All right, I call to order the regular city council
meeting for August 18, 2026.
City clerk roll call, please.
Council members, Breitenbucher.
Here.
Halford.
Here.
Morowit.
Here.
Vice Mayor Lackey.
Here.
We'll move on to the next item, which is invocation and flag
salute.
And we are here with Mrs. Marcia Munroe from the Baha'i Faith.
[INAUDIBLE]
--the republic, one nation, under God, indivisible--
[INAUDIBLE]
Thank you.
We will go ahead and move on to agenda review
and supplemental reports.
Mayor and council, we have the following supplemental reports.
Communication received from the public for item C.15 Petition
and communications received from the public for item D.2.
Communications received from the public for item D.5.
And an updated PowerPoint for item D.4 from city staff.
As for agenda review, all city council meetings
shall be conducted in orderly and efficient manner
without willful disruption by any person
or persons in attendance.
The city has also adopted a decorum policy
that governs public meetings, which
states that all city council meeting attendees shall refrain
from behavior that disrupts or that threatens to disrupt
city government operations.
This includes, but is not limited to harassment
and/or intimidation of city staff, elected officials,
or members of the public.
Please be advised that should a disruption
occur, a member of the city council
shall issue the person or persons an initial warning.
Should a second disruption occur by the same person or persons,
a member of the city council shall ask the person or persons
to leave the meeting.
And Mayor and council [INAUDIBLE].
All right, thank you, city clerk.
Go ahead and move on to the next section, which is disclosure
of ex parte communication.
Anything from the council?
OK, seeing none, we'll go ahead and head over down here
for presentations.
If the council can join me.
First one.
A.1, proclamation proclaiming August 2 through 8th,
2026 as national health center week.
We have the director of government and community affairs
at Golden Valley Health centers to accept tonight.
Not yet.
Whereas community health centers have
been providing high quality, affordable, comprehensive,
primary and preventive health care for more than 60 years,
positively impacting America's health care system.
And--
Whereas community health centers now serve more than 52 million
Americans at over 17,000 service delivery sites across
the country, providing care to individuals and families from
all walks of life, regardless of background, income,
insurance status or ability to pay.
And--
Whereas Golden Valley Health centers has served as a trusted
provider in California's Central Valley since 1972, today,
it operates 50 locations across Merced, San Joaquin,
Stanislaus counties in delivering more than 786,000
visits to over 161,000 patients annually.
And--
Whereas during national health center week,
we celebrate the legacy of America's community health
centers and their vital role in shaping the past, present,
and future of America's health care system.
And--
Now, therefore, I Gary Singh, mayor of the city of Manteca,
on behalf of the city council, do hereby recognize August 2
through the 8th, 2026 as National Health Center Week.
I encourage all residents to learn
about the support and essential services
provided by Golden Valley Health centers
and other community health centers in our community.
Would you like to step?
Yes.
Hi.
My name is [INAUDIBLE].
I'm the center manager for Golden Valley Health Care Center
here in Manteca.
We do have two locations, one for family medicine
at 302 Northgate Drive, which offers pediatrician and family
med services.
And then we have an urgent care services
located at 250 Northgate Drive, where
we offer urgent care services.
We just extended our hours until 9:00 PM.
And we also offer same day sports
physicals for the kids who are playing sports this year.
So you guys can come and stop on by if you have children
that need to have those done.
Also, I wanted to mention that we
did expand our PACE program for our elderly patients
to the San Joaquin County area.
So Manteca patients are also covered by PACE.
[APPLAUSE]
That will bring us to item A.2, certificates of recognition
presented to American Legion Auxiliary Girls State Conference
participants.
Tonight, we have American Legion Auxiliary delegates to accept.
All right, so first one is Adriana Rattaro.
Udyati Tewai.
Come on up.
[SIDE CONVERSATION]
Do you want to come up too, Chris?
All right, this is certificate of recognition
presented to Udyati Tewai.
The Manteca City Council proudly recognizes you
for being selected as Sierra High School's representative
to attend the American Legion Auxiliary Girls State
Conference.
This prestigious selection reflects your leadership,
character, and dedication to civic involvement.
Congratulations on this outstanding achievement
and for representing your school and community with pride.
Go, Timberwolves.
[APPLAUSE]
Did you want to say anything?
I knew you would.
[LAUGHTER]
There's nobody watching.
And this is for Adriana.
Thank you so much.
Do you want to talk a little bit about the program
and what it is?
So the American Legion Auxiliary has
been sending girls to Girls State for the last 83 years,
I believe.
And we have been able, through in Manteca,
to send a girl from all five of our high schools.
We do this total by charitable donations, which
we work all year to raise.
So it's a week long conference, where they
learn about state government.
They form cities, and city councils, and so on.
[APPLAUSE]
Wait, group picture, so one more.
[APPLAUSE]
All right, mayor and council, that
will bring us to item A3, which is receive
a brief presentation regarding the Community Budget Engagement
Initiative, including a public survey and upcoming workshops.
Tonight we have budget manager, Lana McBroom,
to present that brief presentation for you.
Good evening, mayor and council.
Tonight, I'm introducing finance's new Community Budget
Engagement Initiative, which includes an online survey
and follow up workshops.
We're gathering information for input before fiscal year
'28 recommendations are developed
so community priorities can be considered earlier
in the process.
Responses will help us design workshops
around the budget topics and questions
that residents want to explore.
This earlier, broader engagement supports transparency
and expands our public engagement practices.
The survey asks which city services and priorities
matter most.
Sorry.
Where future resources could make the greatest difference
and how residents envision Manteca's future.
The survey is open through August 31.
You can use the online link found
on the city of Manteca budget's page
or you can scan the QR code that is on the screen.
After the survey closes, staff will summarize the key themes
and help shape September workshops
and guide future council discussions.
Results are one source of community input, not
a final budget decision.
Final priorities and appropriations
remain subject to available resources, legal requirements
and, of course, council action.
We have some flyers on the back table.
And you can also scan the QR code that is on the screen.
We want to thank everyone for their participation.
And we look forward to continuing the conversation
at upcoming workshops.
Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
Thank you all for doing this, and also
getting this going for asking for community output.
All right, with that, we'll go ahead
and move on to section B, which is public comments.
Mayor, at this time, you may call for public comment
for items not listed on the agenda.
Via Zoom, webinar, or in person, public comment
is limited to three minutes per person.
All right, let's start with Zoom.
I have attendees, but no hands raised.
OK, nobody on Zoom.
Do you have any comment cards?
The first comment card I have is Brad.
Brad, come on up, sir.
How's that?
Good?
Go ahead and start.
Howdy, man.
Hello.
So what do we do here?
Yeah, you have time and anything you would like to tell us.
I got to push a button?
Nope, just start talking.
OK, terrific.
Yeah, I just here-- basically I'll
get to the nut in the shell.
I'm here to complain about the systemic pattern
of non-compliance with ADA violations, especially Title II.
And I think it would be under Chapter 28, Section 35 1.51,
as well as Chapter 24, part 2 chapter--
actually, part 2 and section 11b 705 of the California Building
Code, as well as California Civil Code 54.
And it's been a systemic problem with this city.
I've been here since 1973.
And I watched the ADA grow up around me.
And the noncompliance and the systemic pattern of--
I don't know if you want to call it obfuscating, or deflecting,
or just noncompliance as you go down
the road doing a certain repavement projects and things.
But there is an ongoing pattern.
I've got a list of about 35 right here that I've done.
And I could do this seven days a week, 24/7,
which I probably will be doing.
And I'll be filing formal grievances.
I just wanted this on the public record
because there could be a injunctive order issued,
possibly down the road.
So I highly recommend the city get very active
and show proactive action, some issues taken
care of immediately and specifically the golf
course, who violate my civil rights,
as well as the folks behind me back here.
If you could see them in kind of shortened wheelchairs.
But anyways, it's not only me, it's
the disabled community wide at large.
Not me, it's the blind, and disabled, the hearing,
whatever it may be.
But absolutely, they need to so show some actionable results
on what they're going to do about the problems
that I've been bringing to the city.
And there's more to come.
A lot of it.
So
I got about 48 seconds.
I would like to mention that over here, for instance,
on 2010, the ADA Title II Standard of Building
was implemented in March 15 of 2012.
And Northgate Commons is in direct violation
with the workout equipment because it's not mirroring
exactly like it is.
I go 4 miles each direction to work out at Woodward Park daily.
And I would recommend anybody within city council chambers
that's interested in my issue, I can be contacted and found
very easily through the City of Manteca or any other spot.
And that's about all I need to say.
And if anybody's got any questions, feel free to answer.
But there's time constraints.
So I know you guys got budget constraints too,
but that's not relevant according to ADA.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
The next public comment card I have is Darryl.
I don't know if I can do this very fast either.
I totally support what he's referring to.
Anyway, I got some work for the City of Manteca
on behalf of Union Pacific Railroad and particularly
their police department.
And I've talked to officers of our department.
And we'd very much like you guys to trim the oleander bushes
over there off of Manteca Avenue and Yosemite Avenue
over there at the railroad crossings, which
is city property.
And the thing I want to bring out
is they have to be able to see down at the Center Street
crossing when they do their patrols.
And I wanted to mention, too, that there's
a sidewalk that's broken that the city is not fixed.
It's about 25 feet to the crossing.
I have a real problem on my scooter
trying to dump over that way.
But sometimes I have to get over for people coming my direction
and trying to watch the traffic, the trains,
and get over for everybody.
And it should have been fixed a long time ago.
But anyway, I'm sure that we'll get the proper cooperation
on that, if you guys would.
The next is noise ordinance regarding motels and hotels.
And we've had a problem with one of the guys
out there at the inn motel, actually, my neighbor in room
11.
Anyway, I looked up the city ordinance
because when I first moved there,
we had a situation that the rules of the place
was on the city-- on the ordinance on noise.
You couldn't run your TV from 10 o'clock at night till, I think,
it's 8 o'clock in the morning, currently.
Anyway, that was put in.
It wasn't a rule that the park outfit had
or the motel management had.
This is actually Manteca city law.
I don't have the exact update on what the current thing is.
What I'd like for you guys to do is pass an ordinance with that
that if somebody is going to use either a television
set or a radio, that they either have to use after 10 o'clock,
that they have to use either a plug-in headphones.
And that they have these other wireless ones now on Bluetooth,
if you have the TV that will operate off that.
Most of the new ones do.
That way, if a person does run their TV all night
or whatever the other person don't hear it.
Reason I mentioned that was that that place was built in 1929.
Sir.
[INAUDIBLE] no soundproofing?
Yes, sir.
Sir, you're three minutes,
And I had some other safety--
Thanks.
The next public comment card I have is Mike.
Good evening.
My name is Mike DeAnda.
I'm the senior business rep for Operating Engineers Local 3.
As you know, labor contract negotiations have stalled.
This year's classification comp study
identified many classifications well below market
due to the subpar wages given in the past
and takeaways the city asked the employees
to sacrifice due to their poor fiscal position.
In comparison to other similar cities,
the city needs to bring their wages up to market
and structure these increases so they don't fall behind
during the duration of this contract.
Without a fare increase, many of our members
salaries will fall behind the market
this year because the proposed three-year increase structure
does not account for wage increases already being
paid by the comparable agencies and the current inflation
numbers.
Again, the current offer has a structure
that will ensure the workers, their salaries
won't fall behind, as they have in the last 10 years,
due to the COLAs that were well below the CPI numbers.
Currently, the city has proposed increases starting at 2%.
Again, well below the inflation rate.
Meanwhile, management was given raises up to or above 20%.
We want the same method of the wage increases management
recently received-- increase the low end of the wages being
offered to at least match the current inflation rate.
No percentage cap in each year and front load
the wages in year one.
If no changes are made, our members and your employees
will be performing their same essential duties with less
spending power than before.
This will or may force the skilled workforce out
of their jobs, which will reflect negatively on the city.
