:06:41] So uses are a separate issue, completely separate discussion.

[2:06:44] What we're trying to do is align things

[2:06:46] with what potential uses could be.

[2:06:49] So under PQP, it could be a list of them.

[2:06:51] It just so happens that there's this stuff going

[2:06:54] on in the background that's related.

[2:06:57] But who knows?

[2:06:58] The fire station could evaporate tomorrow.

[2:07:00] And it's all PQP and could be used for a school.

[2:07:02] We don't know.

[2:07:03] We try to align it to be able to accommodate this project

[2:07:06] or any future project.

[2:07:08] For government use, basically.

[2:07:10] For public use.

[2:07:11] Public use, I mean, which is-- so not just for homes,

[2:07:14] it's for public use.

[2:07:15] It's actually an increase in that public use acreage

[2:07:19] and a decrease in residential acreage.

[2:07:21] That's the purpose of this?

[2:07:22] And this is, like you say, to make sure it balances.

[2:07:27] General plans are not just-- they're just a road map.

[2:07:30] They're an overlay.

[2:07:31] It doesn't mean it happens, but we prepare for it

[2:07:34] so that if it does, they don't have

[2:07:35] to go through the long process of changing it

[2:07:37] again so that people know.

[2:07:39] So developers, and schools, and public entities

[2:07:42] know that if they use this land, it's

[2:07:44] already set up for, in this case, maybe for public use.

[2:07:48] We don't know what dictates public use yet.

[2:07:50] And honestly, we want to make sure these lines are

[2:07:53] appropriate to what is envisioned.

[2:07:55] If they're not, we could likely end up

[2:07:56] with a use that's on a zoning designation that

[2:07:58] isn't consistent.

[2:07:59] And we've created a bigger problem.

[2:08:02] So it's a better road map for the city in the future.

[2:08:08] I appreciate that.

[2:08:08] Thank you.

[2:08:09] Thank you.

[2:08:11] All right, thank you, Council Member Breitenbucher.

[2:08:17] So Brad, there was a thing that was sent to us.

[2:08:20] And it had the goals that was listed.

[2:08:25] And so I looked it up, the general plan, right?

[2:08:29] And it talks about the corps division of labor,

[2:08:33] MUSD's responsibility is an independent governmental agency

[2:08:37] solely responsible for funding, designing, constructing,

[2:08:41] and operation all public school facilities.

[2:08:43] City of Manteca does not build schools.

[2:08:46] Instead, its role is defined in land use planning, zoning,

[2:08:48] and coordination to ensure there is space for the schools

[2:08:51] as a community grows.

[2:08:53] That's the process we're doing today.

[2:08:55] Correct?

[2:08:56] That is part of the process.

[2:08:57] We are planning.

[2:08:58] I will note that the city development services and staff

[2:09:01] do have quarterly meetings with the school district

[2:09:03] in collaboration on these topics.

[2:09:05] So we are meeting to identify, not only

[2:09:08] the issues with this site and how

[2:09:10] we can move forward, but also others as well.

[2:09:12] And then on the goals, the land allocation goal, LU-7, city

[2:09:16] ensures that enough land is zoned for public and quasi

[2:09:19] public use, preventing residential growth from entirely

[2:09:22] crowding out space needed for future schools and parks.

[2:09:25] We've met that goal.

[2:09:27] Yes, we have.

[2:09:27] And two of the proposed general plan amendments

[2:09:29] go further in terms of adding additional public quasi public

[2:09:33] or public use acreage within the city.

[2:09:36] And the next one is growth coordination.

[2:09:38] The city shares its population housing growth forecast

[2:09:41] with MUSD, so the district can accurately

[2:09:43] predict future student enrollment

[2:09:45] and plan where to buy land for new campuses.

[2:09:47] And we do that too, right?

[2:09:48] Yes, we provide them data, if not quarterly,

[2:09:51] more often as they request it so they

[2:09:52] can project those student numbers.

[2:09:55] And then neighborhood design goals CD 4.7.

[2:09:58] The city designs urban master plan

[2:10:00] so that new neighborhoods are built with central hubs,

[2:10:03] ideally placing elementary schools

[2:10:05] or parks within a safe half mile walking

[2:10:07] distance for local families.

[2:10:09] And we have been working on that in our general plan.

[2:10:11] Correct, the 2024 general plan update

[2:10:13] has several of those central core areas,

[2:10:16] whether it's HDR, high density residential commercial.

[2:10:19] PQP, they're built within that central core to that goal, yes.

[2:10:24] OK, thank you.

[2:10:26] All right, Vice Mayor.

[2:10:32] Council Member Breitenbucher, you

[2:10:34] did a really good job asking all my questions.

[2:10:36] Thank you.

[2:10:37] Welcome.

[2:10:40] Council Member, Halford.

[2:10:44] Pretty much, ditto.

[2:10:45] They've covered it all.

[2:10:50] It all make sense.

[2:10:53] Obviously, there's some disagreement

[2:10:55] on what some people feel on the PQP and the [INAUDIBLE] the HDR.

[2:11:02] The net gain of PQP, fire station is very much needed.

[2:11:08] And district is happy with [INAUDIBLE] that they have,

[2:11:12] in addition to the other school sites,

[2:11:14] are available in the southwest portion of town.

[2:11:22] The section that has been quoted,

[2:11:25] the operative word in there is or, that it's

[2:11:29] a park, a school, or a commercial use area that's

[2:11:33] within a half a mile.

[2:11:35] And I would believe that I'm not aware of any subdivisions that

[2:11:43] have been built that don't have a park within a half a mile

[2:11:46] walking.

[2:11:49] I mean, I stand to be corrected if there are any,

[2:11:52] but I'm not aware of it.

[2:11:53] So I'm supportive.

[2:11:55] Thank you.

[2:11:57] Thank you.

[2:11:59] Maybe one more question regarding schools.

[2:12:03] Are we the one that decides how big or large

[2:12:06] a school site should be or is that a school district?

[2:12:10] That's a school district decision.

[2:12:12] However, we do work with them to identify

[2:12:14] sites that would potentially be large enough as we go through,

[2:12:16] not only the general plan update, a few years ago,

[2:12:19] but also as we move forward with future annexation potential

[2:12:22] sites.

[2:12:23] So the school district tells us how much

[2:12:25] land they potentially would need and to make

[2:12:28] sure the general plan is zoned.

[2:12:30] Correct?

[2:12:31] Correct.

[2:12:36] All right, if there's no any other questions,

[2:12:38] I'll entertain a motion.

[2:12:39] So moved.

[2:12:40] Second

[2:12:41] OK, I have a motion from Council Member Breitenbucher.

[2:12:44] Second from Council Member Halford to adopt a resolution

[2:12:47] approving general plan amendment amending the land use

[2:12:49] designation of the project parcels identified in sites 1

[2:12:53] through 4 project and waive the first reading by substitution

[2:12:57] of the title and introduce an ordinance of the city council

[2:13:00] and the City of Manteca, State of California,

[2:13:02] amending the zoning map set forth in Section 17.20.040

[2:13:08] of chapter 17.20 of Title 17 of the Manteca Municipal Code

[2:13:13] by rezoning the project parcels identified in sites 1 through 4

[2:13:17] project rezone.

[2:13:18] All in favor say aye.

[2:13:19] Aye.

[2:13:20] Opposed?

[2:13:21] Motion carries 5-0.

[2:13:23] That takes us to D.3.

[2:13:26] Conduct a public hearing for the Yosemite mixed use conversion

[2:13:29] batch GPA site five project and adopt a resolution

[2:13:33] making the necessary findings to adopt an initial study mitigated

[2:13:37] negative declaration and its associated mitigation,

[2:13:42] monitoring and reporting program prepared for the project,

[2:13:45] adopt a resolution approving a general plan amendment,

[2:13:50] redesignating the project parcel identified in the batch GPA site

[2:13:55] 5 project, and waive the first reading by substitution

[2:13:58] of the title, and introduce an ordinance of the city

[2:14:01] council of the City of Manteca,

[2:14:03] State of California amending the zoning map set forth in Section

[2:14:08] 17.20.040 of chapter 17.20 of Title 17 of the Manteca

[2:14:16] Municipal Code by rezoning the batch GPA site 5 parcels from

[2:14:23] public quasi public planned development, light industrial,

[2:14:28] and limited multiple family dwelling to the mixed use

[2:14:33] commercial zoning district.

[2:14:35] Again, we have associate planner, Sol.

[2:14:40] Mayor and members of the city council, Sol Jobrack, again,

[2:14:43] speaking on this item.

[2:14:45] The item before you is the Yosemite mixed use conversion

[2:14:48] project.

[2:14:49] We've also identified it as batch general

[2:14:51] plan amendment site 5.

[2:14:55] This is a city initiated Amendment involving

[2:14:57] approximately 22.95 acres located Southwest of Yosemite

[2:15:03] and South Airport Way.

[2:15:05] The project area consists of 10 parcels identified

[2:15:07] on the slide is intended to establish

[2:15:10] consistent general plan and zoning designations

[2:15:12] throughout the project area.

[2:15:14] The planning commission did consider this item at its June

[2:15:17] 18th meeting and recommended approval 5-0.

[2:15:22] The amendment is being proposed to resolve the existing

[2:15:25] inconsistencies between the general plan and zoning maps

[2:15:28] and establish a unified commercial mixed use land

[2:15:31] use pattern.

[2:15:33] The commercial mixed use designation

[2:15:34] would support future residential and commercial development

[2:15:37] opportunities and encourage infill development

[2:15:40] within the existing urbanized area.

[2:15:43] The amendment also advances the general plan's housing

[2:15:46] and economic development goals by creating greater flexibility

[2:15:50] for future development of these areas.

[2:15:54] This slide compares the existing and proposed general plan

[2:15:56] amendments.

[2:15:58] The approximate 23 acre project site area currently

[2:16:02] contains several general plan designations and the cleanup

[2:16:05] proposed general plan amendment would

[2:16:07] designate the entire project as commercial mixed use.

[2:16:10] This would create one consistent land use designation

[2:16:14] across all parcels.

[2:16:17] This here is the zoning map amendment.

[2:16:19] It compares the existing and proposed zoning designations.

[2:16:23] This is to correspond with the proposed general plan

[2:16:26] designations from the previous slide.

[2:16:29] Staff did evaluate the proposed amendments for consistency

[2:16:33] with the 2043 general plan and found that the proposed

[2:16:36] amendments are in the public's interest

[2:16:38] and consistent with the general plan.

[2:16:42] Staff recommends that the city council conduct a public hearing

[2:16:45] and take the following actions.

[2:16:47] First, we ask that you adopt the initial study,

[2:16:49] and mitigated negative declaration,

[2:16:51] and the associated mitigation, monitoring and reporting

[2:16:54] program.

[2:16:54] Second, we ask that you approve the general plan amendment,

[2:16:57] GPA 26-0039.

[2:16:59] And finally, third, we ask that you approve the zoning map

[2:17:02] amendment rezone application 26-0039.

[2:17:06] This concludes staff's presentation.

[2:17:08] We're happy to answer any questions if you have any.

[2:17:10] All right, thank you for that.

[2:17:13] Any questions or comments from council

[2:17:15] before I open a public hearing?

[2:17:19] OK, we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing at 8:44.

[2:17:25] Any questions on Zoom?

[2:17:35] I have attendees, but no hands raised for public comment

[2:17:37] for item D.3.

[2:17:39] Any comment cards?

[2:17:41] I have no comment.

[2:17:42] Anybody in the public would like to speak on item D.3?

[2:17:51] OK, seeing none, we'll go ahead and bring it back.

[2:17:54] Closing public hearing at 8:45.

[2:18:00] All right, question on this one, I guess, I have real quick is,

[2:18:07] you have some zoning that changed from PQP to CMU?

[2:18:14] Mayor, thank you for bringing that up.

[2:18:16] Assistant city manager Jorgensen just

[2:18:17] mentioned that we do show two parcels, 24130067 and 24130071.

[2:18:25] one under the ownership of SSJID and the other

[2:18:27] under the ownership of the city.

[2:18:29] I don't believe that was staff's intent to make that change.

[2:18:32] And we'd request city council approve amended resolutions that

[2:18:37] exclude those two parcels, as well as

[2:18:38] the ordinance doing the same.

[2:18:41] All right.

[2:18:45] People may not like that.

[2:18:50] 23067.

[2:18:55] So the 7.39 acres of PQP is going to remain?

[2:19:01] Parcel ending in 71 and 67 would remain PQP.

[2:19:07] Is that where our future potential Milo Candini

[2:19:09] would be coming through?

[2:19:10] I don't know to that, but I do know

[2:19:12] that's part of the wastewater treatment plant

[2:19:14] facilities at that location.

[2:19:22] And that was not part of the planning commission, those two

[2:19:27] parcels?

[2:19:28] That was part of the planning commission

[2:19:29] recommendation to city council.

[2:19:31] So the PQP was in there switching to CMU?

[2:19:34] It was.

[2:19:35] OK, all right.

[2:19:38] Good, yeah.

[2:19:39] We're going to leave it.

[2:19:41] A good catch.

[2:19:43] OK, I'll go back to council if any other questions.

[2:19:47] I'll start with Council Member Halford.

[2:19:52] Not now.

[2:19:56] Vice Mayor.

[2:20:00] No, you can't go there yet.

[2:20:03] Just remember Morowit.

[2:20:04] So basically, we had just a mix of everything

[2:20:07] on there-- existing mixed use commercial.

[2:20:08] We had multiple family.

[2:20:11] We had some PQP industrial.

[2:20:13] So now, we're just going to make it all one mixed use, CMU.

[2:20:17] Correct?

[2:20:17] That's correct.

[2:20:18] And the purpose of that was what we

[2:20:21] feel what we want to have there in the city that's

[2:20:23] consistent with--

[2:20:24] It is consistent.

[2:20:25] We do have development applications

[2:20:26] in on one of those parcels currently

[2:20:29] that is a clean-- this is actually part of a cleanup

[2:20:32] that we need to do for that project as well.