Back in 2008 and the years to follow,
the current negotiations--
back in 2008 and the years to follow
showed significant losses and wages to the employees.
And the message I want to get today
is the current negotiations is not about just negotiations.
It's about the past increases that were below market
and lacked increases with no raises.
During the 2008 recession, after year one
of the contract, which was 4% a year,
the employees were asked by the city
to sacrifice three years of wages totaling 12%.
This also included furloughs.
The city stated they would make up these cuts,
but they were forgotten and never happened.
So this is the history we want you to understand what
this current negotiations is.
The employees request to catch up and stay caught up
during the duration of this proposed contract.
You have the opportunity today to make sure these workers who
have been pushed aside for too long,
receive the respect they deserve.
These workers have done their part
to create a stronger future for the city and its citizens.
And we now respectfully request you do the same.
[APPLAUSE]
The next public comment card we have is Troy.
Good evening, Mr. Mayor, council members.
My name is Troy Stine.
I am the CEO and founder of Stop Human Trafficking,
an organization that serves right here in Northern
California and tries to eradicate
human trafficking of every kind, including labor trafficking, sex
trafficking, organ trafficking, and benefits trafficking.
One in six.
One in six teenagers, stats will tell us,
are currently being exploited online, one in six.
The trauma and the pain, the relationship
and family problems that awaits them if it is not interrupted
is vast.
Not to mention a lot of tears.
I've served for many years in various capacities
in the fight against human trafficking,
a lot of which was focused on the restoration
of the victimized.
I heard the stories.
I saw the agony and the anguish they
experienced and certainly the tears.
In May of 2025, just a little over a year ago,
I launched stop human trafficking because we must
alert our citizens and train our professionals to recognize
the flags, the signs, and the tactics of human trafficking
and exploitation before another young person is exploited
or, God forbid, even trafficked.
Recently, right here in Manteca, I was able to speak--
we've currently done over 50 town hall meetings
and presentations in just the last year,
with distributing over 10,000 resources and worked with a lot
of various community agencies.
I was at the Thomas Toy Center.
There was just about 31 kids.
There wasn't a lot of kids there.
But at the end of that presentation called
Teen Empowerment Online Safety Strategies,
it was discovered that four young people were
being exploited online and they didn't even
know that was happening to them until they were taught about it.
And the tears.
We want freedom for all young people, which is why I'm here,
today, promoting an awareness event that we are hosting right
here in Manteca on Saturday, November the 7th.
It will be held at the Library Park, starting there.
It's called the Freedom Walk.
And I am asking for your support and for you
to help me get the word out for this powerful community
awareness event, where together we will walk one mile.
And we will share signs, homemade, and so forth,
not in protest but in awareness, that human trafficking is taking
place right here at home.
We must, get the word out and we must support our community.
While we serve all 48 counties in Northern California,
I live here.
I've lived here for about 18 years.
My four daughters live here with their husbands and my eight
grandchildren.
And it is imperative to me that we stop human trafficking.
I'm going to present to you, in just a moment, a folder that
has some information, as well as a flyer in it.
And as I present this to you, I'm
also going to give you a little jar.
I've been a Christian for a long time.
The Bible says that God stores our tears in a jar,
and I would like that jar for these young people to be empty.
Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
Thank you sir.
And yes, we definitely will help promote the event.
And we would love for human trafficking
to stop, especially in our city.
The next public comment card I have is Jennifer.
Hello, I'm back.
Good afternoon or evening, I should say.
My name is Jennifer Greenwood.
I am a resident of Manteca, as well as the city employee
of more than 21 years.
And I'm currently the president of the Manteca Technical Support
Services Association or as we know, MTSSA.
I'm here tonight as a spokesperson for our membership,
if I can get them to please stand.
Not on behalf of myself.
I am one vote, just like every other member.
MTSSA represents a wide range of positions in every department
in the city.
Our jobs may be different, but our members
are united in their concerns about wages, recruitment,
retention, and the future of our workforce.
Before negotiations began, we asked our membership
to submit their priorities.
They were more vocal than they have been in previous years.
And from that process came 19 proposals.
And getting our membership heard was a priority.
MTSSA voted down our city's proposal in May.
The primary concern was that the proposed 2% to 7% increases
do not provide a COLA equally across the board.
Some positions would receive a 2% per year.
Most positions would be brought to median market over three
years but without a COLA.
And seven positions currently representing four employees
would not reach full median.
That means three years from now, we
could be right back where we started,
falling behind the market without a true cost of living
adjustment.
Inflation is currently approximately 3.8%,
while many of the cities we compete with for employees
are providing 3% to 4% COLAs.
The Gallagher report itself recognized that its market
data would no longer accurately reflect those changes as of July
1, 2026.
I also want to clarify our total compensation.
MTSSA does not receive certification pay
or an annual stipend.
And we did not get a reduction in the percentage
of what we contribute to our PERS retirement.
We do receive wellness hours, which
were provided in lieu of additional personal income
in previous contract.
We are grateful to be in the upper echelon
when it comes to benefits, but those benefits
were factored in into the compensation
offer from the city.
It was recently reported that five of the seven bargaining
units have signed.
The other side of the story is that two
of the units that have not signed
represent more than 200 employees or over 40%
of the city's full time workforce.
And I think it needs--
we need to be honest about the larger picture.
And I'm quoting you cannot substantially increase
compensation at the top, build out administration,
and repeatedly ask residents to pay more,
then suddenly preach fiscal restraint when the employees
keeping the city running asked to be valued.
MTSSA is not asking for proverbial key
to the municipal cash box.
Our current counter proposal is simple-- a 1% COLA each year,
totaling 3% over the next three years.
Equaling for our membership and bringing those seven positions
to full meeting, which is, frankly, I
do not believe 1% is enough and, we believe, a fair compromise.
I'll finish up there.
I think we got the point.
Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
The last card I have is [INAUDIBLE].
Good evening, council.
Thank you for the opportunity.
I keep hearing that schools are not
the responsibility of the city.
It's only the MUSD.
But I want to clarify that a misinformation is
being spread so much that--
let's discuss about the facts.
The school district builds school,
but the sites to be provided, adequate sites
lies with the responsibility of the city.
We treat Manteca general plan as a bible.
And there are quite a few goals which
says to provide adequate site for the neighborhood growth.
And in two decades this has been not accomplished,
though it's there in the bible.
So let me read a couple of them which are there
in the Manteca general plan.
Yeah, so the goal is community design 4.7.
Each neighborhood shall include a distinct center
such as an elementary school.
I repeat, such as an elementary school, neighborhood parks,
and/or mixed use commercial area within a reasonable walking
distance of the homes, approximately one half mile.
So why is this not a walk to school?
I hear from the council, there is no walk to school at all.
But the Manteca general plan, I don't know when it was written.
And there are a couple of other goals also.
The goal land use 7, provide adequate land for development
of public and quasi public uses, including parks, schools,
and community facilities to support existing
and new development and the community needs.
These goals are never followed for the two decades.
And residents are thrown under the bus.
Kids future.
They are commuting three to four hours for a commute to school
and they are being misinformed that city doesn't
have any responsibility.
Please read through the Manteca general plan
and implement infrastructure first.
Infrastructure is not only about roads,
it about schools, libraries, fire station, police station,
and everything that is needed for the growth and the existing
facility.
Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
That's all the cards that have been
submitted for public comment.
OK, anybody else would like to speak on item
that's not on the agenda?
Come on up, sir.
Make this short.
My name is Frank Granelas.
I'm a resident of District 1.
First and foremost, I'd like to give these individuals here,
men and women, my empathy.
I know what it is to grind every single day to work for a city
and not be appreciated.
Sometimes we even get hurt.
Thank you for your service.
From the police, the fire department, the people that
clean the streets, the garbage men, every single one of you.
Never compromise your value.
You bring substance and value to this community.
You are the backbone of this community.
[APPLAUSE]
Second of all, I'd like to just speak about the Manteca Arch.
Stay with me because I'm going to go somewhere with this.
This arch that we have on Main Street
was approved by the city of Manteca, the city
manager, and the city council.
It started in September of 2025.
Somebody might ask, well, who paid for that.
Over $300,000 came from the ARPA,
which is the American Rescue Plan Act,
which is government funded, which means it was taxpayer
funded.
Another $300,000 came from the City General Fund,
which is also taxpayers' money.
So we paid for that arch.
In closing, if we can afford to put an arch that cost over
$600,000, then we can afford to pay these individuals what they
are worth.
[APPLAUSE]
In closing, I am not complaining, just
simply making an observation.
Thank you for your service.
I appreciate every single one of you.
Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
Anyone else like to speak on an item that is not on the agenda?
OK, seeing none, we'll go ahead and move on to the next section.
All right, with that, we'll go ahead and go to consent items.
We'll wait for room to clear.
All right, we're going to consent items.
Charlie Gina.
C.15.
OK, David and Mike.
C.3, C.12, C.15.
C.3, C.12, and C.15.
All right, and I had C.15 also.
With that, I can entertain a motion for all items not pulled.
So moved.
I have a motion from council member Breitenbucher.
A second from Council Member Halford.
All in favor, say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries 5-0.
Mayor, can I get clarification that you also pulled C.15?
Yeah.
That's the only one you pulled?
Yeah.
C.3.
All right, C.3 adopt a resolution accepting--
Mayor, we also had a member of the public pull C.6
Oh, OK.
Go ahead and add that on there.
C.6.
Do we need to redo the motion or are you good?
As long as the maker of the motion
is comfortable with C.6 being pulled as well, no need.
OK with that, Dave?
C.6?
You made the motion.
Yeah.
And the second is good?
All right.
C.6 goes ahead.
C3, adopt a resolution accepting the donation
of one refurbished 8 by 40 insulated dog kennel container
from Vault, Co.
for use of the city's unsheltered emergency center
and authorize the city manager or designee
to execute agreement in all necessary documents
to accept the donation.
Tonight, we have Homeless and Housing Services Manager,
Vielka Guarascio.
Hi, there.
Good evening, Mayor, Council.
Vielka Guarascio, Homeless and Housing Services Manager.
I'm here to answer any questions you may have.
But before, I want to just take this time
and thank Vault, Co. as well as Jill for the generous donation
of the dog kennel for our unsheltered emergency
center for unhoused, as well as a future program
and collaboration that we are doing with hold for program
for future individuals who are seeking sober living environment
programs or other type of programming
and their barrier is their pet.
And they are unable to enter these programs because
of finding either a family member or someone
that they can trust.
So with this dog kennel that will be going to 555,
it will allow for these individuals
to allow their pets to go to 555.
And our His Way Refuge Center staff
will be the ones overseeing and taking care of their pets.
So I definitely want to take this moment
and thank Doug and Jill for the great generosity and donation
for these dog containers.
I don't know if you want to invite them up
if they'd like to say anything.
Absolutely.
Come on up.
Doug.
And Vielka, why don't you share, too--
we have a lot of people here tonight.
We've already had a success with it.
And I think it's worth sharing because I think
it's going to be a way bigger value than we're anticipating
it to be.
Absolutely.
Well, in the meantime, if I can please
have Jill and Doug come up and join me.
You're not going to get away, Doug.
[LAUGHTER]
So go ahead and I will jump in.
So one of the things that caught us
on this whole situation of donating a kennel--
I take homeless veterans off the street
at our business in Stockton.
And I happen to have a guy who came to me.
And I kept wondering why he was missing his appointments.
And I didn't understand that he didn't have anybody
to set his dog with.
And the places where they're putting him
were these cages with plastic over them.
And it was a horrible situation.
So I own moving and portable storage.
So we took an old insulated 40 foot container
and turned it into a pretty exciting dog kennel
that the homeless people are going
to be able to use and put their dog in and go
to their appointment, get them back.
Get them spayed and neutered, is the goal by Jill.
And that's the deal and helping out with the homeless program.
So we also build some of our containers.