[2:20:35] So yes, it's consistent.

[2:20:37] We believe it's best for the city and best for that location.

[2:20:42] Once again, we have an applicant?

[2:20:44] Yes.

[2:20:45] [INAUDIBLE]

[2:20:47] I believe the applicant, the project that we're working

[2:20:51] on that has [INAUDIBLE] for a second has gone through planning

[2:20:55] commission or we--

[2:20:57] no it has not.

[2:20:59] Mayor and council.

[2:21:00] The specific projects are still under review pending tonight's

[2:21:04] action.

[2:21:05] Thank you.

[2:21:07] Very good.

[2:21:13] You Good, Council Member Morowit?

[2:21:14] I'm good.

[2:21:17] Yeah, no, I appreciate this cleanup.

[2:21:19] I also appreciate the consistency with CMU

[2:21:22] and actually also eliminating industrial in that area.

[2:21:26] Just with the changes with fez and all the things

[2:21:29] that are going to be happening around there.

[2:21:31] We definitely don't need that type of use.

[2:21:36] So I think CMU is more consistent with things

[2:21:39] to the east and the south.

[2:21:44] So with that, I do like this change

[2:21:47] and look forward to seeing that project move forward also

[2:21:50] when it comes.

[2:21:52] I'll entertain a motion.

[2:21:53] I'll make the motion to amend 24130067 and 71

[2:22:01] to leave them as PQP and accept the other CMU.

[2:22:06] I'll second.

[2:22:07] So we have a motion from council member Breitenbucher

[2:22:10] and a second from Vice Mayor Lackey to do the PQP,

[2:22:15] leaving it at PQP for 067 and 071,

[2:22:18] and adopt a resolution making the necessary findings to adopt

[2:22:21] an initial study mitigated neg deck and its associated

[2:22:26] mitigation, monitoring, and reporting program prepared

[2:22:29] for the project, adopt a resolution approving a general

[2:22:32] plan amendment redesignation, the project parcel identified

[2:22:36] in the batch GPA site 5 project and waive the first reading

[2:22:40] by substitution of Title and introduce an ordinance

[2:22:42] of the city council of the City Of Manteca, State of California,

[2:22:45] amending the zoning map set forth in Section 17.20.040

[2:22:50] of chapter 17.20 of Title 17 of the Manteca Municipal Code

[2:22:55] by rezoning the batch GPA site by project parcels from public

[2:22:59] quasi--

[2:23:02] planned development, light industrial, and limited multiple

[2:23:05] family dwelling to the mixed use commercial zoning district.

[2:23:10] All in favor, say aye.

[2:23:12] Aye.

[2:23:13] Opposed?

[2:23:14] Motion carries 5-0.

[2:23:15] Hopefully you got that.

[2:23:21] All right.

[2:23:25] OK, we'll move on to D.4.

[2:23:27] Conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution approving

[2:23:30] amendment number 2 for the engineering and traffic

[2:23:33] survey for speed limits, waive the first reading

[2:23:36] by substitution of a title.

[2:23:37] And introduce an ordinance of the city council of the City

[2:23:41] of Manteca, State of California, amending Manteca Municipal Code

[2:23:45] 10, vehicles and traffic chapter 10.12,

[2:23:49] speed limit section 10.12.020, designated and authorizing

[2:23:57] the city manager or designee to take all appropriate actions

[2:24:00] necessary to carry out the purpose and intent

[2:24:03] of the resolution.

[2:24:04] Mayor and council, tonight, we have Senior Engineer Beshoy.

[2:24:08] Good evening, Mayor and council members.

[2:24:11] This public hearing is to reduce the speed limit

[2:24:14] on Crom Street between Airport Way and Union Road

[2:24:19] from 35 to 30.

[2:24:21] California Vehicle Code give local jurisdictions

[2:24:24] authority to run a traffic and engineering survey to complete

[2:24:31] this reduction.

[2:24:33] When we received concern from public regarding current speed

[2:24:38] limit on Crom Street, we investigated the roadway element

[2:24:46] such as land use, public transit,

[2:24:49] pedestrian and public facilities, crash rate,

[2:24:52] which was lower than similar corridors in the state.

[2:25:00] We also reviewed five years of collision history.

[2:25:06] And we have 0 fatalities on this corridor.

[2:25:11] We have only one collision in July, 2024 with a severe injury.

[2:25:19] And it was between motorcycle and a vehicle.

[2:25:22] And was a primary contributing factor

[2:25:25] and defining as unsafe speed from the motorcycle.

[2:25:30] We also looked at free flow vehicles.

[2:25:33] We collected samples of 128 vehicle speed under free flow.

[2:25:41] And we gathered-- we calculated the 85th percentile.

[2:25:47] The 85th percentile is the speed which our observed vehicle,

[2:25:53] 85% of them, were at or below that speed.

[2:25:59] 15% are higher than that speed.

[2:26:01] 85th percentile for Crom Street on this study,

[2:26:06] it was 37 mile per hour.

[2:26:09] We rounded to the nearest 5, which is 35.

[2:26:12] And because of its proximity to the school,

[2:26:17] and the residential frontage, and also

[2:26:21] the one severe collision, engineering

[2:26:24] is recommending to reduce from 35

[2:26:28] to take another five mile per hour reduction

[2:26:31] from 35 to 30 mile per hour.

[2:26:39] And that's also supported by California Vehicle Code section

[2:26:46] 22358.6b.

[2:26:50] Staff does recommend reducing the speed limit

[2:26:53] to 30 miles per hour.

[2:26:55] Thank you.

[2:26:56] Any questions?

[2:26:59] All right.

[2:27:02] Any questions from council before I open up

[2:27:04] the public hearing?

[2:27:07] OK, we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing at 8:54.

[2:27:14] Anybody on Zoom?

[2:27:23] I have attendees on Zoom, but no hands raised for public comment

[2:27:27] for item D.4.

[2:27:29] Any comment cards?

[2:27:32] I have no comments.

[2:27:34] Anybody like to speak on item D.4?

[2:27:37] Come on up, sir.

[2:27:39] Just one first.

[2:27:42] I am all for reducing that to 30 miles an hour,

[2:27:47] I think would be a lot safer.

[2:27:48] Thank you.

[2:28:01] Hello, council members.

[2:28:03] I'm Raymond Gedney.

[2:28:04] I live on Crom Street at Foxfire.

[2:28:08] We moved there approximately 2 and 1/2 years ago.

[2:28:12] And as a retired traffic sergeant,

[2:28:15] I noticed the excessive speed on that street

[2:28:19] and the dangerous condition.

[2:28:21] Dangerous condition being foot traffic to and from school,

[2:28:27] dog walkers.

[2:28:28] There's a lot of pedestrian traffic out there.

[2:28:32] I've been working with the engineering department

[2:28:36] on getting that speed reduced.

[2:28:39] And also the housing on the other side of airport

[2:28:44] contributed to the traffic there.

[2:28:47] I worked with them and tried to get it down

[2:28:51] to 25 suggested speed.

[2:28:55] Eventually, I turned in a traffic calming form

[2:29:01] requesting 25.

[2:29:04] About two months ago, a month and a half

[2:29:07] ago, I received an email regarding--

[2:29:11] from the engineering department.

[2:29:13] And they stated that they were going

[2:29:15] to make a recommendation to council to reduce it to 25.

[2:29:20] Well, I was ecstatic about that because that's

[2:29:23] my main goal is to slow down the traffic there.

[2:29:28] And then I think it was about a week ago, a week and a half

[2:29:32] ago, in the evening, I got an email

[2:29:35] from the engineering department that they modified it

[2:29:38] to 30 miles an hour.

[2:29:40] I don't agree with that.

[2:29:42] I don't think 5 miles an hour is going to make much

[2:29:44] of a difference on that street.

[2:29:47] There's also the Assembly Bill 1014,

[2:29:51] which was passed this year, which has increased the amount

[2:29:55] that a local jurisdiction can reduce the speed from the 85th

[2:30:03] percentile, which is 37 miles an hour.

[2:30:07] It is my viewpoint that the speed can be reduced to 25

[2:30:15] and also rounded off down to 25, according to the Assembly Bill.

[2:30:21] So I'm referring you to the Assembly Bill.

[2:30:23] And I received no information from the engineering department

[2:30:29] or the traffic committee that there

[2:30:33] was going to be any consideration regarding

[2:30:37] that Assembly Bill.

[2:30:40] So I urge the council to pass it for a 25 miles per hour speed

[2:30:45] limit there and reduce the school zone to 20 miles hour.

[2:30:53] So that's my case.

[2:30:55] Mr. Gedney, a question for you.

[2:30:58] When you submitted the traffic calming,

[2:31:00] did you ever submit to get speed bumps, humps, lumps on Crom

[2:31:05] or you just asked for a reduction in speed limit?

[2:31:07] What happened is about a year and a half ago,

[2:31:10] I turned in the traffic calming form requesting speed bumps.

[2:31:18] And I was advised that they're not allowable

[2:31:20] for a 35 mile per hour zone.

[2:31:23] I wasn't aware of that.

[2:31:26] But that was the last request I made for it.

[2:31:28] And now, I get the notification regarding this reduction

[2:31:35] to 30 miles per hour.

[2:31:37] And then I also got a form with this regarding the speed lumps.

[2:31:43] I looked at the form.

[2:31:45] And I'm not too happy with the wording on the form

[2:31:48] because I was looking at it and it

[2:31:50] said-- one of the questions for the person

[2:31:54] to sign up on Crom Street is, would you like speed lumps

[2:32:00] in front of your house?

[2:32:02] And I don't think that's an appropriate question

[2:32:05] on that petition, because I think

[2:32:07] it's going to slant the response or the reaction of someone

[2:32:13] possibility of signing a petition.

[2:32:16] I think that's a negative inappropriate wording

[2:32:21] on that form.

[2:32:23] And also another question is, are you the owner of the house?

[2:32:29] I think that's irrelevant as far as--

[2:32:34] what does it matter who owns the house?

[2:32:36] It's who's living in that house.

[2:32:38] Because there is a significant number

[2:32:41] of renters on that street.

[2:32:43] So I have a problem with the wording on that form.

[2:32:47] And I've actually have two friends

[2:32:49] that have approved areas for speed lumps.

[2:32:54] And I'm going to show them that form to make sure

[2:32:56] that it's consistent with what they dealt with before.

[2:33:03] Thank you, sir.

[2:33:04] You're welcome.

[2:33:07] Anybody else would like to speak on this item?

[2:33:19] OK, seeing none, I will go ahead and close the public hearing

[2:33:22] at 9 o'clock.

[2:33:26] OK, a couple questions I have.

[2:33:30] First of all, Mr. Gedney brought up the fact of AB 1014.

[2:33:37] Can you explain that one?

[2:33:39] Yes, sure.

[2:33:42] The California Vehicle Code, the new law does provide the ability

[2:33:49] to reduce the 85th percentile by 12.4mph.

[2:33:55] So to take it to 25 miles per hour,

[2:33:58] we could be using additional lowering the speed

[2:34:01] by 5 miles per hour.

[2:34:04] But unfortunately, and that's why

[2:34:06] we had to correct that email that Mr. Gedney was

[2:34:09] talking about.

[2:34:11] That five mile per hour extra reduction

[2:34:15] comes with a very restriction requirements.

[2:34:20] Reading from California Vehicle Codes and the California

[2:34:24] [INAUDIBLE], it has to be one--

[2:34:27] it has to meet the following two requirements.

[2:34:31] Safety corridor.

[2:34:32] And the definition of safety corridor

[2:34:34] is a safety corridor that shall be defined as a roadway segment

[2:34:39] with an overall roadway network, where the highest

[2:34:43] number of serious injury and fatality crashes

[2:34:47] acquire guidance.

[2:34:51] Jurisdiction should use three or five

[2:34:53] years on the most recent crash data

[2:34:56] to determine a safety corridor.

[2:34:59] For crashes cover, safety corridor

[2:35:02] may be defined as a subset of an overall roadway network, where

[2:35:08] a minimum of 25% or fatality or serious injury crash acquire.

[2:35:14] And unfortunately, we don't have engineer bases

[2:35:19] to define Crom Street as meeting this kind of requirement.

[2:35:24] The second requirement is a land or facility

[2:35:27] that generates high concentration of bicycle

[2:35:32] and pedestrian.

[2:35:33] So we have the school and we have the bike lane.

[2:35:36] Totally agree.

[2:35:37] But it adds that following requirement

[2:35:41] and meet the following condition.

[2:35:44] Crash data demonstrate a high segment

[2:35:48] is within the top 20% of pedestrian and bicycle

[2:35:52] fatalities or serious injury over the three or five years.

[2:35:56] We looked at the five years and we couldn't find that,

[2:35:59] so we couldn't find a engineer basis

[2:36:03] to give the speed limit as a 25 mile per hour.

[2:36:11] Listen, I mean, we all know that speed limits establish

[2:36:17] at or near 85th percentile provides the law enforcement

[2:36:22] an appropriate level for citing drivers who travel at speed

[2:36:28] consider reasonable for-- consider by majority that

[2:36:34] it's reasonable to get cited.

[2:36:36] So if you look also at the data in the presentation--

[2:36:45] if we go to 25 miles per hour, 98%

[2:36:52] of the people that we observed in that sample

[2:36:56] will be violators.

[2:36:58] So we couldn't move forward with 25 mile per hour.

[2:37:01] And we recommend 30.

[2:37:04] OK, next question I have is, is reduction in speed

[2:37:10] a common traffic calming process that we

[2:37:14] use when it comes to our traffic calming application?

[2:37:18] So the traffic calming application

[2:37:20] is serving the speed lumps.

[2:37:24] And what we told-- what we affirm

[2:37:31] the resident is that when we reduce it to 30 mile per hour,

[2:37:36] we will be able to add the speed lumps on Crom

[2:37:39] because previously, it was rejected because it

[2:37:43] was a 35 mile per hour.

[2:37:45] But now, with a 30 mile per hour, near the 85th percentile,

[2:37:50] I can add the speed lump.