And we make them into housing.
So you guys have taken them in nicely and it was fun to donate.
So we appreciate it.
We got more coming.
[APPLAUSE]
I would just like to express my gratitude
to this council and the city manager
for accepting this container.
It's going to be life changing for people and pets.
And I truly appreciate it.
Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
Sorry, Mayor.
Let me go ahead and just interject one second there.
So I do want to take this time-- and I
know city manager may announce this later,
but we will be having a ribbon cutting for the dog containers,
as well as a transitional housing containers that'll
be going on at 555.
So that is on Wednesday, September 9 at 10:00 AM.
So I definitely would like to invite the public
to see this ribbon cutting.
And just to elaborate, it's just a great program
that we'll be able to initial initiate
at 555, because we've come that with our outreach.
And the different individuals that we are coming across,
the barrier is their pets.
They take care of their pets better than themselves.
So we're just creating this program
to allow them to seek the services and the help
that they need.
Thank you.
Thank you, Vielka.
All right, now, let me ask council member Morowit,
who pulled the item, if you actually
have questions or comments.
Well, a lot of questions have been answered.
I had the pleasure of meeting Doug a few weeks ago when
I went out with city staff.
And we toured his business in Stockton.
And he had a lot of different models
that he used for homeless veterans, for folks.
And these are just containers that are just very simple.
But they were made into livable conditions
with lighting, air conditioners for people.
And then he showed us this very, very, very nice kennel.
And it was designed with air conditioning as well.
The floors are slatted so you could wash them down easily.
And then they had ropes that opened up
to the back of the vault of the building
and went outside to another enclosed area, where
you would feed the animals.
And then they would go back and forth, so that way,
it's basically very similar to what
we have in our own animal control shelter
that we have in Manteca.
And when we were talking, he was very generous with his time.
And we had other people there.
And we were walking.
And he showed a lot of interest in this.
And I think before we even got back to town,
I believe, he called our city manager-- we were in the car,
and pretty much said, you know what?
I'm going to donate one of these to the city.
I think it's really important.
And I can tell you how important it
is because myself and Council Member Breitenbucher
are on the 2 by 2 homeless and housing committee.
And we go out on outreach every other week.
And we also go out once a month usually for the operations
quality of life operations.
And I can tell you that the first time we did this,
probably about three years ago, 2 and 1/2 years ago,
we encountered a homeless individual that unfortunately
got arrested and she had a dog.
And it was horrible to take that dog away from her
and separate her because she was so upset.
She wasn't upset about going to jail.
She understood that she had a warrant.
She was fine with that, but she wanted
to know what's going to happen to my dog.
And a lot of people-- so that initiated another program where
we have animal control follow along during those enforcements
to take the dogs away, hold them until these individuals
can be released from jail.
But then the other encounter is when
we're out on these outreaches, that when people want to go
and we tell them, hey, why don't you go to the shelter?
Why don't you go spend the day?
Why don't you do this, spend the night?
Their first idea is, I don't want
to leave my dog outside in a crappy cage,
out in the elements.
Well, I can tell you, that's not the situation now.
I mean, this is no different than any other home.
It is like some temperature controlled.
It's safe for them.
They're not intermingled in little cages
on top of other cages.
They're separated.
So when we went on that tour and this gentleman,
Doug, offered that, I think he knows what he's done.
But I can tell you that he's done a lot more than people
could imagine because, like I say,
you can't convince someone to go to a shelter for themselves
if they don't think their animals are well taken care of.
So this was a big deal to get this vault delivered.
So I just want to say that's why I pulled it.
Everybody looked at me.
Why did you pull it?
Because it deserves more than just that, yes,
thanks for giving it to us.
It really does.
It really means a lot to our homeless.
And it's going to help encourage homeless folks
to go into the shelter with their animals,
knowing that they're not left outside in that crappy cage,
as I was told by this woman.
So thank you, I appreciate that.
Thank you, Council Member Morowit.
Yes.
So I wasn't able to go to the vault, but I did go by 555
and take a tour of the unit.
I had my granddaughter with me.
And we went in there and it was nice and cool.
It was very nice.
This is a refrigerated unit that they've converted.
And it had 10 stalls in there with doors on the side
to go out.
His Way is going to put artificial turf in the outside,
so they're not on the asphalt. It was really nice.
Today when we were out on outreach,
I talked to a gentleman.
He has a job but he's trying to get a place in Tracy, a room
to rent.
But he doesn't know if he can get enough hours
to afford the room.
And when I talked to him, go to 555.
Have you ever tried there?
He goes, no, I don't want my dog outside.
So I told him, well, guess what?
We got that problem solved.
We have a kennel that you can put your dog in.
It's air conditioned inside.
And he goes, really?
I go, yes.
And he goes, OK, I'd like that.
So we're already starting to fill it up.
So we might want to be asking for a second.
And then I was talking to another elderly lady
who's hardcore, doesn't want to go in because of her pet.
Told her the same thing and she was like, OK, yes, I'm
going to think about that.
It gives them now an option.
And that's great because that's more
that we can get into the program and get them moving forward.
So thank you.
Thank you very much for that.
Thank you, Dave.
Vice Mayor.
You guys are angels.
Seriously.
Thank you so much for everything that you've
done for our navigation center.
To echo what the council members are saying,
I was out on the quality of life operations
and spoke to a lady who has a dog.
And she would not go to 555 because why would she
be comfortable in air conditioning
while her pet is outside suffering?
And they truly do take care of their pets.
That is their emotional support.
That is their safety.
That is their security blanket, if you will.
And the fact that we now have these air conditioned kennels
shows them that we see the value of their family member.
And that's what they are.
They might be four legged, but their family.
And so I don't know that this would
have happened without you guys.
So thank you so much for caring and to pouring
into our community.
It's very much appreciated.
Thank you.
Charlie.
Thank you.
I won't repeat everything they've said.
And I'll just add that, definitely, you guys
came through.
And it's going to be such an asset for our navigation center.
And it's already making a difference.
So thank you so much for having the heart to do this.
And pets are very important to people as I know.
So with that, I'll entertain a motion.
Motion for approval.
I'll second.
I vote yes.
OK, all right.
I have a motion from Council Member Morowit and a second
from Vice Mayor Lackey.
All in favor, say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries 5-0.
That takes us to--
that takes us to C.6.
C.6.
Approved traffic calming measures along Sandra Street,
Leo Street, Elm Street, Fishback Road, Coffeeberry Lane
and direct staff to take all appropriate actions
necessary to implement the measures in accordance
with the City of Manteca Traffic Calming Program 2025
city-wide guidelines.
Mayor and council, tonight we have deputy director
of engineering, Somporn.
Somporn.
Traffic calming, my favorite.
Good evening, Mayor and city council members.
So tonight, we have five street sections.
They were nicely listed already.
That has gone through the five steps-- four step
process, excuse me, that was approved as part of the 2025
traffic calming measures.
So those five steps, just as a reminder.
Step one is there's a request from the community, just one
member of the community.
Step two is the community member has
to reach out to other members along their street segments.
There is a requirement for a 2/3 commitment to installing
an actual traffic calming device.
Once we get that 2/3 vote, it gets turned over to engineering.
We do the data gathering.
We actually send folks out there and collect data
during the mornings and the afternoon peaks.
And then once we determine that there
is a valid concern about traffic calming needs,
we do the actual design.
And here we are, tonight, looking for your approval
on those designs and implementation.
All right, thank you, Somporn.
I think this was pulled by members of the public.
Darryl.
Darryl, come on up, sir.
I want to give my support to this and what these are.
You call them lumps.
I call them speed bumps.
Same thing.
Anyway, I've been out there on this Elm Street Avenue
and Argonaut Avenue.
I sometime go out to Dave Thompson's church out
at the brethren church.
And I don't know how many times I've
had to call the police on speeders in that area.
It's that bad.
And I urge the city council to pass this whole thing.
I would make one real quick comment that we still
need to get a speed bump thing down there on Maple
Street from Manteca Avenue, or reverse Manteca Avenue
and make it a one way.
But the stop sign down there at the post office always being
run.
And it's bad enough that the postmaster took the mailbox
across the street on Center Street.
They removed it.
And the reason they removed it, they
didn't want to endanger their employees for going
over picking the mail up.
It's that bad.
It's calmed down considerably.
Of course, I haven't been downtown a few times
in the heat, so I'm not sure exactly what's going on,
but it's warranted to.
Thank you.
Yes, I'm a believer in speed bumps, humps, lumps.
Somporn, if you could tell me, do you know how many of these
are on the list?
I know there's a bunch of them that we're working on
and a bunch on the list that also need to be installed still.
I wouldn't be able to give you a number of the top of my head,
but I do know the last time I checked,
I want to say there was about 35 that was on the list.
And we are slowly making our way through it.
Requests do come in.
And as they come in, they get added to the list.
Right now, in terms of delivery, we typically
give one out anywhere between six to nine months.
So it does take some time to collect those signatures.
We do need to also reach out to the residents
to make sure that if you are the resident that's
having these lumps right in front of your house,
we do give you an opportunity to provide your feedback.
And then we also have to collect the data to support the design.
And then the ones that are already approved,
are they all already installed or are they still waiting?
So typically, once it's approved by city council,
it takes another two to four weeks, sometimes six.
It is installed by city staff, so it is installed
by our streets department.
I'm not sure if you want to chime in.
Yes, I can chime in on that.
So typically, once they've been approved by council and come in,
we're about 30 to 60 days to do the install.
There has been, excuse me, some of the new areas
that are being--
asphalt improvements.
Those are taking a little bit longer to get done.
They're being done by the contractor.
But we try to do as they come within that 30 to 60 day window.
So in the last two months, I think
there's been 12 sets of lumps installed
in various parts of town.
And we have supply of them or are we still waiting on?
No, we have, I don't know, 30 sets of lumps sitting in my yard
right now.
So yes, there's quite a bit to go.
Some just came in the last week.
Perfect.
All right, any other questions from council?
OK, no other questions.
I'll entertain a motion.
OK, I have a motion from Vice Mayor Lackey.
Second from Council Member Halford.
All in favor, say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries 5-0.
That will go ahead.
Move on to C.12.
Approve a professional services agreement with RRM Design Group
in an amount not to exceed $554,054 to provide
comprehensive architectural and engineering services
for development of Manteca Fire Station Number 6 and authorize
the city manager to sign the agreement and any associated
documents.
Mayor and council, tonight, we have Fire Chief Steven Islas.
Do present.
Good evening.
So a brief update on where we're at.
We're trying to get the plans completed
for the new company six.
In the process of doing so, it was the most--
the most expedited and economical way
to do that is to utilize plans that were used for company five.
It's a really good firehouse.
It's a good layout.
It's got scalability to it, pace of growth.
The issues that require changes to the plans.
We need a longer apparatus.
Right now it only fit one piece of apparatus per side.
So that's been a--
it was designed that way.
So it wasn't a flaw but it's a poor design.
So we needed that changed.
And then because of the time, we need updates to code.
So moving forward with that, there
were two vendors that worked on those plans.
The first was RRM.
And they brought it to a 30%.
And then it was kicked over to the design
and build process to PBA.
So because of the rights from those architectures,
those were the options that we had
moving forward with this plan.
You have the amount from the proposal from RRM.
And the amount from PBA was $733,325.
So RRM came in substantially lower.
That's where we're at with the process.
And then how long do you think this process will take?
The process of architecture?
Yeah.
The code up and the changes, I'm being told,
will take approximately 60 to 90 days.
Perfect.
I like that we're going to go with double base
because we have more space at the new station.
Councilman Morowit.
Yes.
So I'm glad you mentioned station 5.
I was on council when we broke ground on station 5.
So it's good that you've made improvements
because I've heard that there were some modifications that
need to be made.
Most importantly, what I wanted to bring to light
is we are starting to build station six.
You start someplace.
And station 6 is the direct benefit from Measure Q.
I mean, we talked about Measure Q and what it would do.
And what we said we would do with it.
So for folks that probably weren't excited about 3/4
percent sales tax, I think this was a great start.
I mean, this is what a directly benefit of the 3/4 percent sales
tax.
Fire station 6 is going to be built.
And that's because of that.
So I pulled it because this is the very first stage of building
something, as you have to have a good design.
And I think we've done a good job as far as what
it costs to do the design.
But now moving forward, it's actually going to happen.
And that's going to give a great amount of protection
to southwest Manteca and all of the city
because, as we've talked about before,
that fire stations, when occurrences happen
on the south side, we pull from the north
and we bring them south.
So it's very important that we have a fire station 6 and a 5.
And that gives protection along the 120 as well.
So I'm just glad we're bringing it forward
and we're starting the process now.
So I'm looking forward to the groundbreaking in about a month
or so.
Yes, thank you.
Thank you.
Yes, and I agree.
The other big win is for staff to be
working on and saving money by using the plans from station 5.
And just adding to them and not having to start from scratch.
So definitely kudos to that too.
Any of you guys want to add anything?
District 1 over there.
It's a first step in probably what, a two-year process,
to get the station built. Not only is Measure Q
helping pay for the station, it's already
paying for the staff that we'll be staffing.
Nine firefighters.
Yeah, so there's nine firefighters.
Well, three firefighters, three engineers, and a captain that
are being paid for by Measure Q that are already on board
and running a second engine out of station [INAUDIBLE].
We're making progress.
We'll get there hopefully before I get reelected.
And the apparatus.
Yeah, all the money adds up.
All right.
Any other comments from council?
I will open this up for public comments.
I got excited last time.
Anybody on Zoom?
I have no hands raised on Zoom for comment on item C.12.
OK, no comment cards?
No comment.
OK, come up.
Good evening.
Thank you.
I appreciate city for bringing fire station 6.
And hopefully it operates in 2028.
So I want to get a clarification on the site that is required.
So I heard it is two acres or is it 2.82?
2 acres.
Sorry?
2.82.
[INAUDIBLE]
I can't hear.
2 acres.
2 acres, OK.
City has acquired 1.82 from the private developer and 1 acre
from the school district.
So city identifies the fire station 5
is a 0.75 acre and a need to have a 2 acre fire station.
Why doesn't city understand that school district also
requires to support the growth, not reduce their school site?
And the PQP area should be balanced
as per the Manteca general plan-- the land use
to provide adequate land.
I appreciate that fire station is being taken care and also
wish the city fulfill their responsibility to provide
adequate land for the growth.
The school capacity is 1,000.
Sorry, for 1,000 kids capacity to support,
a minimum of 15 acres is required.
But the current site itself is 15.87 of the school district.
And if 1 acre is given and it is 14.87 and it's not adequate
for 1,000 kids.
But how many kids in the region?
There are 3,000 kids.
What is the adequate planning missing by the city?
Why doesn't it fulfill its responsibility for the kids
along with the much needed both fire station and schools.
All the public infrastructure are equally
important for benefiting.
For one, we should not dig a grave
for the other public facility.
Thank you.
OK, thank you.
Brad, can you clarify this whole 1.82, 2.82 situation
or having one of you guys.
Yeah, good evening, Mayor and council, Brad Wungluck,
director of government services.
So there are currently two sites.
We have a site for the school that's
15.87 acres and a high density residential parcel that's 11.22.
In discussions with the school district several months back,
there was communication regarding the potential
for a fire station along one of those sites
with the previous fire chief.
And the size that was determined that was necessary was 2.8.
In conversations with the school district,
there was the opportunity to acquire
or for them to donate 1 acre of that land
to the city that would not affect their design
or the number of students on the site.
So with that, there will be an item coming forward later that
will essentially proposes to increase
the acreage of public quasi public or public use
on those parcels from the 15.87 to 16.87,
reducing the high density residential,
which will allow for the school to be built as designed
and for the city to construct the two-acre fire station
site as well.
And the developer is not gaining any more acres?
The private developer is losing 1 acre as part of--
they're going from 11.22 to 10.22.
OK, thank you.
Any other public comments?
You've already spoken, sir.
OK, seeing none, I'll bring it back.
If no other comments or questions from council,
I'll entertain a motion.
I do.
Go ahead.
So I'm going to go back a little ways in history
for Manteca Fire.
When I started, there was three stations.
One was at Lincoln or on Powers, next to Lincoln School.
Station 2 was on Center Street, next to Yosemite School.
Station 3 was on Louise, across from Golden West.
So when Manteca started building stations,
they put them next to schools.
And we, of course, we went to Del Webb to the north side
because we needed one there.
And five had to go to the southeast side
at Woodward and Atherton.
I'm glad to see that we are putting another station
next to a school.
That is what they should be.
They should be there to protect the kids.
And in the location it is, it will also
provide coverage within the five minutes and make it safer.
Measure Q staffed the engine at station 1.
We're going to be looking at ways to get staffing
for station 6.
I don't see us wanting to go back
to where we had the truck running first out, especially
in that area.
It'll be just as bad as it was at once.
And so yes, Measure Q helps staffing,
but that was to staff the engine at once
to get the truck over where it needs to be.
But it does not to be running first out.
So that's what I have.
Thank you.
All right, I'll entertain a motion now.
Motion to approve.
Second.
OK, I have a motion from Council Member Halford.
Second from Council Member Morowit.
All in favor, say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries 5-0.
Takes us to C.15.
Adopt a resolution approving amendment number one to contract
services agreement with Flock Safety for the addition of six
Flock Condor cameras at an annual cost of $18,000
for the remaining three years of the agreement,
plus a one time installation fee of $1,500 for a total contract
amount not to exceed $55,500.
And further authorizing the city manager
without further council action to procure additional Flock
Condor cameras under the same type in future years,
subject to appropriated funding within the police department
approved annual budget and compliance
with the city's purchasing policy.
Mayor and council, tonight we have
Police Chief, Stephen Schluer.
All right, Chief.
Good evening, Stephen Schluer, Chief of Police.
First, I just want to say that these are condor cameras not
ALPR cameras.
However, they do have a capability of ALPR,
but they're a condor camera.
And there are five of them.
And we're working jointly with parks, recreation, and transit
to strategically place these five in our parks
that are being vandalized and are being broken into.
We plan on putting them in Northgate Park, two of them.
One near the snack bar area and then one under the gazebo.
Lincoln Park, one looking at the entrance of the pool,
as well the outside of the restroom area
there, that's in the middle of the park and under the gazebo.
The next one is going to be the Skate Park.
It will overlook the entire Skate Park.
Morenzone Park is the next one that
will be on the west side of the ball diamond
there, looking at the side there,
and the restroom area that's constantly being vandalized.
And then Woodward Splash Pad will have one.
And it'll be focused on the pump house
and outside of the restroom area there for vandalism.
I also have, Ian Osborne here, who
is our Flock guru or our Flock guy
here to answer any really specific questions that I
may not be able to answer.
Council, we want to start with questions or do you
want me to open it up for public?
OK, we'll open it up for public comment first.
Anybody on Zoom?
I have attendees on Zoom.
However, no hands are raised for public comment on C.15.
OK, comment cards?
No comments.
Anybody who would like to speak on item C.15?
Come on up, sir.
I wasn't familiar with what these are exactly,
but I learned from the police department how these function.
And I just want to tell you these cameras
do a tremendous job.
And the amount of violence down there at library park
that these cameras have cut has been phenomenal.
And there's been situations that we've
had with vandalism to Union Pacific rail line that has
been curbed by those cameras.
And I am 100% in favor of them.
And I back them all the way.
They've been a big help to the police
department and the general public at large.
Sure.
Anybody else who would like to speak on this item?
OK, seeing none, we'll bring it back.
We'll start with Vice Mayor.
Thank you.
OK, so I've done a lot of research this past week.
I've asked a lot of questions for both Sergeant Osborne
and Chief.
And I'm going to play a little bit of devil's advocate here.
Flock cameras, as we know, that's
a very hot topic in the news right now.
And I know that a lot of news that's coming out
is misinformation.
One of the things that has come out
is the misuse of information collected from the cameras
in another state, not here.
It's brought out questions regarding regulation processes,
sharing of information, and potential violation
of constitutional rights.
So at what point do we say-- and like I said,
I'm playing devil's advocate here.
At what point do we officially say
that we are becoming a surveillance state?
We have cameras on the streets.
We have cameras on buildings, parks, trackers
in our phones and cars.
All are the result of trying to eliminate a problem.
People are out there vandalizing.
We put up cameras, they find a new place to vandalize.
We put up more cameras.
Eventually, cameras are everywhere.
Just the other day, I was walking down the street,
crossing the street, and a house very
proudly announced that I was being recorded.
I was on the other side of the street already,
but that's how far their camera reached.
It's my understanding that these new cameras
are going to be placed at five parks that are known
for a high rate of vandalism.
So unfortunately, we live in a society
where people think it's OK to destroy
what doesn't belong to them.
As a result, we're considering putting more eyes up
to keep an eye on the areas that we can't physically be there.
Our PD is good.
They're really good.
They can't be everywhere at once.
And I understand this.
So I've asked a lot of questions.
I've done a lot of research.
So a couple of questions just to put out there
that I've already asked both of you that I think
would be beneficial for the public to hear--
these cameras, these condor cameras, are they the same
as the pan-tilt cameras that you were talking to me about?
Yeah, so condor is the pan-tilt zoom or PTZ camera
that Flock offers.
So and my understanding is that it's set on a fixed point
unless somebody's at a computer changes
the vantage point of that camera and circulates it around.
Is that right?
That's correct.
That's how all of our cameras are currently set up.
There is an option to monitor for movement.
And so if it picks it up, it'll track the person
until it goes out of frame.
We don't use that currently, which
we might with these ones because in the parks
it makes more sense to do that.
How clear is the picture?
Does it pick up facial recognition
or is it just like with the ALPR,
it's distinguishing clothing colors, stuff of that nature?
Yeah, so as they're defaulted right now-- well,
let me back up.
There is no facial recognition built
into this software whatsoever.
Currently, they're on poles 35, 40 feet in the air that
are just general broad views.
You cannot generally see faces.
Sometimes you can't tell the gender,
but you can tell if it's black pants, black shirt,
if they have a backpack, or if they're riding a bicycle.
So if it doesn't pick up facial recognition,
how is it going to assist you in identifying those
who are vandalizing our parks?
Well, so facial recognition is computer software.
We're old school, and we have officers that review the footage
and are able to say, hey, that guy looks like Joe Schmo, who
I contacted two days ago.
We know most of our clientele.
And so that's how most of the people
get identified is just from other officers.
And to clarify that, the difference
between facial recognition and a video
being able to pick up someone's face or two
totally different things.
Like Lieutenant Osborne said facial recognition
would be taking that face that it picks up,
putting it into a software program
and then spitting out who that person is,
where it will be able to pick up their face and their body.
Then we look at that to determine who that person is.
It's not just their clothing, but it
will be able to track their clothing
and be able to say, OK, so we have
a guy with a black sweatshirt, white backpack, blue jeans
shorts, and a green bike.
And then we can look at the other cameras
to see where that person may have gone
or the direction of travel that person has gone.
Does that make sense?
OK, we're good.
You'll be able to prosecute based off of the video
that it takes or to be able to collect damages, however,
that works out with the court systems?
Yeah, at that point, it becomes evidence
that is used throughout the court process.
And so I know that Flock, because of the issues
that they've been having nationwide,
they're actually changing their policies.
And they've been adjusting the way that their practices are
happening.
So instead of holding for 30 days evidence,
they're holding for seven.
And that's going to be applicable
based on each jurisdiction.
So we're still sticking with the 30 days?
Correct, yes.
We will stay with the 30 days because we're not only
using these cameras in the park areas
for the vandalism, which is a property crime.