[2:37:53] So if this gets approved tonight,

[2:37:55] speed lump sums, whatever it is, will

[2:37:58] be a possibility for that road?

[2:38:00] Yes, we already approached Mr. Gedney with that application.

[2:38:06] And we told him you can start the petition and align

[2:38:09] with while we are trying to reduce the speed.

[2:38:13] And regarding the question, are you the owner

[2:38:18] or are you OK with having the speed lump in front

[2:38:23] of your house and the question application,

[2:38:26] we run through so many lessons learned that we go and put it

[2:38:31] in front of somebody's house.

[2:38:32] And they come during construction

[2:38:34] and say, no, we don't want it here.

[2:38:36] So from lesson learned from many years, we had to ask the people,

[2:38:43] are we going to put a speed lump in front of you

[2:38:45] or a sign in front of you?

[2:38:46] Are you OK with that?

[2:38:48] I mean, street already have seen so many signs.

[2:38:52] If when people are not happy, they just remove the sign

[2:38:55] and throw it away.

[2:38:56] They just pull it up.

[2:38:57] So we just trying to be proactive

[2:39:01] when we are asking those questions to the residents.

[2:39:04] And are those questions consistent with all

[2:39:06] of our other applications?

[2:39:07] Yes, definitely.

[2:39:08] And you see how many speed lumps we have around the town.

[2:39:15] If we have a serious speed issue,

[2:39:18] I definitely think that this question will get people happy.

[2:39:23] Yes, I want it here in front of my house

[2:39:26] because I have a speed issue.

[2:39:34] Vice Mayor, go ahead.

[2:39:37] OK, so I wanted to go first because this is actually

[2:39:40] a really important topic for me.

[2:39:42] I used to live on Crom Street.

[2:39:44] I lived on Crom Street for 10 years.

[2:39:46] I raised my kids from infants to 10 years old

[2:39:50] and a little bit older.

[2:39:51] And I can tell you firsthand that this street is an issue.

[2:39:56] People go speeding down the street.

[2:39:58] I've had my neighbor's house almost get hit.

[2:40:01] The only reason it did not get hit

[2:40:03] is because there was a tree in front of it.

[2:40:05] And it slammed into the tree.

[2:40:07] We've had our mailbox taken out.

[2:40:11] I've had cars hit that were parked on the side

[2:40:15] because people speed through Crom Street.

[2:40:19] And it's gotten worse.

[2:40:23] What I don't understand is it was at 35 miles an hour

[2:40:28] because half of the street is a golf course.

[2:40:30] And a few years back, part of that street was a farm.

[2:40:36] I lived directly across the street from the farm.

[2:40:39] Now, it's all housing.

[2:40:40] And Crom now extends to the other side of airport.

[2:40:44] So we have kids that are walking down this residential street

[2:40:49] to get to a school that has access

[2:40:52] to the school on Crom Street.

[2:40:55] Every other neighborhood per the California DMV, their speed

[2:41:00] limit is 25.

[2:41:01] This street is a residential street.

[2:41:05] We have high density on both ends of Crom Street

[2:41:09] from Union on that end.

[2:41:11] We have the apartments.

[2:41:13] And we have the high density--

[2:41:15] what are they?

[2:41:16] They're not condos.

[2:41:17] Townhouses on the other side.

[2:41:20] We now have all that new housing.

[2:41:22] And all those kids are walking their way to school,

[2:41:25] riding their bikes to school.

[2:41:27] It is a high density street.

[2:41:30] And a lot of families can't allow their kids

[2:41:34] to be out front of their house because there is racing going on

[2:41:40] down that street.

[2:41:41] Now, there's been a lot of mitigation over the years trying

[2:41:44] to keep it from going so fast.

[2:41:47] 43 miles an hour down that street is ridiculous.

[2:41:50] That should not be OK.

[2:41:52] And that should not be part of this factoring of your 87th

[2:41:56] percentile.

[2:41:57] Yeah, you're going to have 98% of violators.

[2:42:01] Guess what?

[2:42:02] At that point, maybe we get some traffic control

[2:42:05] and we ticket every single one of them

[2:42:09] for racing down a residential street.

[2:42:17] I have talked to Mr. Gedney.

[2:42:19] And I had said, do the petition for the speed

[2:42:24] lumps because that will slow them down to 15 miles

[2:42:27] an hour going over these speed bumps.

[2:42:28] I don't know why we don't already

[2:42:30] have them because it is a school district.

[2:42:33] We have three entrances to Stella Brockman.

[2:42:37] We have one on Silverado.

[2:42:39] We have one on Crom.

[2:42:40] And then I can't recall the other street.

[2:42:44] Because that's a new policy we just created.

[2:42:47] Well, I understand that, but what I'm saying is,

[2:42:51] this is a residential street.

[2:42:52] We have kids accessing that school

[2:42:54] from three different points.

[2:42:57] All three of those points need to be treated just

[2:43:00] like all of our other schools under this new policy

[2:43:03] and receive those speed lumps.

[2:43:05] There shouldn't be a question to that.

[2:43:08] But I haven't been on that street for 10 years.

[2:43:12] I moved to the other side of town

[2:43:14] where my kids could play in the front yard.

[2:43:17] This street has always been an issue.

[2:43:20] When I lived there, I asked for speed lumps.

[2:43:23] At that time, speed lumps were not a standard in Manteca.

[2:43:27] I was told that they could not happen.

[2:43:30] And it never did.

[2:43:31] So we had two cars totaled in front of my house

[2:43:35] because people were speeding.

[2:43:38] Like I said, we had our post office box

[2:43:41] knocked out for months because, obviously, it takes time.

[2:43:46] They have the curve in the street.

[2:43:47] It does not slow them down.

[2:43:49] They've put up stop signs.

[2:43:51] It does not slow them down.

[2:43:52] They've put up lights on those stop signs.

[2:43:54] It does not slow them down.

[2:43:56] We have at least put a sidewalk on the other side

[2:43:59] by the golf course.

[2:44:00] But the golf course, the fact that that's not housing

[2:44:02] should not be a factor in this.

[2:44:04] We have greatly increased the number of children using

[2:44:08] the street, so I am in favor.

[2:44:10] It's a residential street.

[2:44:13] Plain and simple.

[2:44:14] Residential streets are zoned at 25.

[2:44:17] So I would be in favor of the 25.

[2:44:20] And then you get people out there

[2:44:22] to go after those violators.

[2:44:24] They'll catch on.

[2:44:25] They'll go 25, and they'll treat it as a true residential street

[2:44:28] because right now, it's just being treated

[2:44:30] as a highway, a thoroughfare.

[2:44:32] And that's not OK.

[2:44:33] That is not Louise.

[2:44:34] That is not Moffat.

[2:44:36] That is not Lathrop road.

[2:44:39] It's Crom.

[2:44:39] It's a residential street in the middle of our neighborhood.

[2:44:42] So I apologize.

[2:44:45] This is a very touchy subject because like I said,

[2:44:47] I raised my kids on that street.

[2:44:50] And I know exactly what these people are going through.

[2:44:53] And it's been long overdue for something

[2:44:56] to be done about the street.

[2:44:57] Definitely, I just want to mention

[2:44:59] that we do have a 25 mile per hour

[2:45:03] when children are present signs.

[2:45:05] And we are here tonight to continue to improve it.

[2:45:09] This is not the last thing we're going to do at Crom.

[2:45:12] And this is not the first thing we did at Crom.

[2:45:15] Crom we did, as you mentioned, the new sidewalk

[2:45:18] on the south side of Crom.

[2:45:19] We had now continuous sidewalk for the children

[2:45:24] going to the school.

[2:45:25] And we did observe that this sidewalk is used heavily

[2:45:30] now from those children.

[2:45:31] And bike lane on both sides.

[2:45:34] And we updated all the ADA curb ramp on that street.

[2:45:39] And we put flashing stop sign on all the stop

[2:45:43] sign on Crom Street.

[2:45:45] And we also installed high visibility yellow crosswalk

[2:45:51] on all the crosswalk there.

[2:45:54] And all the crosswalks are controlled.

[2:45:56] We totally understand.

[2:45:58] And as I said--

[2:46:00] Why is this not being treated as a true residential?

[2:46:03] It's a collector.

[2:46:04] It's a major collector.

[2:46:05] It's a residential street.

[2:46:07] We have people that live on that street

[2:46:09] and we have access to a school there.

[2:46:11] It needs to be treated as a true residential street.

[2:46:16] So just like all the other residents,

[2:46:18] it's 25 miles an hour.

[2:46:20] I don't see any difference between the two.

[2:46:23] Yeah, from engineering basis, I don't have a backup

[2:46:27] to put it to 25, but--

[2:46:30] So I have a question for you on that.

[2:46:32] If you change it to 25 and people are going 30 or whatever,

[2:46:39] is it enforceable?

[2:46:42] I believe the police did put--

[2:46:46] If the data doesn't show--

[2:46:48] Yeah, I think Police Chief would probably

[2:46:50] like to chime in at this point.

[2:46:53] It has to deal with the-- well, that's loud.

[2:46:55] It has to deal with the 80th percentile and having a radar

[2:47:01] survey that supports that.

[2:47:02] And so if it's dropped to 25 miles per hour,

[2:47:05] you're not able to enforce speed via radar by law.

[2:47:09] And so it would have to be a bumper piece, at 25.

[2:47:13] If they're going there, you can't sit on the street and run

[2:47:16] radar.

[2:47:20] At 25 miles an hour speed limit?

[2:47:22] 25 miles an hour.

[2:47:25] So at this point, we spend money on 30 mile an hour

[2:47:29] signs, get more data, and then spend more money to make

[2:47:33] it a true residential street.

[2:47:35] Is that what I'm hearing?

[2:47:37] Because that seems kind of backwards to me.

[2:47:40] You're saying regarding the speed lumps?

[2:47:43] I'm saying in regards to the speed limit.

[2:47:46] You make it 30 miles an hour.

[2:47:48] You spend money to change the signs.

[2:47:52] And then the residents request more data

[2:47:56] to show that these people still are not doing what

[2:47:59] they're supposed to be doing.

[2:48:01] And they continue to request 25 miles an hour.

[2:48:05] And then we spend more money to go through this whole process

[2:48:09] again.

[2:48:11] I don't understand why it's not being

[2:48:12] treated as a true residential neighborhood.

[2:48:16] It used to be on the outer limits of Villa Ticino.

[2:48:19] It is no longer on the outer limits of Villa Ticino.

[2:48:26] Make it make sense to me because it doesn't make sense.

[2:48:29] It is a residential street.

[2:48:31] It's no different than any other residential street,

[2:48:34] other than the fact that it has school access.

[2:48:37] Not all residential streets do.

[2:48:39] It has school access.

[2:48:40] You have the foot traffic and the kids there.

[2:48:44] So why wouldn't we be proactive and make it

[2:48:48] what it needs to be now.

[2:48:52] Yeah, once we collected the 85th percentile,

[2:48:55] I'm not sure where to go from here.

[2:48:59] Yeah, maybe if I could jump in, Vice Mayor.

[2:49:02] So from an engineering standpoint,

[2:49:05] we have essentially criteria that we

[2:49:08] have to meet when we do these engineering and traffic surveys.

[2:49:11] And when you look at a street like Crom Street,

[2:49:14] while there are residents fronting it

[2:49:17] and you do have the golf course on the South side,

[2:49:19] it is what we call a collector street, meaning,

[2:49:22] it's not just the folks who live on that street that

[2:49:25] are driving to get out of their neighborhood.

[2:49:27] Unlike, like a Foxfire, say, or a Greenview.

[2:49:31] So this is a lot more cut through traffic, if you will.

[2:49:34] And that's why it's a higher classification of roadway.

[2:49:37] If you were to look at-- typically, when

[2:49:40] you get into the nitty gritty of traffic analysis,

[2:49:43] a typical home will generate approximately 10 trips a day.

[2:49:46] And that's a one way trip.

[2:49:48] So if you run to the store, that's two trips kind of thing.

[2:49:51] So when we look at a street, like a Foxfire or Greenview,

[2:49:56] they are generating the number of trips

[2:49:58] that would be in that range, so to speak, from those houses

[2:50:02] there.

[2:50:03] You're not getting much more in the way of additional traffic

[2:50:06] running through those streets, unlike Crom,

[2:50:09] because it does have that connection to both Union

[2:50:11] and Airport.

[2:50:12] You're getting a lot more traffic.

[2:50:14] You're getting the school traffic

[2:50:15] from people beyond just the immediate neighborhood.

[2:50:18] And you're getting people that that's

[2:50:20] just another way because you've either got Louise to the north

[2:50:23] or you've got Yosemite to the south.

[2:50:25] And Crom's right in between.

[2:50:27] So you do get those additional volumes.

[2:50:29] And that's why I think, historically, it

[2:50:31] has had a higher speed limit like 35.

[2:50:34] And that's where we're trying to work within the limits

[2:50:38] that we have from an engineering standpoint.

[2:50:40] When we put out the tubes and we measure the speeds,

[2:50:43] we measure the volumes, and then we look at the other criteria

[2:50:46] to come up with what can we be defensible as,

[2:50:49] and what can we provide for PD to enforce the speed

[2:50:53] limit rather than just jump to what people would like it to be,

[2:50:58] in this case, 25 miles an hour.

[2:51:00] And so it is a bit of an incremental step, if you will.

[2:51:03] But now, if we can get approval on the 30 miles an hour here

[2:51:07] and if there is consensus amongst the neighborhood

[2:51:11] to get the speed lumps, I think you will see that speed

[2:51:14] drop because as you noted, there's

[2:51:16] been a lot of incremental things that we've

[2:51:18] done to try to get people to slow down.

[2:51:20] And we have been somewhat successful.

[2:51:22] You are going to always get that 15%.

[2:51:25] Those are the people that are going to speed no matter what.

[2:51:27] And that's why you have speed limits set at 85th percentile

[2:51:31] because you're always going to get some of those outliers,

[2:51:34] if you will.