We also have these in other areas throughout the city.
Let's take the jugging that just happened at the bank.
They usually come in and they will surveil
or they'll scan an area prior to doing their crime.
They may come back a week later, or two weeks later,
or jugging weeks later, or come back several times before they
commit the actual crime.
And then like with the jugging, we
were able to get the person who was doing
the jugging at the bank, and then
go back and see that he was at the other locations
up to 30 days prior.
And so we were able to charge him
with several other instances of doing the same crime.
Chief, can you just define the definition
of jugging for the folks?
Those of us that aren't hip enough to know.
OK, So Ian can do that.
So jugging is a term-- it is a real thing.
It's not something we made up.
Essentially, a criminal will surveil the bank
and wait for victims to come out where they're
carrying obvious money bags.
And it's not always the business type money bags.
Sometimes it's just the envelope of cash.
And sure enough, victims do walk out
just carrying it in their hand.
They will then leave the bank and either be robbed down
the road or, in this case, this suspect,
he was breaking into the vehicles at their next stop.
So they get out of the bank, go to the grocery store.
While the person was in the grocery store,
they would break into the car and steal the cash.
We didn't determine jugging.
Somebody else somewhere-- it might even
be in Webster's dictionary, I don't know,
or the Urban Dictionary.
All right, so it's my understanding
that, Lieutenant Osborne, you conduct audits of the camera
once a month.
Or more.
And Chief already informed me, but can you inform the public.
Has Manteca ever uncovered any misuse of Flock information?
No, it has not been uncovered doing a random audit.
And we've never had any allegations that there
was misuse of system.
Can you tell I put a lot of thought into this this week?
Yeah.
Here's the issue that I'm having.
Camera surveillance, the potential for it
is really unlimited.
We don't know where it's going in the future.
We need to stay a step ahead and ensure that our residents are
not only safe, but they're free to live
with their constitutional rights.
Most people I know are not in favor
of being a surveillance state where every step they take
is being tracked.
With that being said, I am about kids.
I am about families.
And knowing that these cameras help with things such as Amber
alerts.
That's what triggers my brain.
The way that this is written and the reason
I'm going to decline on this is because I
don't believe that council should be giving away
their ability to decide on future Flock camera
installation.
I think that's something that needs
to be decided as a council.
Here, it states further authorizing city manager
without further council action to procure additional Flock
Condor camera units.
I don't agree with that.
I think that our ability to have surveillance around the city
needs to have council consideration now
and in the future.
So that's where I'm at.
So I have a question on that.
So in the future, if we sign any new contracts, or extensions,
or anything like that, is this item
going to say that you're not coming back to council with it?
It would come to council in the formal budget process.
So say if they're--
I'll give you a little bit of background and chief
you can add to it as well.
So we piloted the cameras like the camera
that you saw at library park, that has really been
a huge help in a lot of ways.
It's even helping the local businesses
downtown from vandalization.
We had an incident at Lincoln Pool.
We were able to arrest the suspects.
So we've seen-- and we just piloted
all different types of cameras.
We were piloting Flock, ALPR.
I mean, all of these brands.
And they give them to you.
It's a free demo.
We're like, hey, let's try it out.
Let's see what works.
Let's see what happens.
And we've seen a huge success.
And so some of the reasons why we're
bringing this forward tonight is we just invested $3.2 million
in a beautiful splash pad for our community.
And so at the end of the day, if there are issues with it
or something happens with it being vandalized,
we have to report to the public and say, we didn't know.
We didn't have an officer there.
So in some of these areas where we know that they're hot targets
and as you know, the areas that are identified are.
But at some point this gives the chief or I discretion.
If we need to get one, it's in our operational means,
we can do that.
That doesn't mean we wouldn't notify you.
It just may not come before council.
And chief, you can add to that if you'd like as well.
This also is for the condor camera,
to procure additional condor cameras, which are not
the ALPRs that you see at the intersections that are set up
fixed to read license plates.
These would be more a brand of security camera, not so much
the ALPR that we have fixed throughout the city that
are the license plate reader ones that pick up the vehicles.
So these are more surveillance camera type things?
These are just like a security camera, pan-tilt zoom security
camera that Flock is the manufacturer.
Is there an AI or a software attached to the back end
of this for these condors?
AI to do--
A software to recognize?
So it's not the facial recognition.
It's the green bicycle and black shirt recognition.
Also these cameras are a precursor to our [INAUDIBLE].
And that's something which is the real time crime information
center that we just are going to be receiving $750,000 from
the federal government for to help build.
And the cameras, although yet it does surveil certain areas
or things that we have it up on, what they do on the back end,
not on the back end of the system,
but on the back end of the product is invaluable.
One of the most recent-- we've had several cases to that we
have solved major crimes with.
A robbery recently.
But most recently, as he was speaking about the human
trafficking and stop, we did have a 12-year-old girl who was
being lured online and left her family, went out.
The Ring camera picked up a brief car
that went by at her house.
It also picked up her going out her front window of her bedroom.
She went into that car and disappeared.
No one knew where she went.
We had a brief thing on the car.
And we were able to, off of that Ring camera
video, then take that description,
put it into our Flock.
And through our flock be able to pick up
and realize what type of vehicle it was.
Then another camera was able to pick up a plate.
And we were able to backtrack.
And then as we were getting ready to go to this person's
house in Stockton that she fled to,
she actually made it back home.
And then there was some crimes that
were alleged that occurred in Stockton with her.
And so had we not had these Flock cameras that we have,
had she not returned home, we would
have been able to go to where we were able to find him
at in coordination with our Flock, the Flock that's
in the county, the Flock in Stockton
and being able to put things together.
Had she not returned home, I would
like to think that we would have been able to do it--
to safely get her out of harm's way.
We had a robbery a couple of weeks ago at the convenience
store at Yosemite and airport that a lady was inside the store
when it was getting robbed.
She calls.
The person flees in a white, smaller vehicle.
That was the description.
We were able to pick it up on Flock and get a license plate
and then eventually make an arrest at that person's home.
And so they are great tools.
And like with any tool, if they are misused,
they can be a bad tool.
And I'll be the first to admit that.
However, we have safeguards in place at our police department.
And I think the state of California
does a pretty good job in having safeguards in place
with the facial recognition and some of the other things.
Yeah, we still have to do the old--
one of the comments the other day
that this takes away the gumshoe detective,
but actually, it doesn't gives us
leads to go and apprehend these suspects that
are doing these crimes.
Not all of them are just vandalism or drug use in a park.
There are violent crimes that occur.
Even in other cities.
And in other cities, they can enter that license plate
in, as it's called, a hot plate.
Or hey, this person just robbed the AMPM
at Wilson and the Crosstown.
And put in that license plate so that if it comes into our town,
we know.
I've read things that say, oh, it's mistaken.
People are being arrested for mistaken license plates or this,
that, or the other, mistaken identity on the vehicle.
When a car goes through and it picks up a hit,
it'll send you a message.
And it shows you a back picture of the vehicle and the license
plate.
And that portion-- and let's say the license plate was 1JTF 123.
And there's a license plate frame or JT or JIE.
And the license plate frame cuts it off
and it shows that it says it's JTF instead of JTI.
So it picks it up and we get a picture of that vehicle.
And they'll tell you--
Stockton, let's say, would say, hey,
that's a green Toyota that did it.
When it pops it up because it pictures the car,
it comes back as, oh, no, that's a white Ford.
And with this license plate, so you run it.
Yeah, sure.
The day is long.
It comes back to a white Ford.
And so that car wouldn't be stopped.
But there are safeguards in place.
And the human factor is very real in it with us.
And I believe that they're invaluable to being safe.
As far as the surveillance state, I've read the book, 1984.
I was a government major.
I know who Big Brother is.
I don't think Orwell in that book was envisioning--
he was envisioning the surveillance state.
But we're not so much the surveillance state as people
put us out to be.
It's not the-- like I said, it's not the facial recognition.
It's not the drive-through and it's picking up your IMEI
on your phone.
And people think, oh, because my phone's in my car.
It picks up my phone.
It knows where I'm at.
That's not happening.
It picks up a description of the vehicle, and the license plate.
It doesn't pick up the person in the car.
The condors that we'll have up at the other sites
and the condors that we do have up now
are targeted at high crime areas.
We have one that's at a high crime area
that we've had shootings at some establishments.
And that's just so that it's reactive.
And when we get RTCC in, in a few years,
once our police department gets built,
and we'll have personnel who will man it,
not so much 24/7 because the evening or the morning hours
don't need it as much.
And so we'll have those people who are able to look at those.
So to say that these cameras are something
that is being used to surveil people
know is to pick up criminal activity.
And this here is just for condors
and it's not for the ALPRs.
Chief, how long have you had cameras in the city?
Oh, geez.
We started with a program called Vigilant.
And it was a license plate reader.
And Charlie maybe able to help us.
We got those in '09, right after you left, maybe '10.
Well, before that, we had a license plate readers
on our cars.
Yeah, we had license plate readers on our cars.
We had Vigilant readers on our cars.
So we've had them--
that's before I was in Delta [INAUDIBLE].
And so that was probably--
we're looking like 2005, 2006.
We've had video cameras.
And the same thing with our body cameras, our body worn cameras.
There's some misbelief about how these videos are stored.
They're stored in the cloud.
They can be accessed.
All of our videos--
Axon body worn cameras is the--
even if you use the View, which got bought by Axon,
all those are stored in the cloud.
The proprietary access is to the police department.
And same thing with Flock.
It's stored in the cloud, but it's accessed by us.
And we have agreements that that's accessed by us.
All right, anybody else have comments.
Just a brief comment.
I think we go in every store, every market.
I have them in my business.
We have cameras everywhere.
The only thing you do have to tell people
is if you're doing audio, you have
to let them know you're doing audio in your business,
so that has to be told.
My daughter is an attorney and she told me a long time ago
there is no anticipation of privacy
once you leave your home.
That is just the way it is.
Now, the question is who abuses it.
I think the chief covered that well.
Abuse is a potential problem, but not a problem in this city.
I think the Lieutenant made it very clear that we
have stops in place.
We've checked.
We've never had allegations of misuse.
That is the proof in the pudding.
Not a few complaints across the country
or a few misguided officers.
Bad apples, as I like to call them.
And does not dictate the entire country.
And these cities in California is probably especially tough
on anticipation of privacy, especially
by police departments and misuse.
So I'm confident.
These are specifically-- I think we're only here
to decide if we want six cameras in high crime areas.
And I think that's really what we have in front of us.
All the other information-- although I appreciate.
And I think we're going to have some type
of a little briefing on that next month
or something on Flock.
I'll be asking that.
Yeah, so that's going to be coming up.
But in the meantime, six cameras, high crime areas,
two of them in my district, I can tell you.
You mentioned.
The ones you also mentioned are areas
that we have a lot of folks sleeping in barbecue areas
and under coverings at night, burning up barbecues.
We just reported a bunch of barbecues
that are burnt up at Lincoln Park, Northgate, Woodward.
This is not happening during the day, folks.
This is happening at night.
And we don't have enough police officers or people
watching everything.
So I'm looking forward to these cameras being there.
I think it's going to help.
Hopefully, you won't have any more problems.
Maybe it'll be enough to deter people.
But in the meantime, I'm in favor of it.
And I like the way the program is set up
as it is, especially to watch private property, vandalism,
and crime.
Thank you.
Yeah, I agree.
It doesn't matter how many officers we have.
We never can be everywhere, every place.
And these extra eyes help our officers, do their job better.
And end of the day, I think they have helped tremendously
in certain places.
And the locations you mentioned are all been issues.
And I think it will actually help
people feel safer in the parks because they
know that criminal activity is being watched.
Eventually, like Chief said, with the Real Time Crime Center,
this is vital to continue that going.
I also feel that we do need to give some flexibility to-- we're
not here to do the Chief's job and give him flexibility
and the city manager to work together
to move them around or also add another one depending on if they
get other hot spots in the community,
as long as we are told about them at the same time.