[2:51:36] But anyway, so if we can get it down to 30 now

[2:51:39] and if the neighborhood supports the speed limits,

[2:51:42] I think you'll see the speeds drop.

[2:51:44] But it is an incremental process and we

[2:51:46] have to work within the limits that we're given.

[2:51:48] So for the California--

[2:51:49] What's the time frame that we'd be looking

[2:51:51] at for those speed lumps?

[2:51:53] I'm sorry?

[2:51:53] What's the time frame if--

[2:51:55] he was to get the approval for the speed lumps, what's

[2:51:57] the time frame that he's looking at,

[2:52:00] that that neighborhood is looking at?

[2:52:03] Once he submits a petition, probably four to six months.

[2:52:12] City attorney, is there anything that

[2:52:14] states I can't go out there and door knock?

[2:52:20] For what?

[2:52:22] For signatures.

[2:52:23] For?

[2:52:23] Speed lumps.

[2:52:24] Yeah, no, I mean, they're saying once you get--

[2:52:27] I understand.

[2:52:28] I'm asking the city attorney, is there anything that says that I

[2:52:31] cannot go out with Mr. Gedney and ask the neighbors on Crom

[2:52:35] Street to sign that paper.

[2:52:38] You're a resident like any other person in the city.

[2:52:43] I think speed lumps should--

[2:52:45] OK, thank you.

[2:52:47] So once we do get an application, hopefully,

[2:52:50] and it's approved, then it falls in with all of our other speed

[2:52:54] lump requests.

[2:52:58] Correct.

[2:53:02] Anything else, Vice Mayor?

[2:53:05] Thank you.

[2:53:07] Council Member Halford, you know anything about speed trailers

[2:53:11] and speed bumps and speeding?

[2:53:15] Maybe.

[2:53:19] Crom Street, when it was first built,

[2:53:21] did not extend all the way to Airport.

[2:53:23] It is a wide, straight street.

[2:53:27] And there has historically been some speeding issues there.

[2:53:30] I'm not sure what the original speed limit on it

[2:53:32] was 25 years ago, whenever it was first built.

[2:53:39] There were no sidewalks.

[2:53:41] There are no sidewalks on parts of it, which was by design.

[2:53:44] That's a rural estate zone there.

[2:53:47] That's what people wanted and what people purchased

[2:53:52] when they moved in there.

[2:53:56] As a result of speeding complaints many years ago,

[2:53:59] the little--

[2:54:00] I don't know what you call that little divot that got put in,

[2:54:04] that there was not sufficient room to make a roundabout

[2:54:08] or to put an island in the middle of it.

[2:54:11] Because when people get on the street, the line of sight,

[2:54:18] there's no obstruction.

[2:54:19] So it's easy to get up to speed.

[2:54:21] So that was the purpose of that little divot that got put in.

[2:54:26] After that, there's been a couple stop

[2:54:27] signs that have been put in, which

[2:54:31] are not good for speed control.

[2:54:33] All it does is slow them down for the 150 feet on either side

[2:54:36] of it, and create dust and noise issues,

[2:54:38] and create stop sign violations, which is the same thing with

[2:54:43] 85th percentile.

[2:54:44] That historically has been gauged

[2:54:48] to be what is a safe speed because people normally

[2:54:52] drive a safe speed for condition, which is what 22350

[2:54:57] of the Vehicle Code says is you have to drive

[2:54:59] what's [INAUDIBLE] condition.

[2:55:02] The code also defines what a prima facie residential street

[2:55:05] is.

[2:55:07] It's been out of business for 18 years.

[2:55:08] I don't remember the exact criteria,

[2:55:10] but I don't think Crom Street meets that definition.

[2:55:13] I think you have to have houses on both sides

[2:55:15] for a certain distance.

[2:55:17] Two lane road.

[2:55:18] It has to be a certain density of houses within an x number.

[2:55:22] And I would be surprised if Crom meets that definition for prima

[2:55:27] facie 25, which means you have to justify a 25 mile an hour

[2:55:31] speed limit based on the traffic safety and engineering study.

[2:55:35] One crash in five years, now, you

[2:55:38] cited several but more than five years ago

[2:55:40] is not going to justify a reduction of speed limit,

[2:55:44] particularly when it did not involve a pedestrian.

[2:55:47] There is an existing school zone.

[2:55:49] Does anybody know what the start and end zone points are,

[2:55:53] the school zone?

[2:55:54] 500 feet.

[2:55:57] 500 feet from the limit of the school.

[2:55:59] So that exists now, at 25, whenever there are children

[2:56:03] present.

[2:56:07] The other issue is if you set a speed limit that's lower

[2:56:13] than what people perceive to be safe,

[2:56:16] they're going to violate it.

[2:56:18] It's going to happen because of human nature.

[2:56:24] They're going to drive what they perceive to be safe.

[2:56:30] I mean, I take that road quite a bit.

[2:56:34] I don't drive 35 on it.

[2:56:35] I drive about 30 miles an hour when I go down Crom Street.

[2:56:41] If there are kids going to and from school,

[2:56:44] obviously I'm driving 25.

[2:56:49] I understand Mr. Gedney's position.

[2:56:51] And he bought a house there.

[2:56:55] Maybe he didn't realize the traffic that

[2:56:58] was on there when he bought it.

[2:56:59] He wants to sit in his front yard and enjoy the view,

[2:57:03] have his grandkids play out front.

[2:57:08] And he doesn't think that's safe to do

[2:57:09] and doesn't appreciate the traffic that's on there.

[2:57:13] I'm not sure what the traffic count is on.

[2:57:15] I think I saw it on there, 2,500?

[2:57:17] Around that, yeah.

[2:57:20] Per day.

[2:57:21] Obviously, it's concentrated in the morning and afternoon

[2:57:23] when school's in session.

[2:57:24] It would be nice if the traffic officers, when school's

[2:57:30] in session, they could be out there working a little radar.

[2:57:33] Encourage people to drive the 25 in the school zone.

[2:57:39] I would be hesitant to put 25 miles an hour on Crom.

[2:57:45] This going to encourage people to violate the speed zone.

[2:57:50] And the history of crashes just doesn't justify it.

[2:58:00] All right, Council Member Breitenbucher.

[2:58:07] How do you follow that one?

[2:58:11] No, I think the speed that they've come up with

[2:58:13] is fine, as far as the form.

[2:58:16] If you're filling out the form and you're not

[2:58:19] willing to say that you want speed bumps in front

[2:58:21] of your house, why are you filling it out?

[2:58:24] You're expecting others to do what you don't want to.

[2:58:28] I think it is a good question.

[2:58:30] It shouldn't be a surprise.

[2:58:32] And as far as the ownership, yes, if you're a renter,

[2:58:36] that can cause problems.

[2:58:40] Yeah, I'm OK with this.

[2:58:41] I think it's reasonable.

[2:58:42] And we can also do the speed bumps now.

[2:58:45] So I think we're good.

[2:58:46] Thank you.

[2:58:47] Council Member Morowit.

[2:58:49] Maybe I can ask the police chief to clarify

[2:58:52] what a school zone is.

[2:58:55] We hear it all the time.

[2:58:56] What does it actually mean?

[2:58:58] A school zone is--

[2:59:01] it's marked out in certain areas near schools

[2:59:04] within 500 feet of the school.

[2:59:06] And it says when children are present--

[2:59:09] and the Vehicle Code states that when children are present,

[2:59:13] there can't be a barrier between them and where they're at.

[2:59:19] For instance, here, just because school is in session

[2:59:24] doesn't mean it's 25.

[2:59:27] Children are present, but by the Vehicle Code,

[2:59:29] there's a barrier because it has a cyclone fence.

[2:59:32] And so it doesn't count as children are present.

[2:59:35] Similar, we have them like by Sequoyah School and other areas

[2:59:39] where children are present or Northgate

[2:59:43] is a good one with Neil Hafley, where it just

[2:59:45] has those like a little pylon with a chain.

[2:59:49] That's a barrier.

[2:59:50] And so if they're in that park playing, there's a barrier.

[2:59:55] So it doesn't count as when children are present.

[2:59:57] And so it's when they're walking--

[2:59:59] to protect them when they're walking to and from school

[3:00:02] because there's no barrier there.

[3:00:04] Thank you.

[3:00:06] Also when the school ground, the one carrying the stop sign

[3:00:13] are in operation.

[3:00:15] So yeah.

[3:00:16] The crossing guard?

[3:00:17] Yeah, crossing guard.

[3:00:18] Crossing guard, OK.

[3:00:19] I too lived about 1500 Block of Crom Street until about 2014.

[3:00:25] Then I moved.

[3:00:29] At that time, there was really nothing there.

[3:00:31] It had no stop signs.

[3:00:32] They had one.

[3:00:34] I believe Council Member Moorhead

[3:00:36] was pretty instrumental in getting a second stop

[3:00:39] sign off one of the streets as well because she

[3:00:42] lived in that area.

[3:00:42] We didn't have districts then.

[3:00:45] So now, I've been down that street because I do frequent it

[3:00:49] as well because I live off of Northgate.

[3:00:53] There's, I guess, flashing stop signs have been put in recently.

[3:00:57] I've seen the--

[3:00:59] 247.

[3:00:59] 247 there on.

[3:01:02] I've seen them also on the bike lanes, both sides.

[3:01:07] So there's been a tremendous amount

[3:01:08] of improvements in the last 10, 12 years actually.

[3:01:13] I do think if you really want to slow people down,

[3:01:17] signs are great.

[3:01:18] But I don't know if Mr. Gedney would agree with me.

[3:01:20] But that's how he made a living, was writing citations

[3:01:23] for people who didn't pay attention to signs.

[3:01:25] So in my mind, by reducing it to 30 miles an hour

[3:01:30] and the ability now for him to be able to fill out a form--

[3:01:33] and hopefully people will agree with him, put a speed lump,

[3:01:36] or bump in, whatever you like to call them.

[3:01:39] I think that's probably the better solution

[3:01:42] because I can tell you that people don't like driving down

[3:01:46] streets with speed bumps just because they don't like it.

[3:01:50] And we have it down Hacienda.

[3:01:51] We have it all over.

[3:01:52] It used to be nearly impossible to put one of those in town.

[3:01:55] It wasn't done when I was on council before, when

[3:01:58] we came back it's important.

[3:02:00] So the speed bumps and lumps to me

[3:02:02] are really going to be what's going to be the important.

[3:02:04] We also put those on the safe routes

[3:02:06] to schools, in front of the schools.

[3:02:08] Now that's become common practice.

[3:02:10] I just had them installed those flashing LED lights

[3:02:13] on the corner of London and Northgate as well.

[3:02:17] That was another-- these are all traffic calming,

[3:02:20] but a sign alone doesn't make the difference

[3:02:22] if someone is just a jerk.

[3:02:24] And like I say, if you make a career out of writing traffic

[3:02:27] citations, I think you probably see more of those than I have.

[3:02:30] But people who don't pay attention don't pay attention.

[3:02:33] But I do think the speed lumps and bumps are probably

[3:02:35] going to be the biggest answer to your problem.

[3:02:39] And by going to 30, it allows you to do it.

[3:02:42] And that's probably a better alternative than just a sign

[3:02:45] because it really does slow you down.

[3:02:46] And quite frankly, you will probably be very annoyed by them

[3:02:50] as well.

[3:02:51] But you're willing to make that sacrifice because

[3:02:53] of your grandkids and other kids walking.

[3:02:55] So I think it's a small price to pay for something that we

[3:02:58] didn't do years ago.

[3:02:59] I mean, literally, quite frankly,

[3:03:01] until Mayor Singh came along, it was impossible to get it done.

[3:03:05] I remember working with [INAUDIBLE]

[3:03:07] before you came in engineering.

[3:03:09] It took like two years sometimes to get one.

[3:03:11] I think the ones at Hacienda took 18 months to get.

[3:03:14] So what you do now and we just did at tonight's meeting

[3:03:16] is proof of the pudding that it works.

[3:03:20] And it's an ability for the neighbors to get something done.

[3:03:23] So I think this is a good solution for a bad situation.

[3:03:28] And I've gotten Mr. Gedney's emails

[3:03:29] probably for over a year now.

[3:03:31] And so I know he's very passionate,

[3:03:34] but I think this might be the answer, some speed lumps.

[3:03:38] Thank you.

[3:03:39] Thank you.

[3:03:40] Yeah, I know.

[3:03:42] I've gone down Crom all the time.

[3:03:44] I've sat with Mr. Gedney and watched these speeders, people

[3:03:49] running stop signs.

[3:03:51] End of the day, I think, for the people that are not

[3:03:55] following the rules, it doesn't matter

[3:03:56] what the speed limit sign says.

[3:03:58] But we also need to make sure we can enforce it.

[3:04:03] As you can see, with all of the speed bumps

[3:04:08] and lumps going on throughout our city,

[3:04:12] that has made a difference.

[3:04:13] It is truly slowing people down.

[3:04:15] I'm a believer.

[3:04:17] I mean, unless you put something in their way,

[3:04:20] they're not going to slow down no matter what the sign says.

[3:04:24] This is why, I think now 7, 8 years ago,

[3:04:28] I brought speed lumps, traffic calming to our city.

[3:04:33] And it was a big push.

[3:04:35] We didn't really want to do it.

[3:04:37] I know people in the room that still don't like them.

[3:04:40] But it's something I think has really worked out

[3:04:43] really good, especially in neighborhoods and areas that

[3:04:46] are thoroughfares or collectors, where it's creating

[3:04:50] the issue of people speeding.

[3:04:53] And I think slowing people down is your goal.

[3:04:57] And I think now that we're going to get to that 30 mile magic

[3:05:02] number in order to get speed lumps.

[3:05:05] I think we're going to solve some of these issues

[3:05:07] and hopefully, on the long run, slow people down.

[3:05:11] So I'm supportive of this.

[3:05:14] My biggest issue with taking it down to 25

[3:05:17] is I don't think it's going to solve anything because I don't

[3:05:20] think we're going to be able to enforce some people that

[3:05:24] are going faster at that point for the police department.

[3:05:29] And a good section of it is 25 right now

[3:05:33] when children are present.

[3:05:36] But I truly feel that the next solution-- and if you

[3:05:40] have issues with your neighbors not willing

[3:05:42] to sign that application, I'd be happy to come and help you

[3:05:46] because I've convinced a lot of people about speed bumps.

[3:05:50] So they work.

[3:05:51] And you can see with all the ones we approved tonight.

[3:05:54] And I think we've done like 50 of them

[3:05:57] so far throughout the city.

[3:06:01] So with that, I'll entertain a motion.

[3:06:07] All right.

[3:06:08] Second.

[3:06:09] All right, we have a motion from Vice Mayor and a second for--

[3:06:13] I'm going to give it to Charlie this time.

[3:06:15] Second from Council Member Halford to adopt a resolution

[3:06:18] approving amendment number 2 for the engineering and traffic

[3:06:20] survey for speed limits, waive the first reading

[3:06:23] by substitution of title and introduce an ordinance

[3:06:25] of the City Council of the City of Manteca, State of California,

[3:06:28] amending Manteca Municipal Code Title 10 vehicles and traffic

[3:06:33] Chapter 10.12 speed limit section 10.12.020,

[3:06:39] designated and authorizing the city manager to designate

[3:06:42] to take all appropriate actions necessary to carry out

[3:06:45] the purpose and intent of the resolution.

[3:06:47] All in favor, say aye.

[3:06:49] Aye.

[3:06:50] Opposed?

[3:06:50] Motion carries 5-0.

[3:06:52] Thank you.

[3:06:54] Thank you, Beshoy.

[3:06:57] Want a break?

[3:06:58] Can we take a break?

[3:07:02] I'm going to call it myself.

[3:07:10] OK, and now we're back.

[3:07:13] Before we go to item D5, I know that at 10 o'clock,

[3:07:18] we usually have to ask for an extension of time

[3:07:20] and make sure the council still wants to keep going.

[3:07:23] So if I can get a motion.

[3:07:26] Second.

[3:07:27] I have a motion and a second from Council Member

[3:07:30] Breitenbucher.

[3:07:31] All in favor, say aye.

[3:07:32] Aye.

[3:07:36] Wow.

[3:07:38] Was that opposition?

[3:07:43] All right, item D5 conduct a public hearing

[3:07:47] and consider adopting a resolution, 1,

[3:07:51] adopting the August 2026 park dedication and in lieu fee

[3:07:56] and park acquisition and improvement fee nexus study, 2,

[3:08:00] adopting the park acquisition and improvement fee project

[3:08:04] list pursuant to Government Code sections 66016.5 and 66002, 3,

[3:08:14] adopting updated park dedication and in lieu

[3:08:18] fees, and park acquisition and improvement fees, 4,

[3:08:22] directing staff to implement the updated fees effective January

[3:08:26] 1, 2027, including the phased implementation schedule, 5,

[3:08:32] waive the first reading by substitution of the title,

[3:08:35] and introduce an ordinance of the City

[3:08:37] Council of the City of Manteca, State of California,

[3:08:40] repealing and replacing chapter 3.20 of the Manteca Municipal

[3:08:44] Code entitled park acquisition and improvement fees,

[3:08:48] and adding chapter 3.21 of the Manteca Municipal Code entitled

[3:08:54] park dedication and in lieu fees.

[3:08:57] Mayor and council, tonight we have

[3:08:58] director of parks, recreation, and transit, Brandy Clark.

[3:09:11] Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council.

[3:09:14] Brandy Clark, director of parks, recreation, and transit.

[3:09:18] Before you tonight is a public hearing

[3:09:22] to adopt a resolution adopting the park impact fee nexus

[3:09:26] study and park impact fees.

[3:09:29] This update is intended to ensure

[3:09:31] that new residential development contributes its fair share

[3:09:35] toward parkland and recreational facilities needed to serve

[3:09:38] Manteca's continued growth.

[3:09:40] This has been a significant and highly collaborative effort.

[3:09:44] Staff worked closely with our consultants, legal counsel,

[3:09:48] development services, and representatives of the Building

[3:09:53] Industry Association to develop a program that

[3:09:57] supports the city's long term park needs,

[3:10:00] while recognizing the concerns of the development community.

[3:10:03] I'd like to thank Megan Quinn of Harrison & Associates, who

[3:10:08] will provide tonight's presentation,

[3:10:10] as well as Megan Burke, the city's outside legal counsel,

[3:10:14] for their guidance and extensive work throughout this process.

[3:10:17] I'd also like to recognize Megan Kuster, administrative assistant

[3:10:22] 3, Michael Rosales, parks planning and development

[3:10:25] manager, and Brad Wungluck, director

[3:10:27] of development services for their hard work, collaboration,

[3:10:31] and commitment to moving this project forward.

[3:10:34] I'd also like to thank organizations and community

[3:10:37] partners that submitted letters of support for this project.

[3:10:40] Their engagement and support reflect the importance

[3:10:43] of investing in parks and recreation facilities that

[3:10:46] will serve Manteca residents now and into the future.

[3:10:50] Finally, I'd like to thank the BIA and its members

[3:10:53] for its communication, participation, and partnership

[3:10:57] in helping us bring this item to the finish line.

[3:11:00] With that, I'll turn it over to Megan Quinn.

[3:11:03] I along with the rest of the team

[3:11:05] will also be available for any questions that you may have.

[3:11:13] Thank you very much, Brandy.

[3:11:15] And good evening, Mayor Singh and members of the council.

[3:11:19] I will try to go through this presentation

[3:11:21] as quickly as possible.

[3:11:23] I do know it's late.

[3:11:26] So just here to talk tonight about the park

[3:11:28] impact fees, a little bit about what development impact

[3:11:32] fees are, and why they are important.

[3:11:34] So development impact fees are one time fees.

[3:11:37] I just want to mention that they're not taxes.

[3:11:40] They are fees that are paid by new development

[3:11:42] to mitigate their impacts on parks and recreation facilities.

[3:11:47] They're based on their fair share.

[3:11:49] And its one time fees, as I mentioned.

[3:11:51] They can only fund capital costs.

[3:11:53] It does not fund anything related

[3:11:55] to operations or maintenance.

[3:11:57] And that's what the fees are based on,

[3:11:59] land acquisition for parks and recreation,

[3:12:02] as well as the facilities costs for parks.

[3:12:05] The funds must be used for their intended purposes.

[3:12:09] And that's outlined in the capital improvement

[3:12:11] plan in the nexus study as appendix A,

[3:12:14] as well as part of the resolution for you

[3:12:17] to adopt today.

[3:12:19] Assembly Bill 602, or AB 602 went into effect in 2022.

[3:12:24] And that made some changes to development impact fees.

[3:12:27] So one of the changes that you'll see for the park fees

[3:12:30] is the residential fee going to a per square foot basis, where

[3:12:33] it used to be a per unit basis, as well as having that capital

[3:12:38] improvement plan.

[3:12:39] So as the park fees collect revenue,

[3:12:41] we do have a plan for how those revenues are

[3:12:43] going to be spent on parks, as well as looking at the existing

[3:12:47] level of service compared to the proposed level of service.

[3:12:50] The existing level of service right now in the city is 5.01

[3:12:55] acres per 1,000.

[3:12:56] And the adopted level service in your city

[3:12:58] is 5, which is what this park fee is based on.

[3:13:01] So it's very similar.

[3:13:03] And lastly, nexus studies must be updated every eight

[3:13:07] years moving forward.

[3:13:08] So after you do this update, in eight years

[3:13:10] you will be required to do another update at least in eight

[3:13:13] years for impact fees.

[3:13:21] One of the purposes for updating development impact fees,

[3:13:25] is not only just required by Assembly Bill 1600,

[3:13:28] is also just to make sure that we're aligning the development

[3:13:31] impact fees with the cost of park infrastructure,

[3:13:34] as well as land acquisition for parks.

[3:13:37] It also satisfies the Mitigation Fee Act,

[3:13:39] making sure that we're in alignment

[3:13:40] with current legislation, as well as any case law.

[3:13:45] It satisfies the Quimby Act, as well as AB 1600,

[3:13:49] or also known as the Mitigation Fee Act for impact fees.

[3:13:53] And fees are typically able to be effective 60 days

[3:13:58] after the last action by City Council.

[3:14:01] These fees will be effective on January 1.

[3:14:04] A lot of times, different jurisdictions

[3:14:06] will make them effective January one or July 1,

[3:14:09] just making it a little bit easier for new development

[3:14:11] to know when they're effective.

[3:14:16] As part of this update, we did a lot.

[3:14:18] As Brandy mentioned, it was a really collaborative effort,

[3:14:21] working with city staff, working with different departments,

[3:14:24] working with the development community, as well as the BIA.

[3:14:28] We updated the data, the land use data,

[3:14:30] making sure it was in alignment with the city's general plan,

[3:14:33] making sure that all the population

[3:14:35] assumptions and projected growth were updated.

[3:14:38] Updating the park and recreation master plan

[3:14:41] was adopted by this council.

[3:14:44] It was in January of 2026 by LPA Design Studios,

[3:14:50] and that was a visionary document for the future

[3:14:53] of your park and recreation.

[3:14:55] All of the information, the assumptions and everything

[3:14:58] that was adopted in that document

[3:14:59] is also included in our nexus study.

[3:15:02] The methodology complies with all legal requirements,

[3:15:06] including the Mitigation Fee Act, the Quimby Act,

[3:15:09] as well as any recent case law, including

[3:15:12] the sheets case that went to the Supreme Court not too long ago.

[3:15:15] It demonstrates rough proportionality

[3:15:17] to new development, as well as essential nexus to the fees

[3:15:21] and to the land uses that is being charged.

[3:15:25] We also had a lot of coordination meetings,

[3:15:28] not only with internal city coordination meetings,

[3:15:32] but with legal counsel.

[3:15:33] And then we had a lot of stakeholder outreach meetings,

[3:15:36] again, with the development community,

[3:15:37] really working with them, making sure

[3:15:39] that we had that stakeholder outreach, and the BIA as part

[3:15:43] of this process.

[3:15:47] There's two different fees as part of this.

[3:15:49] One's the Quimby Act.

[3:15:50] One is the Mitigation Fee Act, but the fees are the same.

[3:15:53] The only difference is one's for subdivision

[3:15:55] and one's for non subdivision.

[3:15:57] And that's because one's governed by the Quimby Act

[3:15:59] and one's governed by the Mitigation Fee Act.

[3:16:02] So for the subdivision, that's for land acquisition.

[3:16:06] And so as it's shown on this slide and in the nexus study,

[3:16:10] that's based on the Quimby Act, 5 acres per 1,000.

[3:16:13] As I said, the existing level of service within your city

[3:16:18] is 5.01.

[3:16:19] But Quimby is based up to 5 acres per 1,000.

[3:16:22] And any new subdivision development

[3:16:24] will pay that for land acquisition.

[3:16:27] They will pay the Mitigation Fee Act for facilities.

[3:16:34] For any non subdivisions, they will pay the Mitigation Fee Act.

[3:16:37] And it will be the same for land and non land, the facility

[3:16:41] component for whether it's a subdivision or non subdivision.

[3:16:45] And again, it's based on that 5 acres per 1,000.

[3:16:53] The fee is broken into neighborhood parks, community

[3:16:56] parks, and special use parks.

[3:16:58] And there's different costs for each of those.

[3:17:01] And that's based on the park master plan, as well as

[3:17:04] additional data and assumptions done

[3:17:07] by Harrison & Associates and some conversations

[3:17:09] with the development community.

[3:17:11] So as you can see here, the cost for a facility for a park

[3:17:15] for neighborhood is 800,000, as well as the land acquisition is

[3:17:20] 250,000.

[3:17:21] Community parks are 143,500.

[3:17:25] And the facility cost to build that is 1.25 million.

[3:17:29] And special use parks is 250,000 for land acquisition and 1.25

[3:17:34] million.

[3:17:37] Again, it's 5 acres per 1,000 as our level of service.

[3:17:41] And we do have to do this analysis as part of AB 602.

[3:17:47] This just shows the 2024 and 2026 acreage

[3:17:51] looking at that due to Quimby.

[3:17:53] And this is pulled straight from the park master plan.

[3:17:59] And what everyone really cares about-- what is the actual fee

[3:18:01] amount?

[3:18:02] So your existing fee for single family is 3.99.

[3:18:07] And your proposed fee is 8.53.

[3:18:09] For multifamily development, it is 5.57.

[3:18:13] And your proposed fee is 13.48.

[3:18:16] The increase is a little bit over 100% for single family

[3:18:21] and about 140% for multifamily.

[3:18:23] This really reflects the updated cost.

[3:18:26] The fee had not been updated in a long time.

[3:18:28] And the cost of land acquisition,

[3:18:30] as well as facility costs has really

[3:18:32] escalated since the fee was last completed,

[3:18:35] as well as there's been a lot of additional compliance

[3:18:38] and changes to the fee.

[3:18:42] I know this table is pretty hard to see,

[3:18:44] so it's also in the Nexus study, but this just

[3:18:46] shows the different components of the fee

[3:18:48] and how it's broken out per subdivision and non

[3:18:50] subdivision, as well as the facility component,

[3:18:54] and the land acquisition component.

[3:18:59] This shows the estimated fee revenue if all of the land uses

[3:19:03] are estimated in the general plan at 2,400 were to have built

[3:19:08] out, as well as the single family and multifamily revenue

[3:19:11] for those proposed fees, and at build out,

[3:19:14] that would be about $358 million with impact fees.

[3:19:18] For parks, some of these parks will be built and dedicated

[3:19:21] instead of the revenue given to the city to build.

[3:19:27] It's another big table, so apologies there,

[3:19:30] but this is our capital improvement plan.

[3:19:32] It's also included as a attachment as part of the agenda

[3:19:37] tonight.

[3:19:37] But this is another part that needs

[3:19:39] to be adopted as part of the nexus study.