So I think I'm good with the way it is also.
And I think these need to happen.
And I do feel that it has deterred a lot of crime,
has solved a lot of crimes too.
And something I will ask during my council comments
tonight to give a thorough report on this
into our next meeting.
But for now, at least, let's look at C.15
and see if we have consensus to move this forward.
Motion for approval.
Second
OK, I have a motion from Council Member Morowit and a second
from Council Member Breitenbucher.
All in favor, say aye.
Aye.
And I had a comment or two.
You gotta tell me.
You gotta yell at me.
You need to look this way.
I'm very supportive of the cameras for a number of reasons,
from both the prevention point of view
and investigative point of view.
The other reality of it is if we become
known as not having cameras, guess who's coming to town?
It'll be the people that we want on camera.
The benefits of the cameras far outweigh any negative.
And so I'm very supportive, both of the ALPR and the security
cameras.
They're a huge benefit.
I mean, even to the point of if they
get the call of an armed robbery at Wells Fargo,
they can slave whatever cameras are in the neighborhood,
in the area to look over and to see
what is happening before the responding officers even get--
with the Real Time Crime Center gets here.
That's what that group would be tasked with because it's
a little much to ask dispatch that they may or may not
have time to do it right now.
Tremendous benefit to the community, the safety.
And I'm fully supporting.
That's why I voted yes.
Yeah, with the community, I think
also it's a big win for our business owners
and also encouraging more businesses
to feel safe with retail crime in the city
because we have these.
And we've solved a lot of those cases too.
Vice Mayor.
I just want to be clear that I am support in support of our PD.
And I do recognize the benefit of these cameras.
And what I don't agree with on this particular item
is the council giving the future ability
to decide on whether or not procuring more Flock cameras
is in the best interest of the community.
Just as we have with this, we are given a recommendation.
We are given all the information.
And what this is stating is that the council,
for future additional Flock Condor cameras,
they just want to be known if they're going up.
And I don't think that I can vote for that particular piece
of this.
Like I said, I recognize the benefit of these cameras.
I do.
And I said in the very beginning,
I was playing devil's advocate.
Our job is to speak for our constituents, for our people.
And it has been a hot topic.
But I truly believe that procuring additional condor
cameras needs to be a council decision, which
is why-- that is the reason why I'm voting no on this.
OK, so it looks like we were in the middle of the motion,
but I think it got done.
Yeah, I think the vote occurred.
You got that, Cass?
Yeah, 4 yeses and 1 no.
Yes.
OK, with that, I think-- is that all the consent
items that were pulled?
It's all I have.
OK, with that, I'm going to go ahead and do a 10-minute break.
All right, we are back from break,
and we have made it to public hearings.
D1, conduct a public hearing and adopt
a resolution approving the Manteca Transit Fixed-Route,
redesign network, and authorizing implementation
of the proposed redesign Fixed-Route network,
effective October 1, 2026.
Mayor and council, tonight we have transit manager,
Juan Portillo.
All right, transit my other favorite.
Can you turn that microphone on?
Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, city council members.
Juan Portillo, transit manager with the Transit Division.
This item is a public hearing to receive community input
on the proposed Fixed-Route redesign network
and adopt a resolution approving the network
and authorize staff to implement the redesign.
Effective October 1, 2026.
The Transit Division began a comprehensive evaluation
of the city's fixed-route transit system
in the fall of 2025.
The evaluation was initiated in response
to continued residential and community growth,
changing travel patterns, and evolving transportation needs
of the community.
The city retained Fehr & Peers consultants
to evaluate the existing transit service,
analyzing ridership and travel patterns,
and identifying service gaps and opportunities,
and to develop the recommended network.
The proposed network would replace the existing four
fixed-route service with five new routes.
Routes 2, 4 and 5 would operate Monday through Saturday,
while routes 1 and 3 would operate Monday through Friday.
Weekday service will begin at 5:30 AM.
Route 1, 3 would operate until 8:00 PM, while routes 2, and 4,
and 5 would operate until 9:00 PM.
Saturday service on routes 2, and 4,
and 5 would operate from 8:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
The proposed routes are intended to provide a simpler and more
direct transit network.
Paired routes would improve the two way travel
on major corridors including Main Street, Union Road,
Yosemite Avenue, and Louise Avenue,
without requiring passengers to ride
an entire loop to reach their destinations
in opposite direction.
Public participation was an important part
of the design process.
Outreach included four in-person workshops
at the Manteca Transit Center.
One was on January 29 and the other was May 11, 2026.
We also had a virtual workshop on June 3, 2026.
We had onboard and online surveys.
And we did some outreach at the Manteca Senior Center
and Eskaton Senior Living.
And we participated in several community events.
The outreach materials that was provided and surveys
were also provided in Spanish.
And the project consultant presented the proposed service
concept to city council on June 16, 2026.
And notice of tonight's public hearing
was published in the Manteca Bulletin on July 10, 2026,
at least 30 days before the hearing.
I am available for any questions and invite
the Mayor Singh to open the public hearing process.
Thank you.
All right, we will go ahead and open the public hearing at 8:15.
Do we have any public comments on Zoom?
I have attendees, but no hands raised for public comment
on item D1.
Any comment cards?
I have no comment cards.
Anybody in the public who would like to speak on item D1?
I have a question.
And I'm just wondering if this 5 o'clock in the morning
start, it will have better service, maybe over to Lathrop,
so we can catch the early morning ACE train?
I think what they're asking is, Juan,
is connection to the ACE station.
Yes, correct.
That's a great question.
And because we're starting out at 5:30,
we're able to add one early morning shuttle to the ACE
train.
So yes, we're going to provide one more.
Looks like somebody's happy.
All right, [INAUDIBLE] come on up, sir.
So I appreciate city for extending the route
to the neighborhood so that Sierra High School
kids who were denied the bus service were able to use.
But it's on the morning route only.
But the evening route will take more than an hour to reach.
Will the new change of routes will operate in both directions
so that it will save time for the kids?
Thank you.
Juan, come on up.
I believe the school that he's mentioned is Sierra high school.
OK, perfect.
So Sierra high school is--
and Manteca High is one of the lucky schools
because we're going to have four fixed routes in the PM
to get them home.
Currently, the students at Sierra High School
are really taking advantage of the transportation system.
Currently, they get picked up and they're
taken to the Transit Center.
And they can jump on different routes to get to their homes.
The only reason why we did it in the morning
was some communities there was a gap.
A couple of south side communities
didn't have the service.
So what we did is we heard from the residents.
And we had a tripper that gets them
from this location like Crom up north
and then straight to Sierra High School.
But on the return, Sierra has many routes
that will pick them up.
They can go to the Transit Center.
And then from there, they can take whichever route.
There is a future route 6 that could
be added that will do what the gentleman here is asking, is
to pick up from Sierra and then go straight
to the south side of Manteca.
But there is other routes that do go south.
It just doesn't go all the way south to,
for example, Griffith Park or Woodward park.
And I appreciate the route 5 and also appreciate
the separate Sierra High School tripper.
Anybody else in the public want to speak on this item?
OK, seeing none, I'll go ahead and bring it back to council.
I will go ahead and close the public hearing at 8:18.
OK, council.
Council Member, Halford.
Sounds like a good plan.
Vice Mayor.
Thank you for all the work that you've put into this.
I know it's been a long few months
of making sure all this information gets out there.
And I do appreciate the new route.
Council Member Breitenbucher.
Juan, thank you for listening to the citizens and their input
and implementing into the route.
So thank you again.
Welcome.
Council Member Morowit.
I appreciate it.
I think now we have a much more robust transportation
in Manteca.
Before people would complain.
And now we have kids going to schools.
We have more seniors involved.
People can get from one place to the other.
It used to be like an hour, hour and a half
sometimes to wait if you missed the bus.
So it's now becoming more with the Bay Area envision,
where we envision what the Bay Area transit has done,
so thank you.
Yeah, I'd like to say thank you, Juan.
Thank you for listening.
Thank you for also getting out there in the public
and sharing a lot of this information.
We saw you at multiple events and community events.
And also understanding some of the limitations
when it comes to school district, and the bus service,
and making sure we're also helping and doing our part
in giving them access to the school.
And especially the south side of the community,
where some of the bus service is not available.
I'm really liking the extra services.
And then also a lot of the south that are taking the ACE train.
So I like the ACE shuttle service also
that can transfer and switch over once ACE is done.
So this is great.
And I think we're truly becoming transit
oriented from where we started.
We've come a long way.
And I feel we're going to have that route 6 probably
going to be coming soon in the horizon too.
So thank you for all your work.
And with that, I'll go ahead and entertain a motion.
Second.
OK, I have a motion from Vice Mayor Lackey,
second from Council Member Breitenbucher
to adopt a resolution approving the Manteca Transit Fixed-Route
redesign network and authorizing the implementation
of the proposed redesigned fixed route network.
Effective October 1, 2026.
All in favor, say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries 5-0.
Thank you.
Thank you, Juan.
D2, to conduct a public hearing and consider an addendum
to the City of Manteca General Plan Update EIR prepared
for the batch GPA sites 1 through 4,
project pursuant to sections 15162
and 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act
guidelines, adopt a resolution approving General Plan
Amendment, amending the land use designation of the project
parcels identified in sites 1 through 4 project
and waive the first reading by substitution of the title
and introduce an ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Manteca, State of California,
amending the zoning map set forth in Section 17.20.040
of chapter 17.20 of Title 17 of the Manteca Municipal Code
by rezoning the project parcels identified in sites 1 through 4
project.
Mayor and council, tonight we have a associate planner, Sol.
Good evening, Mayor and members of the city council.
My name is Sol Jobrack, associate planner
in development services.
The resolution is-- it was a mouthful.
I'm going to try to keep this item quicker for you all
to enjoy.
So this is a city initiated general plan amendment
and zoning map amendment involving four sites located
throughout the city.
The four sites total approximately 32.91 acres.
And the proposed amendments update the general plan
and zoning designations for these properties.
No specific developments are being approved tonight.
The planning commission did approve this item 5 to 0
on June 18.
The amendments are intended to maintain consistency
between the general plan and zoning maps,
support future public infrastructure planning,
and provide additional housing opportunities for the community.
This slide here is proposing--
it compares the existing and the proposed general plan
designations.
As you can see, site 1 adds a commercial area
along East Bronson Road.
Site 2 adjusts boundaries between a high density
residential and a public quasi public area.
Site 3 changes the northern portion
from commercial to public quasi public.
And site 4, while it's correct in the attachments tonight,
this does show that the PQP.
That is not the case.
It is staying and remaining as commercial.
The only change we're proposing is the medium density
residential along the eastern portion of that property.
The proposed zoning map amendments,
are intended to correspond with the proposed general
plan amendments.
A very identifying or identical to the general plan
designations.
Staff finds that the amendments are consistent with the 2043
general plan.
These changes support orderly growth, additional housing
opportunities, public facility planning,
and a balanced mix of land uses throughout the city.
An addendum to the general plan EIR was prepared.
And staff determined that no subsequent or supplemental ER
is required.
Staff recommends that the city council consider the addendum,
approve the general plan amendment
and approve the zoning map amendment.
That concludes staff's presentation.
We're happy to answer any questions if you have any.
Thank you.
Thank you, Sol.
OK, we'll go ahead-- and is there any questions from council
before I open up the public hearing?
OK, we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing at 8:25.
Any questions or comments on Zoom?
I have attendees, but no hands raised for public comment
on item D2.
OK.
Comment cards?
I have two comment cards.
The first one is [INAUDIBLE].
Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, council members,
and the members of the public.
My name is [INAUDIBLE], and I am a resident concerned about
the proposed general plan amendment GPA 26-0052 and its
impact on the site for proposed [INAUDIBLE] school.
I want to bring attention to the city's existing general plan
that has clear policies that require cooperation
with this school district to protect school sites, which
is the foundation for my opposition.
I'm here to clarify that any amendment that
fails to protect the school site or allows
incompatible development on its land
directly contradicts these existing policies.
This land is intended to serve a public purpose, specifically
as a future school site, as our community continues to grow.
The need for educational facilities
becomes increasingly important.
Once land designated for public use
is converted to residential or commercial development,
it becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible,
to recover suitable land for future school construction.
My concern is not only the loss of the school site itself,
but also the long term impact of residential development
adjacent to the future school.
Residential projects can create constraints on future school
operations, including traffic circulation challenges, parking
conflicts, noise complaints, student safety concerns,
and limitations on future school expansion.
These issues can complicate and potentially
jeopardize the successful development of a school
that our community may urgently need in the near future.
Furthermore, approving rezoning the site
may provide a short-term solution
for housing or commercial needs while sacrificing
a long-term community assets.
Schools are critical public infrastructure that
serves generations of families.
We should be planning not only for today's need,
but also for the needs for our children and future residents.
I therefore demand the city commit
in writing to upholding its policies, specifically
policy PF-13 and PF P-32 by rejecting
any land use changes that would jeopardize the school site.
I respectfully ask the decision makers
to consider the lasting value of preserving
this land for public use and educational purposes.
Before approving any zoning conversion,
the city should conduct a thorough evaluation
of future school needs, population growth projections,
and alternative sites that could serve
the public interest without eliminating a potential school
location.
Once the land is converted and developed,
the opportunity to use it for a school may be lost forever.
For that reason, I urge you to reject the proposed zoning
amendment and preserve the site for its intended public purpose.
In the end, I would like to reiterate
that I oppose any amendment that does not explicitly
protect the school from incompatible adjacent
and on its land uses or reduce land availability.
Thank you for your time and cooperation
and thanks for the opportunity to speak up.
Thank you.
Next comment card.
The last card I have is [INAUDIBLE].
Good evening, council, fellow residents.
This is regarding the site 2 and site 1.
So both are interrelated.
And while we appreciate the increase for 2 acre
land for the fire station, the decrease
of school site of 0.82 acre from PQP to HDR should be denied.
And if city wants to use it for future use, public use,
that's better for public use.
And if it is unable to use for public use,
it should be returned to MUSD.
I'm not sure when 2 by 2 meetings with MUSD
happens for the growth.
When school district says it's a surplus land
or it's not a building that is space allocated to that 1 acre.
Why did the city not stand with public
and ask, what about the future projection?
So what about the future expansion.
The three schools that were proposed,
the Lathrop had a future building and a future bus drop
off planning.
Why did not city have requested for an adequate land
to be allocated.
Instead, it is being given to a high density residential.
Also, there is no truth in loss of 1
acre for the private developer.
The site 1, which the city owns as an R1 zoning
is being converted to commercial zone
and given to the same private developer.
The cost of the site 2 or a residential land is
approximately 200k to 300k.
So for the 1.82 acre that the private developer is giving,
it costs around 400k, but the site he is receiving on the 0.94
on the freeway exit being converted to commercial is close
to a million.
That means he has a profit of more than 500k profit.
City could have requested more land
for the exchange instead of reducing the school
site from PQP to HDR.
They could have asked 2 more acres
to compensate the equal value so that we
have enough public facilities.
Thank you.
And in that facility, there could
have been a community [INAUDIBLE] program that
can be distributed across four corners, which
would be of a good public use.
Thank you.
That's all the cards.
Anybody else in the public would like to speak on item D.2?
OK, seeing none, I will go ahead and close the public hearing
at 8:32.
I have a question.
Has the school, MUSD, ever approached
the city regarding the site that they needed more space, they
didn't want to do this change or anything from the school
district that they need more space for their school?
I can defer to the director on that question.
I can unequivocally say, though, the school district has not
made any comment about the loss of the 1 acre
and how it might impact their school site.
In fact, I can say that, in conversations with them,
it does not jeopardize the number of students, the design
of the school at all.
And that's why when we went to the settlement negotiations,
they were willing to transfer that 1 acre of land to the city,
so that we do--
are able to acquire the 2 acres to build the fire station.
And they agree with this general plan amendment?
We have been in communication as part of this.
They're aware.
They are also taking the 1 acre donation to the state,
September 9th and 10th for their meeting,
as part of this donation to the city.
They're aware of the change, both to the HDR piece, as well
as the PQP fire station site.
They've been involved in the conversation for some time.
Yeah.
Do you know if there's going to be a bus stop over there?
I am unaware if there will be a bus stop
or where it would be located.
I have not gotten into that conversation with the school
district.
All right, Council Member Morowit.
So basically, this is because we're not using the school site
and we're converting it back, is that basically the reason?
Well, thank you, Council Member.
So actually with these items, we don't consider uses.
So uses are a separate issue, completely separate discussion.
What we're trying to do is align things
with what potential uses could be.
So under PQP, it could be a list of them.
It just so happens that there's this stuff going
on in the background that's related.
But who knows?
The fire station could evaporate tomorrow.
And it's all PQP and could be used for a school.
We don't know.
We try to align it to be able to accommodate this project
or any future project.
For government use, basically.
For public use.
Public use, I mean, which is-- so not just for homes,
it's for public use.
It's actually an increase in that public use acreage
and a decrease in residential acreage.
That's the purpose of this?
And this is, like you say, to make sure it balances.
General plans are not just-- they're just a road map.
They're an overlay.
It doesn't mean it happens, but we prepare for it
so that if it does, they don't have
to go through the long process of changing it
again so that people know.
So developers, and schools, and public entities
know that if they use this land, it's
already set up for, in this case, maybe for public use.
We don't know what dictates public use yet.
And honestly, we want to make sure these lines are
appropriate to what is envisioned.
If they're not, we could likely end up
with a use that's on a zoning designation that
isn't consistent.
And we've created a bigger problem.
So it's a better road map for the city in the future.
I appreciate that.
Thank you.
All right, thank you, Council Member Breitenbucher.
So Brad, there was a thing that was sent to us.
And it had the goals that was listed.
And so I looked it up, the general plan, right?
And it talks about the corps division of labor,
MUSD's responsibility is an independent governmental agency
solely responsible for funding, designing, constructing,
and operation all public school facilities.
City of Manteca does not build schools.
Instead, its role is defined in land use planning, zoning,
and coordination to ensure there is space for the schools
as a community grows.
That's the process we're doing today.
Correct?
That is part of the process.
We are planning.
I will note that the city development services and staff
do have quarterly meetings with the school district
in collaboration on these topics.
So we are meeting to identify, not only
the issues with this site and how
we can move forward, but also others as well.
And then on the goals, the land allocation goal, LU-7, city
ensures that enough land is zoned for public and quasi
public use, preventing residential growth from entirely
crowding out space needed for future schools and parks.
We've met that goal.
Yes, we have.
And two of the proposed general plan amendments
go further in terms of adding additional public quasi public
or public use acreage within the city.
And the next one is growth coordination.
The city shares its population housing growth forecast
with MUSD, so the district can accurately
predict future student enrollment
and plan where to buy land for new campuses.
And we do that too, right?
Yes, we provide them data, if not quarterly,
more often as they request it so they
can project those student numbers.
And then neighborhood design goals CD 4.7.
The city designs urban master plan
so that new neighborhoods are built with central hubs,
ideally placing elementary schools
or parks within a safe half mile walking
distance for local families.
And we have been working on that in our general plan.
Correct, the 2024 general plan update
has several of those central core areas,
whether it's HDR, high density residential commercial.
PQP, they're built within that central core to that goal, yes.
OK, thank you.
All right, Vice Mayor.
Council Member Breitenbucher, you
did a really good job asking all my questions.
Thank you.
Welcome.
Council Member, Halford.
Pretty much, ditto.
They've covered it all.
It all make sense.
Obviously, there's some disagreement
on what some people feel on the PQP and the [INAUDIBLE] the HDR.
The net gain of PQP, fire station is very much needed.
And district is happy with [INAUDIBLE] that they have,
in addition to the other school sites,
are available in the southwest portion of town.
The section that has been quoted,
the operative word in there is or, that it's
a park, a school, or a commercial use area that's
within a half a mile.
And I would believe that I'm not aware of any subdivisions that
have been built that don't have a park within a half a mile
walking.
I mean, I stand to be corrected if there are any,
but I'm not aware of it.
So I'm supportive.
Thank you.
Maybe one more question regarding schools.
Are we the one that decides how big or large
a school site should be or is that a school district?
That's a school district decision.
However, we do work with them to identify
sites that would potentially be large enough as we go through,
not only the general plan update, a few years ago,
but also as we move forward with future annexation potential
sites.
So the school district tells us how much
land they potentially would need and to make
sure the general plan is zoned.
Correct?
Correct.
All right, if there's no any other questions,
I'll entertain a motion.
So moved.
Second
OK, I have a motion from Council Member Breitenbucher.
Second from Council Member Halford to adopt a resolution
approving general plan amendment amending the land use
designation of the project parcels identified in sites 1
through 4 project and waive the first reading by substitution
of the title and introduce an ordinance of the city council
and the City of Manteca, State of California,
amending the zoning map set forth in Section 17.20.040
of chapter 17.20 of Title 17 of the Manteca Municipal Code
by rezoning the project parcels identified in sites 1 through 4
project rezone.
All in favor say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries 5-0.
That takes us to D.3.
Conduct a public hearing for the Yosemite mixed use conversion
batch GPA site five project and adopt a resolution
making the necessary findings to adopt an initial study mitigated
negative declaration and its associated mitigation,
monitoring and reporting program prepared for the project,
adopt a resolution approving a general plan amendment,
redesignating the project parcel identified in the batch GPA site
5 project, and waive the first reading by substitution
of the title, and introduce an ordinance of the city
council of the City of Manteca,
State of California amending the zoning map set forth in Section
17.20.040 of chapter 17.20 of Title 17 of the Manteca
Municipal Code by rezoning the batch GPA site 5 parcels from
public quasi public planned development, light industrial,
and limited multiple family dwelling to the mixed use
commercial zoning district.
Again, we have associate planner, Sol.
Mayor and members of the city council, Sol Jobrack, again,
speaking on this item.
The item before you is the Yosemite mixed use conversion
project.
We've also identified it as batch general
plan amendment site 5.
This is a city initiated Amendment involving
approximately 22.95 acres located Southwest of Yosemite
and South Airport Way.
The project area consists of 10 parcels identified
on the slide is intended to establish
consistent general plan and zoning designations
throughout the project area.
The planning commission did consider this item at its June
18th meeting and recommended approval 5-0.
The amendment is being proposed to resolve the existing
inconsistencies between the general plan and zoning maps
and establish a unified commercial mixed use land
use pattern.
The commercial mixed use designation
would support future residential and commercial development
opportunities and encourage infill development
within the existing urbanized area.
The amendment also advances the general plan's housing
and economic development goals by creating greater flexibility
for future development of these areas.
This slide compares the existing and proposed general plan
amendments.
The approximate 23 acre project site area currently
contains several general plan designations and the cleanup
proposed general plan amendment would
designate the entire project as commercial mixed use.
This would create one consistent land use designation
across all parcels.
This here is the zoning map amendment.
It compares the existing and proposed zoning designations.
This is to correspond with the proposed general plan
designations from the previous slide.
Staff did evaluate the proposed amendments for consistency
with the 2043 general plan and found that the proposed
amendments are in the public's interest
and consistent with the general plan.
Staff recommends that the city council conduct a public hearing
and take the following actions.
First, we ask that you adopt the initial study,
and mitigated negative declaration,
and the associated mitigation, monitoring and reporting
program.
Second, we ask that you approve the general plan amendment,
GPA 26-0039.
And finally, third, we ask that you approve the zoning map
amendment rezone application 26-0039.
This concludes staff's presentation.