[3:19:41] It's Appendix A as well, which shows all of the planned parks.

[3:19:45] So while we do have this updated fee,

[3:19:47] there is a plan for all the parks

[3:19:49] that plan to be built by 2040.

[3:19:52] And this is in alignment with the park master plan,

[3:19:54] as well as working with city staff

[3:19:56] to make sure that these are planned parks

[3:19:58] that the city plans to build.

[3:20:00] The estimated construction year, if there's

[3:20:02] any additional funding sources, and the total cost.

[3:20:06] As you can see there, the cost does--

[3:20:09] is higher than the amount that would be funded

[3:20:11] by development impact fees.

[3:20:12] So development impact fees are new development's fair share.

[3:20:15] The remaining is existing development's fair share.

[3:20:20] Lastly, I just wanted to go over real briefly that we did send

[3:20:24] the 30-day notice to all parties on July 39th in alignment with

[3:20:29] the Mitigation Fee Act.

[3:20:30] We published in the newspaper on July 10, as well as July 17.

[3:20:36] We posted the nexus study more than 10 days prior,

[3:20:40] as we have to do for the Mitigation Fee act on August

[3:20:43] 5th.

[3:20:44] And then we're here today at our public hearing.

[3:20:47] If adopted, the fees will go in effect on July 1st.

[3:20:50] The last thing I want to mention is

[3:20:52] there are phase fees that are included.

[3:20:55] So there's the development impact fees

[3:20:58] that are in the nexus study, which is the maximum justifiable

[3:21:01] fee.

[3:21:01] And then it's included with the phase fees amount

[3:21:04] for developments that are in different processes and projects

[3:21:08] farther along within the development process.

[3:21:11] And that's included in your package.

[3:21:17] I'm now open for any questions.

[3:21:21] All right, thank you.

[3:21:25] Council have any questions before I open up for public?

[3:21:30] OK, we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing at 10:04.

[3:21:37] Zoom, anybody there?

[3:21:46] I do have attendees, but no hands

[3:21:48] are raised for public comment on item D.5.

[3:21:55] Anybody in the public would like to talk

[3:21:57] about item D.5, park fees?

[3:22:05] OK, seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing

[3:22:09] at 10:04:52.

[3:22:14] And bring it back.

[3:22:19] Council Member Halford.

[3:22:23] Is there an escalator built in?

[3:22:25] Yes, there's an annual escalator.

[3:22:27] It's the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index.

[3:22:30] And it will be annually escalated on July 1st.

[3:22:33] And it's good for eight years, I think, you said.

[3:22:35] Yes, for eight years.

[3:22:36] And then it will need to be updated.

[3:22:38] Thank you.

[3:22:41] When's the last time this was updated?

[3:22:43] This was last updated in 2016.

[3:22:51] Vice Mayor.

[3:22:53] All right.

[3:22:55] Council Member Morowit.

[3:23:01] I'll make it fast.

[3:23:03] 2016, that's probably the reason it's such a large increase.

[3:23:06] Went from 3.99 single family to 8.51.

[3:23:11] That puts us at, what, 8, 10 years?

[3:23:15] Yeah, it's been about 10 years.

[3:23:16] It's almost 10 years.

[3:23:17] So we've had a lot of increases in costs.

[3:23:20] Not just the materials and in labor, I believe.

[3:23:24] Yeah, and the annual escalations do not

[3:23:27] keep up with that type of increase as well.

[3:23:31] It tries to keep up with somewhat of an increase,

[3:23:34] but the land acquisition cost, and as well

[3:23:36] as the facilities cost, labor costs

[3:23:38] has not kept up with that in the last 10 years.

[3:23:42] Plus, as I mentioned, there's been additional changes

[3:23:44] in terms of legislation and in terms of how

[3:23:47] the fee needs to be calculated.

[3:23:49] And so just ensuring that going to a per square foot and some

[3:23:52] of those other changes, that's why you see that large increase.

[3:23:56] So new development pays a portion of it.

[3:23:58] And then of course, the existing pays a portion.

[3:24:01] Yes, because we can only charge it for their fair share.

[3:24:05] So it's a proportional amount of the total cost of the new parks

[3:24:09] that are necessary at 2040.

[3:24:12] And the Building Industry Association, also known as BIA,

[3:24:15] was agreement with us?

[3:24:17] Yeah, so we met with the BIA and we

[3:24:19] did receive a letter of support in terms of this.

[3:24:23] And so we met with the development community

[3:24:25] and had good stakeholder outreach, as I mentioned.

[3:24:29] Good, everybody's on board.

[3:24:30] I think the most important thing about this

[3:24:32] is that people are asking for better amenities, larger

[3:24:35] parks like the one up north we're going to be working on

[3:24:37] shortly, 60 acres.

[3:24:39] So this is all going to play a part in that,

[3:24:42] to build something nicer in certain communities

[3:24:45] and neighborhoods.

[3:24:46] But the developers always have the option of doing it in lieu,

[3:24:52] building their own, or paying a fee.

[3:24:54] Yes, they can either dedicate, build it themselves.

[3:24:58] And dedicate it and do in lieu fee or pay the fee themselves.

[3:25:02] So that seems to be depending on the builder

[3:25:05] and how extravagant they want to go,

[3:25:07] but it seems to work out well, so I appreciate it.

[3:25:10] Thank you very much.

[3:25:14] Council Member Breitenbucher.

[3:25:17] Great job.

[3:25:20] I think this is much needed.

[3:25:22] Again, 10 years.

[3:25:23] And on the new aquatics facility,

[3:25:26] you have five acres down.

[3:25:28] I'll double that to 10.

[3:25:31] That's what they recommend for that size of area

[3:25:33] with parking and all that.

[3:25:42] Are you still coaching?

[3:25:47] I'm glad we're finally here.

[3:25:49] This is much needed.

[3:25:51] Parks and recreation is so important to our city

[3:25:55] for the longevity and also for our next generation.

[3:25:59] We need to continue investing in that.

[3:26:02] And I'm glad our partners that are helping pay these fees

[3:26:08] are on board with it also.

[3:26:10] And I know a lot of work went into this to make it happen.

[3:26:15] And I'm also hoping, in the future,

[3:26:17] we can work on these fees in a more timely manner

[3:26:21] and not have to wait as long.

[3:26:23] And I appreciate the escalator built

[3:26:26] into because that'll keep us going with future expenses.

[3:26:35] As we are continuing to bring more amenities into our parks,

[3:26:39] I see more work to be done when it comes to our parks and rec

[3:26:42] commission and ensuring they're bringing in what

[3:26:46] the public actually wants.

[3:26:49] And this will help us get to that point.

[3:26:51] So thank you, and I'm glad this is here.

[3:26:55] So with that--

[3:26:57] Can I add something real quick?

[3:26:59] Sure.

[3:26:59] Thank you.

[3:27:00] I don't know, do you like parks and rec.

[3:27:02] I just want to really take a moment

[3:27:05] and thank Brad for all your time, Brandy, Michael,

[3:27:09] the Megans.

[3:27:11] This is no small task to get this to the finish line

[3:27:15] and with a letter of support from the BIA

[3:27:17] in this day and age.

[3:27:18] So thank you all.

[3:27:20] And just a real quick story.

[3:27:23] I think it was in probably--

[3:27:25] I don't know, maybe 2014.

[3:27:29] I remember at council meetings, for budget items,

[3:27:33] you used to put these dots.

[3:27:35] And I remember when we got the funding approved

[3:27:38] to do the first ever master plan that was approved in '16.

[3:27:42] And so, yes, this has taken us some time, but all of our fees

[3:27:46] will soon be updated.

[3:27:49] But I think that was instrumental

[3:27:51] because we have some funding.

[3:27:53] Obviously, development doesn't close all of the gaps

[3:27:56] to get a project to the finish line.

[3:27:57] There's much more involved in that.

[3:27:59] But I think we have some opportunities coming up

[3:28:02] that I'm going to be really excited to bring

[3:28:04] before council on looking at some possibilities,

[3:28:09] potentially with Measure Q, after we kick off

[3:28:11] feeding the fire station 6.

[3:28:13] And then some other funding sources

[3:28:15] that we've been really creative at making sure

[3:28:18] that we have to make sure that we're really

[3:28:20] building this community to be the best community.

[3:28:22] And so anyways, I was thinking about that story.

[3:28:24] I remember you and Steve DeBrum.

[3:28:26] And Steve DeBrum, he was like Toni, Toni.

[3:28:29] And I was like, trust me.

[3:28:30] You won't go wrong from this.

[3:28:33] And at some point--

[3:28:36] I mean, I hope you all are a part

[3:28:38] of that because I remember getting

[3:28:40] those green and red dots.

[3:28:42] And we're here.

[3:28:43] We have a pot.

[3:28:44] That's why the splash pad was possible.

[3:28:46] And so, I mean, look, it took over a decade,

[3:28:50] but things are happening.

[3:28:51] And because of Measure Q, things are happening

[3:28:53] at a much faster pace.

[3:28:55] And so I'm grateful for that.

[3:28:57] I'm grateful that I was there during that time frame.

[3:29:00] And I'm also grateful that we have some ideas.

[3:29:03] We just got a federal earmark for almost $1 million

[3:29:06] from Congress Representative Harder for a community center

[3:29:10] so that we can actually start the planning.

[3:29:12] And now, we've got some good funding sources.

[3:29:15] So it's really an exciting time.

[3:29:17] And these are needs we already should

[3:29:19] have had in our community.

[3:29:20] So I'm looking forward to bringing that

[3:29:23] to council in the future.

[3:29:24] And thank you guys all for supporting this tonight.

[3:29:27] I think that this is a really good move for our community.

[3:29:30] And thank you again to the team.

[3:29:32] Just to add on, I remember those dots.

[3:29:34] And Toni was not the city manager.

[3:29:36] And she was saying, put more dots on my projects,

[3:29:38] put more dots.

[3:29:39] And we said, we don't have any money.

[3:29:40] We don't have any money yet.

[3:29:41] But by putting the master plan together in '16,

[3:29:44] you're right, That is how we were

[3:29:46] able to do the things we're doing and start the process.

[3:29:49] So at the time, we just didn't have the money.

[3:29:51] But by building in fees into the development,

[3:29:54] it made a big difference.

[3:29:55] You know what else you approved funding for at that meeting?

[3:29:58] You gave us money for the master plan, for the parks master plan,

[3:30:00] and you gave us money for tax measure exploration.

[3:30:04] So both have been beneficial to the city in many, many ways.

[3:30:08] So anyways, good memory.

[3:30:11] Yes, I remember those dots.

[3:30:13] I had just got on.

[3:30:17] She brought him over for parks and rec, too.

[3:30:20] When we were doing this stuff for parks and rec and what

[3:30:23] everybody wanted [INAUDIBLE].

[3:30:26] Yes, no.

[3:30:27] Thank you for all the hard work.

[3:30:29] And this is a great thing.

[3:30:30] And this is a great job with this council, too,

[3:30:32] because we've really worked hard to update a lot of fees

[3:30:36] throughout everything and bring everything to modern times.

[3:30:41] So with that, who's ready for this motion?

[3:30:45] All right, we got a motion from Council Member Halford

[3:30:49] and a second from Vice Mayor Lackey.

[3:30:52] Here we go.

[3:30:54] To adopt a resolution--

[3:30:56] adopt the August 2026 dedication and in lieu fee and park

[3:31:01] acquisition and improvement fee nexus

[3:31:03] study, to adopt the park acquisition and improvement fee

[3:31:07] project list pursuant to Government Code section 66016.5

[3:31:13] and 66002, adopt updated park dedication and in lieu

[3:31:18] fees and park acquisition and improvement

[3:31:20] fees, direct staff to implement the updated

[3:31:23] fees effective January 1, 2027, including

[3:31:27] the phased implementation schedule,

[3:31:29] waive the first reading by substitution of the title,

[3:31:34] and introduce an ordinance of the City

[3:31:35] Council of the City of Manteca, State of California,

[3:31:39] repealing and replacing chapter 3.20 of the Manteca Municipal

[3:31:43] Code entitled park acquisition and improvement fees and adding

[3:31:47] chapter 3.21 of the Manteca Municipal Code entitled park

[3:31:52] dedications and in lieu fees.

[3:31:54] All in favor say aye.

[3:31:55] Aye.

[3:31:56] Opposed?

[3:31:57] Motion carries 5-0.

[3:31:59] Thank you.

[3:32:00] Congratulations.

[3:32:02] D.6.

[3:32:04] Conduct a public hearing for the Chamberlain Annexation Project

[3:32:08] and by motion find the project exempt from further

[3:32:11] environmental review pursuant to Section 15319 of the California

[3:32:17] Environmental Quality Act guidelines,

[3:32:19] adopt a resolution approving annexation and authorize staff

[3:32:23] to submit an application to the San Joaquin County Local Agency

[3:32:28] Formation Commission to initiate annexation proceedings

[3:32:33] for the Chamberlain Annexation parcels APN 218-020-08, -14,

[3:32:41] -17, -18, -19, -24, and 25, and waive the first reading

[3:32:48] by substitution of the title and introduce an ordinance

[3:32:51] of the City of Manteca, State of California,

[3:32:55] amending the zoning map set forth in Section 17.20.040

[3:33:01] of chapter 17.20 of Title 17 of the Manteca Municipal Code

[3:33:06] by assigning APN 218-020-14, -17,

[3:33:12] and -25 with a general commercial free zone

[3:33:16] designation.

[3:33:18] Mayor and council, tonight we have deputy director

[3:33:20] of development services planning, Jesus Orozco.

[3:33:24] Good evening, Mayor, council, members of the public,

[3:33:27] and staff.

[3:33:28] Someone teased me earlier about being last.

[3:33:30] But this would be the perfect way

[3:33:33] to celebrate my two years with the City of Manteca today.

[3:33:36] Yeah, all right.

[3:33:39] Two years, plus a day if you don't move faster.

[3:33:42] A couple of minutes.

[3:33:49] So before you is a annexation and a prezoning

[3:33:54] for the Chamberlain project.

[3:33:57] Some quick details on the project.

[3:33:59] This is a city initiated annexation.

[3:34:02] It entails approximately seven parcels, three of which

[3:34:05] are developable commercial parcels.

[3:34:08] The other four are encumbered as Caltrans right away parcels.

[3:34:14] The overall annexation area includes approximately 17.4

[3:34:19] acres.

[3:34:20] And the general area is located on the Southern portion

[3:34:25] of Lathrop Road and east of Inheritance Way and on--

[3:34:29] I'm sorry, the western side of Inheritance Way

[3:34:31] and on the eastern side of State Route 99, going northbound.

[3:34:35] I do want to note that there is no development associated

[3:34:38] with this project.

[3:34:43] Some key facts about the project.

[3:34:46] So right now, to the north of the project,

[3:34:49] there is undeveloped commercial land.

[3:34:52] On the eastern side, there's primarily rural residential

[3:34:55] with some agricultural land as well.

[3:34:58] And to the west and south is either State Highway 99 land

[3:35:04] or unimproved public right of way.

[3:35:07] On your screen, you'll also note that the highlighted are

[3:35:11] the three parcels developable private parcels

[3:35:14] within the annexation area.

[3:35:20] The purpose behind this annexation

[3:35:21] is really to streamline potential future development

[3:35:24] to the north and to the east, as there

[3:35:26] have been several inquiries.

[3:35:28] But I do want to note, again, that there

[3:35:30] is no development at this time.

[3:35:32] This annexation would square off and provide for contiguous city

[3:35:38] boundaries, as there are some odd or the existing city

[3:35:46] boundaries are somewhat irregular

[3:35:48] and this would allow for future development in a more

[3:35:52] streamlined fashion.

[3:35:55] I do want to note that the existing private commercial

[3:36:00] sites are within this area are developed.

[3:36:03] They will remain as existing nonconforming

[3:36:06] until they decide to either expand, change in use,

[3:36:10] or do other on site improvements.

[3:36:13] So as long as they continue their uses as currently

[3:36:17] in place, they would not be subject to the city

[3:36:22] zoning standards.

[3:36:24] That being said, those sites would

[3:36:26] be prezoned with a general commercial zoning designation

[3:36:30] upon completion of the annexation.

[3:36:35] Since this project does not entail any development

[3:36:38] and there are existing utilities within proximity

[3:36:44] and there is no intensification of zoning,

[3:36:47] the California Environmental Quality Act

[3:36:49] does allow for an exemption for annexations of these nature.

[3:36:52] Therefore, staff has prepared a notice of exemption

[3:36:56] consistent with section 15319 of the CEQA guidelines.

[3:37:01] And the project was also duly noticed

[3:37:03] and no less than 20 days in the Manteca Bulletin

[3:37:07] prior to this hearing.

[3:37:09] That being said, staff is requesting

[3:37:11] that the council consider finding the project exempt

[3:37:14] from further CEQA, adopt a resolution authorizing

[3:37:17] staff to submit an application to San Joaquin County Local

[3:37:21] Agency Formation Commission, and introduce an ordinance

[3:37:24] to prezone three other parcels within the annexation boundary.

[3:37:29] That completes my presentation.

[3:37:30] I'll be happy to answer any questions.

[3:37:34] All right, any questions from council?

[3:37:40] All right, we'll open up the public hearing at 10:20.

[3:37:45] Zoom.

[3:37:55] I do have an attendee, but no hand.

[3:37:58] OK, anybody in the public would like to speak on item D.6?

[3:38:10] Good evening, Mayor Singh, Council.

[3:38:12] My name is Dave Bramell.

[3:38:13] I'm the fire chief of the Lathrop Manteca Fire District,

[3:38:18] which is subsequently the district that

[3:38:22] is most frequently impacted through annexation

[3:38:24] and detachment.

[3:38:26] Other people know me as Chief Isla's less handsome peer

[3:38:31] to the West.

[3:38:34] It's a pleasure to be here.

[3:38:35] I've been a resident of Manteca for 49 years.

[3:38:37] My family moved here in 1977, so I'm very familiar with the area,

[3:38:41] but I've only been the fire chief next door

[3:38:43] for about the last four years.

[3:38:45] And in that time, we've been noticed north of 16

[3:38:50] plus annexation applications have come through

[3:38:52] or requests for mitigation agreements.

[3:38:55] And so it happens to-- as you're well aware,

[3:38:57] it happens well to the north, to the south, to the east,

[3:39:02] and then to the extent possible, toward the west a bit, too.

[3:39:06] So my goal in coming here tonight

[3:39:09] is to talk a little bit about this specific annexation

[3:39:11] and as it relates, perhaps, to the process of annexation

[3:39:14] with the city.

[3:39:14] The city has been very good with us

[3:39:17] about providing notice and getting us on distribution lists

[3:39:21] so that we can see and have an opportunity to comment

[3:39:23] on projects frequently.

[3:39:25] This annexation, I know, is a annexation

[3:39:28] that's been initiated by the city, where the majority of them

[3:39:32] are usually not in that frame.

[3:39:34] So we're often contacted by a developer who reaches out.

[3:39:38] Sometimes we're noticed about a project maybe a year prior.

[3:39:42] We provide comment to that initial distribution.

[3:39:44] And we might not hear for a year.

[3:39:46] And then a developer contacts me and says,

[3:39:47] I hear you're the guy that we do this with.

[3:39:49] And it's usually because there's a pending LAFCO meeting.

[3:39:52] And they know they have to mitigate the impact to the fire

[3:39:55] district.

[3:39:56] And as you're aware, that is required

[3:39:59] via current LAFCO policy.

[3:40:02] The challenge for the fire district

[3:40:03] is that it usually keeps the fire district whole

[3:40:06] from the aspect of the current value from the parcels that

[3:40:11] are--

[3:40:11] often, it's a single parcel or maybe

[3:40:13] it's three or four parcels with only one

[3:40:15] or two improvements on it.

[3:40:16] And so by itself is not that much.

[3:40:18] And so that impact, we typically negotiate over a 15 year

[3:40:23] agreement with an escalator that assumes a certain percentage

[3:40:26] of property tax increase.

[3:40:27] And we call it good.

[3:40:28] But depending on the parcel, that could be a developer writes

[3:40:32] us a check for $38,000 and looks around their pockets for loose

[3:40:36] change and satisfies this requirement.

[3:40:40] Project moves on.

[3:40:41] Detachment occurs.

[3:40:41] And in perpetuity, the fire district

[3:40:43] will never have that revenue again.

[3:40:45] So it's one time monies.

[3:40:47] And the city is negotiating and the developers

[3:40:49] are negotiating in good faith with us to do that.

[3:40:52] But the reason I bring it up tonight

[3:40:54] is the Chamberlain Annexation is one that we haven't yet

[3:40:56] had the opportunity to meet.

[3:40:57] And the city has reached out.

[3:40:59] I returned some of that as well.

[3:41:01] And we just haven't been able to connect.

[3:41:03] I know and I see in the documentation

[3:41:04] the attachments tonight that that is certainly something

[3:41:08] that both parties endeavor to do and accomplish.

[3:41:13] May I have just a little more time?

[3:41:17] And so I know that we're going to do that.

[3:41:19] And I'm not here to tell you that we're

[3:41:21] going to thwart that or be an obstacle to such.

[3:41:25] But I just would share that the sheer volume of annexations

[3:41:28] that come through is--

[3:41:32] it's exhausting, actually, in a lot of ways.

[3:41:34] But the district is looking to more closely look

[3:41:39] at these projects as they come through.

[3:41:41] We're working on developing a mitigation program so that it

[3:41:44] can expedite these processes and make it clear

[3:41:47] as we move forward.

[3:41:49] We're interested in arrangements,

[3:41:51] such as tax sharing agreements that

[3:41:52] might be untraditional from just simply paying us a lump sum

[3:41:56] to make us go away, for lack of a better term.

[3:41:59] So we're going to be looking at that

[3:42:00] a little closer because this in itself

[3:42:03] is not a significant impact.

[3:42:05] But there's discussion, as you're well aware,

[3:42:07] in this community, about a couple other big project

[3:42:09] areas of already established developed communities

[3:42:12] that would be a very significant impact.

[3:42:14] And so I want to get in front of it.

[3:42:16] And I just want to make the staff and council aware

[3:42:20] that we are looking a lot closer at this

[3:42:23] and making sure that the district-- because that's

[3:42:26] my charge, is to advocate for my district

[3:42:28] and make sure that funding sources are there.

[3:42:30] Because although, I understand fully

[3:42:33] the city's right to develop, I understand

[3:42:35] the concepts of general plans and sphere of influence,

[3:42:38] and I know how all of that works.

[3:42:41] And the city is going to grow.

[3:42:42] But the district still has a responsibility

[3:42:44] to serve areas that are outside of your sphere

[3:42:46] that are impacted by these areas that you plan to develop in.

[3:42:50] And so we just have to monitor that, and partner,

[3:42:52] and work with the city to make sure

[3:42:54] that it's best for all parties.

[3:42:56] And then lastly, I'll just say, in your documentation,

[3:43:00] the CEQA analysis talks about the fire station being

[3:43:05] the current station 33 being 2 miles away

[3:43:08] and the city 244 being a mile and a half.

[3:43:11] Pick a center parcel in the business that's there.

[3:43:14] Measure it.

[3:43:14] It's exactly the same.

[3:43:15] There are about 1.5, 1.6 miles apart.

[3:43:18] Also, it talks about a 1,200 feet away for a water supply.

[3:43:23] That is not really consistent with the municipal level

[3:43:26] of water supply.

[3:43:27] It is in a rural setting, technically,

[3:43:28] or unincorporated areas, but not so much in a municipal setting.

[3:43:32] So in any case, thank you for the extended time.

[3:43:34] I appreciate it.

[3:43:36] And I just wanted to provide those comments.

[3:43:38] Thank you.

[3:43:39] Thank you.

[3:43:42] Anybody else?

[3:43:47] OK, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing at 10:26

[3:43:57] and bring it back for council discussion.

[3:44:06] Some of the points that were raised

[3:44:09] has there been discussion regarding?

[3:44:15] One more time, Mayor.

[3:44:23] Oh, sorry.

[3:44:24] OK, I said, some of the points that were raised,

[3:44:26] has there been any discussion regarding the fire district?

[3:44:30] Yes, if I may just briefly, I do apologize.

[3:44:33] I did not speak on the detachment agreement.

[3:44:37] Staff is working and will continue

[3:44:38] to work with the fire district to come to a consensus

[3:44:41] and agreement on a tax sharing agreement

[3:44:44] as it relates to those specific parcels within the annexation

[3:44:50] area, which would be a requirement as part

[3:44:52] of the annexation application to LAFCO.

[3:44:55] With regards to the proximity of the fire station,

[3:44:59] I believe City of Manteca is fire station 4

[3:45:02] is slightly closer to than the district's fire station 33.

[3:45:09] There might have been some oversight

[3:45:10] on the exact distances, but they're generally close.

[3:45:14] Manteca being the closest for the most part.

[3:45:18] As far as the CEQA, again, since there's no actual development,

[3:45:23] the standard utility service plan

[3:45:26] that goes associated with this project

[3:45:28] would not be as detailed as we would normally

[3:45:30] see with projects that do have development associated

[3:45:33] with them.

[3:45:34] Currently, this is in the county and so it's

[3:45:37] on well and septic, correct?

[3:45:41] Correct.

[3:45:41] They're staying that way until there's development?

[3:45:44] That is correct.

[3:45:47] There's a water supply, you said, nearby?

[3:45:51] Well the water supply would be required upon development.

[3:45:54] And again, there's only three parcels.

[3:45:57] So they would have to pull something closer.

[3:45:59] That is correct.

[3:46:02] But to your point, Mayor, yes, there

[3:46:03] is a water supply that was extended east of 99

[3:46:07] along Lathrop Road that they would be able to connect.

[3:46:16] Charlie.

[3:46:23] I just want to thank Chief Bramell for coming out tonight.

[3:46:27] Somewhere out there, there's a picture

[3:46:29] of himself, and Division Chief Boris, and I on a grass fire,

[3:46:34] mopping up on 120 way back when you guys were

[3:46:38] starting as reserves.

[3:46:40] So it's good to see that you're taking care of Lathrop

[3:46:44] and watching out for their concerns and appreciate it.

[3:46:48] So thank you.

[3:46:53] Just briefly, I served on LAFCO, so I

[3:46:56] know this is always a concern of your predecessor,

[3:46:58] although you've done a much nicer job of presenting it today

[3:47:01] in front of us than he may have done a few years ago.

[3:47:06] That being said, though, I'm hopeful

[3:47:08] and I'm sure you'll reach out to us.

[3:47:10] Work on something, an appropriate detachment.

[3:47:13] It is important.

[3:47:14] Unfortunately, the Lathrop [INAUDIBLE],

[3:47:18] that is the issue with LAFCO.

[3:47:20] I mean, as we go farther north and we go east,

[3:47:23] that is a real issue for their district.

[3:47:26] So like I say, working with the developer's

[3:47:29] always probably even a little better.

[3:47:31] But I think with the city, I'm sure we'll do a fair exchange

[3:47:36] and work with you.

[3:47:37] And I'm sure you can reach out to us if there is a problem.

[3:47:40] So I'm hopeful.

[3:47:41] But thank you for your pleasant approach to the council tonight.

[3:47:48] Thank you.

[3:47:49] Yeah, thank you, Chief, for coming and also hanging out with

[3:47:52] us all the way until 10:30 at night.

[3:47:56] But yes, I think whatever we need to do,

[3:47:59] we will make it right with the city

[3:48:01] and make sure everything is moving forward.

[3:48:05] With that, I entertain a motion.

[3:48:09] So moved.

[3:48:13] This time, it's Council Member Breitenbucher and a second from

[3:48:17] Council Member Halford to adopt a resolution approving

[3:48:21] annexation and authorize staff to submit an application

[3:48:24] to the San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission

[3:48:27] to initiate annexation proceedings for the Chamberlain

[3:48:30] Annexation. parcels APN 218-020-14, -17, -18, -19, -24,

[3:48:37] and -25, and waive the first reading by substitution of title

[3:48:42] and introduce an ordinance of the City of Manteca,

[3:48:44] State of California, amending the zoning map set forth

[3:48:48] in Section 17.20.040 of chapter 17.20 of Title 17 of the Manteca

[3:48:57] Municipal Code by assigning APN 218-020-14, -17,

[3:49:04] and -25 with a general commercial free zone

[3:49:07] designation.

[3:49:09] All in favor, say aye.

[3:49:11] Aye.

[3:49:12] Opposed?

[3:49:14] Motion carries 5-0.

[3:49:18] I need a five minute break.

[3:49:25] Sorry.

[3:49:28] All right, we're back.

[3:49:30] We're almost there.

[3:49:31] All right, that brings us to item E.1,

[3:49:33] establish a city council ad hoc 2 by 2 Veterans Memorial

[3:49:37] Committee and appoint two council members

[3:49:39] to serve on the committee.

[3:49:40] Good evening, Mayor and Council.

[3:49:42] Tonight's staff is seeking city council's appointment

[3:49:45] of two council members to serve on an ad hoc, 2 by 2 committee,

[3:49:49] working with staff on a Veterans Memorial.

[3:49:54] That's it?

[3:49:55] That's it.

[3:49:56] It's up to you now.

[3:50:00] All right, I feel like I'm in the war zone here in the middle.

[3:50:09] I guess I'll go to public comments.

[3:50:13] Anybody on Zoom?

[3:50:18] I do have one attendee with no hand raised.

[3:50:21] All right, any comment cards?

[3:50:23] No comment cards.

[3:50:25] I'll be instructing people.

[3:50:28] Anybody in the public would like to speak on this item?

[3:50:50] Forming this ad hoc is a great thing for us.

[3:50:54] I think for veterans, it will help

[3:50:58] get you all out in the community and understand

[3:51:01] the veterans needs and what you can do as a community

[3:51:06] to help the veterans.

[3:51:07] So thank you very much for considering this.

[3:51:12] And I look forward to all the great things

[3:51:15] that you're going to do with us.

[3:51:16] Thank you.

[3:51:18] Thanks for the help.

[3:51:24] Wow.

[3:51:26] All right.

[3:51:29] Anybody else?

[3:51:34] Seeing none, we'll go ahead and bring it back

[3:51:37] to council discussion.

[3:51:38] I don't know, do we need council discussion or can

[3:51:41] I just make a motion?

[3:51:42] All right, I flipped a coin earlier just to let you know.

[3:51:47] All right.

[3:51:48] I would like to make a motion to establish a city council ad hoc

[3:51:51] 2 by 2 Veterans Memorial Committee

[3:51:53] and appoint Council Member Dave Breitenbucher and me to serve

[3:51:58] on the committee.

[3:52:00] That's what I got.

[3:52:04] Do I have a second on that?

[3:52:08] Anybody?

[3:52:13] I heard a second.

[3:52:16] So I have a motion and a second.

[3:52:21] All in favor, say aye.

[3:52:22] Aye.

[3:52:24] Opposed?

[3:52:29] Abstain?

[3:52:32] All right, I got 4-0, 1 All right, moving to E.2.

[3:52:46] E.2, establish the city council ad hoc solid waste committee

[3:52:49] and appoint two council members to serve on the committee.

[3:52:53] Good evening, Mayor and council.

[3:52:54] Tonight's staff is seeking city council's appointment

[3:52:57] of two council members to serve on an ad hoc, 2 by 2 committee

[3:53:01] to work with staff on solid waste and disposal options.

[3:53:07] All right, let's go to public comments.

[3:53:12] Jeff.

[3:53:13] Jeff, you want to tell us--

[3:53:17] you got nothing?

[3:53:20] Anybody on Zoom?

[3:53:24] I do have some attendees with no hand raised.

[3:53:26] OK, anybody in the public would like to speak on the 2

[3:53:30] by 2 solid waste committee?

[3:53:37] Seeing none, we'll go ahead and bring it back.

[3:53:40] You guys want to discuss this one?

[3:53:42] Anybody, eager to jump on board?

[3:53:49] Bada-boom.

[3:53:53] All right, let's see who the trash talkers are.

[3:53:57] I would like to establish a city council ad hoc 2 by 2

[3:54:01] solid waste committee and appoint Council Member Morowit

[3:54:05] and Vice Mayor Regina Lackey to serve on the committee.

[3:54:11] Mayor, just confirming that is your motion.

[3:54:13] That is my motion.

[3:54:17] OK, I got a motion and a second.

[3:54:18] All in favor, say aye.

[3:54:19] Aye.

[3:54:25] Do I have a no or an abstention?

[3:54:29] Aye, yes.

[3:54:32] It's going to be fun.

[3:54:33] It really will be.

[3:54:36] Guys, don't talk too much trash, all right?

[3:54:41] All right, that was a 5-0, by the way, on that one.

[3:54:46] With that, we're going to move on

[3:54:47] to-- thank God we're finally here.

[3:54:50] City manager comments.

[3:54:52] All right, thanks, Mayor and council.

[3:54:54] So just a quick recap.

[3:54:55] Big thank you for the parks fee, getting it

[3:54:58] to the finish line and all the support

[3:55:00] from everyone that came along with it.

[3:55:04] We haven't been here in a while.

[3:55:05] So I do want to thank the Sunrise Kiwanis for the 4th

[3:55:10] of July parade.

[3:55:11] And then also, I wanted to thank parks and recreation

[3:55:14] and PD for hosting the National Night Out Community Party.

[3:55:18] Again, I thought that was really nice.

[3:55:21] Some special events coming up-- we have Loma ribbon cutting.

[3:55:25] It's supposed to be on Friday at 11,

[3:55:27] but I saw something on social media.

[3:55:28] It might be at 2:00.

[3:55:29] So keep your eyes out for whatever time it is.

[3:55:33] I'm not sure if it changed, but excited that Loma is open.

[3:55:36] Music on Maple will be on the 20th.

[3:55:40] Manteca Citizens Academy will kick off next week.

[3:55:42] This last week we started level up.

[3:55:45] We have lots of upcoming ribbon cuttings and groundbreaking.

[3:55:50] So the way Veterans Village will be on September 8.

[3:55:53] The transitional housing and dog containers ribbon cutting

[3:55:56] will be on September 9.

[3:55:58] We're going to be doing a groundbreaking for our Police

[3:56:01] Department on October 7 and then fire station 6 on October 14.

[3:56:05] So all of this will be put on social media and more details

[3:56:09] to come on that.

[3:56:10] We'll also be doing a little event

[3:56:13] at what we're calling Mural Alley on September 17,

[3:56:19] before [INAUDIBLE].

[3:56:21] So more details to come for that.

[3:56:23] August 20, I want to take a moment.

[3:56:25] We're going to be launching our new website, which is going

[3:56:28] to include some ADA components.

[3:56:30] It's going to have an AI chatbot to help

[3:56:33] our residents with questions that they have in real time.

[3:56:36] And I want to take a moment and thank

[3:56:38] Penny, who is our IT and innovation director,

[3:56:41] and her team.

[3:56:42] It looks really amazing.

[3:56:44] They've done a good job.

[3:56:46] And we've needed the update for quite some time.

[3:56:48] So thank you, Penny, to you and your team for all

[3:56:51] that you're doing.

[3:56:52] And I hope that the citizens in our community

[3:56:55] enjoy it just as much as we are.

[3:56:57] It's really user friendly.

[3:56:59] And then lastly, I want to close out the meeting just saying

[3:57:02] that, even though tonight it was a long meeting, that I just

[3:57:06] want to state that we do understand and respect

[3:57:08] all of our employees and their right to express their views.

[3:57:12] We recognize the importance of negotiation.

[3:57:15] And with that, we've also had with the two bargaining groups

[3:57:18] that were here tonight, a total of 17 meetings with them,

[3:57:22] combined to date, with multiple emails, several costing

[3:57:26] of proposals, budget presentations.

[3:57:30] We are definitely committed to working collaboratively

[3:57:33] and constructively with our employee

[3:57:35] reps to reach an agreement.

[3:57:37] We value all of our employees.

[3:57:39] So I just want to make sure that that's clear.

[3:57:41] But most importantly, we're committed

[3:57:43] to maintaining long term success of our city

[3:57:45] and we talk about that a lot here.

[3:57:48] We've been engaged in discussions.

[3:57:50] And I'm optimistic that we're going

[3:57:53] to find a good common ground.

[3:57:55] And also to yearly--

[3:57:59] I believe there's new legislation tied to it.

[3:58:01] It's tied to our retention rates.

[3:58:03] And we have a really high retention.

[3:58:08] And I do plan on keeping that.

[3:58:10] We have a really good work culture.

[3:58:13] So I'm really optimistic that we'll move this forward.

[3:58:18] So I just wanted to close the meeting with that

[3:58:20] and thank everyone tonight for-- who came out.

[3:58:25] The next meeting will be September 1.

[3:58:28] And that concludes my report, unless council has any questions

[3:58:32] for me this evening.

[3:58:33] Thank you.

[3:58:35] All right, thank you, Toni.

[3:58:38] All right, Council Member Halford.

[3:58:43] Long but good meeting.

[3:58:44] Good night.

[3:58:46] Vice Mayor.

[3:58:51] Good to be back.

[3:58:52] See you on the 1st.

[3:58:54] 1st?

[3:58:56] Oh.

[3:59:02] The next time we see you, congratulations, grandma.

[3:59:10] Shout out to the budget engagement process.

[3:59:13] Thank you guys for doing that and allowing the citizens

[3:59:16] to take part in it.

[3:59:18] That's a great thing.

[3:59:19] I want to thank Brandy for helping Daryl tonight

[3:59:22] and addressing his concerns.

[3:59:24] [INAUDIBLE] and streets.

[3:59:26] I was told you guys are already working

[3:59:27] on the concerns for Mr. Peters.

[3:59:30] I'm glad to hear that.

[3:59:31] You and I were in high school together.

[3:59:33] And then we talked about the Flock cameras.

[3:59:36] And I didn't get to mention this because Gary passed me

[3:59:39] in comments.

[3:59:41] Yeah, it's a long night.

[3:59:43] But library and Lincoln Park have benefited greatly

[3:59:46] from those cameras.

[3:59:48] We appreciate them.

[3:59:49] And then the three of us were out on quality of life operation

[3:59:55] last Saturday.

[3:59:56] Yeah.

[3:59:57] And they had 14 arrests and 14 citations.

[4:00:03] I can't remember, did we get anybody directed to 555?

[4:00:08] Three got directed to 555.

[4:00:10] So very good night we had there.

[4:00:14] And again, that kennel is going to make a difference.

[4:00:18] And like I said, we should probably

[4:00:20] be looking at that second in the near future.

[4:00:23] So as the process goes there, I'm glad we got the roof going.

[4:00:28] We got it purchased.

[4:00:31] And we're going to move forward.

[4:00:32] So that's another great thing.

[4:00:34] With the police station, fire station,

[4:00:36] we've got a lot going on.

[4:00:38] And the streets and everything else that's going on.

[4:00:42] Thank you.

[4:00:44] All right, Council Member Morowit.

[4:00:48] A great meeting.

[4:00:49] I will thank staff for all what they did tonight.

[4:00:52] I mean, we had a bit of a break.

[4:00:54] So moving forward, we had a lot of staff, a lot of meeting.

[4:00:58] Long night.

[4:00:59] Everybody was on their game.

[4:01:01] So I appreciate that.

[4:01:02] And to the folks that came to speak about their bargaining

[4:01:06] groups, I appreciate how respectful

[4:01:08] they were coming to the meeting and expressing their concerns.

[4:01:12] And we take those very seriously at the City of Manteca.

[4:01:15] So thank you and have a good evening.

[4:01:18] All right, thank you.

[4:01:20] Yeah, this has got to be one of the longest meetings I've ever

[4:01:22] had the four years.

[4:01:25] No, not all.

[4:01:28] There's been some doozies.

[4:01:30] But thank you for everyone coming out tonight.

[4:01:34] It was a great meeting.

[4:01:36] Thank you to all the staff that came and voiced their concerns.

[4:01:40] And we hear you.

[4:01:41] And I know our staff's going to be working diligently

[4:01:45] to get a solution.

[4:01:48] And so hopefully, we're going to hear that soon.

[4:01:52] Also a lot of good stuff covered tonight.

[4:01:58] One of the things I do want to see

[4:01:59] if we have council consensus, I would

[4:02:01] like to see our police department come back

[4:02:04] and present to us when it comes to Flock cameras and a policy

[4:02:11] and procedures that we follow and talk about some of the myths

[4:02:16] out there and Flock overall.

[4:02:20] And so that way we can also educate

[4:02:22] the council and our public.

[4:02:24] So you guys are good with that.

[4:02:26] I would like to see a presentation come back

[4:02:28] to us sooner.

[4:02:31] So it looks like we got nods.

[4:02:32] So we're good with that.

[4:02:35] With that, it's been a long time since we've had a meeting.

[4:02:38] And then we might be a little rusty, but here we are.

[4:02:41] We made it to the end.

[4:02:43] Do we want to pick a date for them to come back?

[4:02:47] Is that what you're asking, Cass?

[4:02:50] When can you present that to us?

[4:02:51] By next meeting?

[4:02:56] What kind of effort?

[4:02:58] Roll tide effort?

[4:03:02] All right, sounds good.

[4:03:03] September 1st.

[4:03:09] He's excited.

[4:03:11] And with that, those are my comments for tonight.

[4:03:14] I do want to adjourn tonight's meeting.

[4:03:17] We lost a great person in our community and wonderful person.

[4:03:22] And he will be sorely missed.

[4:03:24] And so I would like to adjourn tonight's meeting

[4:03:26] in the memory of Bruce Bell.

City Council Regular Meeting

Agenda

Transcript