We're happy to answer any questions if you have any.
All right, thank you for that.
Any questions or comments from council
before I open a public hearing?
OK, we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing at 8:44.
Any questions on Zoom?
I have attendees, but no hands raised for public comment
for item D.3.
Any comment cards?
I have no comment.
Anybody in the public would like to speak on item D.3?
OK, seeing none, we'll go ahead and bring it back.
Closing public hearing at 8:45.
All right, question on this one, I guess, I have real quick is,
you have some zoning that changed from PQP to CMU?
Mayor, thank you for bringing that up.
Assistant city manager Jorgensen just
mentioned that we do show two parcels, 24130067 and 24130071.
one under the ownership of SSJID and the other
under the ownership of the city.
I don't believe that was staff's intent to make that change.
And we'd request city council approve amended resolutions that
exclude those two parcels, as well as
the ordinance doing the same.
All right.
People may not like that.
23067.
So the 7.39 acres of PQP is going to remain?
Parcel ending in 71 and 67 would remain PQP.
Is that where our future potential Milo Candini
would be coming through?
I don't know to that, but I do know
that's part of the wastewater treatment plant
facilities at that location.
And that was not part of the planning commission, those two
parcels?
That was part of the planning commission
recommendation to city council.
So the PQP was in there switching to CMU?
It was.
OK, all right.
Good, yeah.
We're going to leave it.
A good catch.
OK, I'll go back to council if any other questions.
I'll start with Council Member Halford.
Not now.
Vice Mayor.
No, you can't go there yet.
Just remember Morowit.
So basically, we had just a mix of everything
on there-- existing mixed use commercial.
We had multiple family.
We had some PQP industrial.
So now, we're just going to make it all one mixed use, CMU.
Correct?
That's correct.
And the purpose of that was what we
feel what we want to have there in the city that's
consistent with--
It is consistent.
We do have development applications
in on one of those parcels currently
that is a clean-- this is actually part of a cleanup
that we need to do for that project as well.
So yes, it's consistent.
We believe it's best for the city and best for that location.
Once again, we have an applicant?
Yes.
[INAUDIBLE]
I believe the applicant, the project that we're working
on that has [INAUDIBLE] for a second has gone through planning
commission or we--
no it has not.
Mayor and council.
The specific projects are still under review pending tonight's
action.
Thank you.
Very good.
You Good, Council Member Morowit?
I'm good.
Yeah, no, I appreciate this cleanup.
I also appreciate the consistency with CMU
and actually also eliminating industrial in that area.
Just with the changes with fez and all the things
that are going to be happening around there.
We definitely don't need that type of use.
So I think CMU is more consistent with things
to the east and the south.
So with that, I do like this change
and look forward to seeing that project move forward also
when it comes.
I'll entertain a motion.
I'll make the motion to amend 24130067 and 71
to leave them as PQP and accept the other CMU.
I'll second.
So we have a motion from council member Breitenbucher
and a second from Vice Mayor Lackey to do the PQP,
leaving it at PQP for 067 and 071,
and adopt a resolution making the necessary findings to adopt
an initial study mitigated neg deck and its associated
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting program prepared
for the project, adopt a resolution approving a general
plan amendment redesignation, the project parcel identified
in the batch GPA site 5 project and waive the first reading
by substitution of Title and introduce an ordinance
of the city council of the City Of Manteca, State of California,
amending the zoning map set forth in Section 17.20.040
of chapter 17.20 of Title 17 of the Manteca Municipal Code
by rezoning the batch GPA site by project parcels from public
quasi--
planned development, light industrial, and limited multiple
family dwelling to the mixed use commercial zoning district.
All in favor, say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries 5-0.
Hopefully you got that.
All right.
OK, we'll move on to D.4.
Conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution approving
amendment number 2 for the engineering and traffic
survey for speed limits, waive the first reading
by substitution of a title.
And introduce an ordinance of the city council of the City
of Manteca, State of California, amending Manteca Municipal Code
10, vehicles and traffic chapter 10.12,
speed limit section 10.12.020, designated and authorizing
the city manager or designee to take all appropriate actions
necessary to carry out the purpose and intent
of the resolution.
Mayor and council, tonight, we have Senior Engineer Beshoy.
Good evening, Mayor and council members.
This public hearing is to reduce the speed limit
on Crom Street between Airport Way and Union Road
from 35 to 30.
California Vehicle Code give local jurisdictions
authority to run a traffic and engineering survey to complete
this reduction.
When we received concern from public regarding current speed
limit on Crom Street, we investigated the roadway element
such as land use, public transit,
pedestrian and public facilities, crash rate,
which was lower than similar corridors in the state.
We also reviewed five years of collision history.
And we have 0 fatalities on this corridor.
We have only one collision in July, 2024 with a severe injury.
And it was between motorcycle and a vehicle.
And was a primary contributing factor
and defining as unsafe speed from the motorcycle.
We also looked at free flow vehicles.
We collected samples of 128 vehicle speed under free flow.
And we gathered-- we calculated the 85th percentile.
The 85th percentile is the speed which our observed vehicle,
85% of them, were at or below that speed.
15% are higher than that speed.
85th percentile for Crom Street on this study,
it was 37 mile per hour.
We rounded to the nearest 5, which is 35.
And because of its proximity to the school,
and the residential frontage, and also
the one severe collision, engineering
is recommending to reduce from 35
to take another five mile per hour reduction
from 35 to 30 mile per hour.
And that's also supported by California Vehicle Code section
22358.6b.
Staff does recommend reducing the speed limit
to 30 miles per hour.
Thank you.
Any questions?
All right.
Any questions from council before I open up
the public hearing?
OK, we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing at 8:54.
Anybody on Zoom?
I have attendees on Zoom, but no hands raised for public comment
for item D.4.
Any comment cards?
I have no comments.
Anybody like to speak on item D.4?
Come on up, sir.
Just one first.
I am all for reducing that to 30 miles an hour,
I think would be a lot safer.
Thank you.
Hello, council members.
I'm Raymond Gedney.
I live on Crom Street at Foxfire.
We moved there approximately 2 and 1/2 years ago.
And as a retired traffic sergeant,
I noticed the excessive speed on that street
and the dangerous condition.
Dangerous condition being foot traffic to and from school,
dog walkers.
There's a lot of pedestrian traffic out there.
I've been working with the engineering department
on getting that speed reduced.
And also the housing on the other side of airport
contributed to the traffic there.
I worked with them and tried to get it down
to 25 suggested speed.
Eventually, I turned in a traffic calming form
requesting 25.
About two months ago, a month and a half
ago, I received an email regarding--
from the engineering department.
And they stated that they were going
to make a recommendation to council to reduce it to 25.
Well, I was ecstatic about that because that's
my main goal is to slow down the traffic there.
And then I think it was about a week ago, a week and a half
ago, in the evening, I got an email
from the engineering department that they modified it
to 30 miles an hour.
I don't agree with that.
I don't think 5 miles an hour is going to make much
of a difference on that street.
There's also the Assembly Bill 1014,
which was passed this year, which has increased the amount
that a local jurisdiction can reduce the speed from the 85th
percentile, which is 37 miles an hour.
It is my viewpoint that the speed can be reduced to 25
and also rounded off down to 25, according to the Assembly Bill.
So I'm referring you to the Assembly Bill.
And I received no information from the engineering department
or the traffic committee that there
was going to be any consideration regarding
that Assembly Bill.
So I urge the council to pass it for a 25 miles per hour speed
limit there and reduce the school zone to 20 miles hour.
So that's my case.
Mr. Gedney, a question for you.
When you submitted the traffic calming,
did you ever submit to get speed bumps, humps, lumps on Crom
or you just asked for a reduction in speed limit?
What happened is about a year and a half ago,
I turned in the traffic calming form requesting speed bumps.
And I was advised that they're not allowable
for a 35 mile per hour zone.
I wasn't aware of that.
But that was the last request I made for it.
And now, I get the notification regarding this reduction
to 30 miles per hour.
And then I also got a form with this regarding the speed lumps.
I looked at the form.
And I'm not too happy with the wording on the form
because I was looking at it and it
said-- one of the questions for the person
to sign up on Crom Street is, would you like speed lumps
in front of your house?
And I don't think that's an appropriate question
on that petition, because I think
it's going to slant the response or the reaction of someone
possibility of signing a petition.
I think that's a negative inappropriate wording
on that form.
And also another question is, are you the owner of the house?
I think that's irrelevant as far as--
what does it matter who owns the house?
It's who's living in that house.
Because there is a significant number
of renters on that street.
So I have a problem with the wording on that form.
And I've actually have two friends
that have approved areas for speed lumps.
And I'm going to show them that form to make sure
that it's consistent with what they dealt with before.
Thank you, sir.
You're welcome.
Anybody else would like to speak on this item?
OK, seeing none, I will go ahead and close the public hearing
at 9 o'clock.
OK, a couple questions I have.
First of all, Mr. Gedney brought up the fact of AB 1014.
Can you explain that one?
Yes, sure.
The California Vehicle Code, the new law does provide the ability
to reduce the 85th percentile by 12.4mph.
So to take it to 25 miles per hour,
we could be using additional lowering the speed
by 5 miles per hour.
But unfortunately, and that's why
we had to correct that email that Mr. Gedney was
talking about.
That five mile per hour extra reduction
comes with a very restriction requirements.
Reading from California Vehicle Codes and the California
[INAUDIBLE], it has to be one--
it has to meet the following two requirements.
Safety corridor.
And the definition of safety corridor
is a safety corridor that shall be defined as a roadway segment
with an overall roadway network, where the highest
number of serious injury and fatality crashes
acquire guidance.
Jurisdiction should use three or five
years on the most recent crash data
to determine a safety corridor.
For crashes cover, safety corridor
may be defined as a subset of an overall roadway network, where
a minimum of 25% or fatality or serious injury crash acquire.
And unfortunately, we don't have engineer bases
to define Crom Street as meeting this kind of requirement.
The second requirement is a land or facility
that generates high concentration of bicycle
and pedestrian.
So we have the school and we have the bike lane.
Totally agree.
But it adds that following requirement
and meet the following condition.
Crash data demonstrate a high segment
is within the top 20% of pedestrian and bicycle
fatalities or serious injury over the three or five years.
We looked at the five years and we couldn't find that,
so we couldn't find a engineer basis
to give the speed limit as a 25 mile per hour.
Listen, I mean, we all know that speed limits establish
at or near 85th percentile provides the law enforcement
an appropriate level for citing drivers who travel at speed
consider reasonable for-- consider by majority that
it's reasonable to get cited.
So if you look also at the data in the presentation--
if we go to 25 miles per hour, 98%
of the people that we observed in that sample
will be violators.
So we couldn't move forward with 25 mile per hour.
And we recommend 30.
OK, next question I have is, is reduction in speed
a common traffic calming process that we
use when it comes to our traffic calming application?
So the traffic calming application
is serving the speed lumps.
And what we told-- what we affirm
the resident is that when we reduce it to 30 mile per hour,
we will be able to add the speed lumps on Crom
because previously, it was rejected because it
was a 35 mile per hour.
But now, with a 30 mile per hour, near the 85th percentile,
I can add the speed lump.
So if this gets approved tonight,
speed lump sums, whatever it is, will
be a possibility for that road?
Yes, we already approached Mr. Gedney with that application.
And we told him you can start the petition and align
with while we are trying to reduce the speed.
And regarding the question, are you the owner
or are you OK with having the speed lump in front
of your house and the question application,
we run through so many lessons learned that we go and put it
in front of somebody's house.
And they come during construction
and say, no, we don't want it here.
So from lesson learned from many years, we had to ask the people,
are we going to put a speed lump in front of you
or a sign in front of you?
Are you OK with that?
I mean, street already have seen so many signs.
If when people are not happy, they just remove the sign
and throw it away.
They just pull it up.
So we just trying to be proactive
when we are asking those questions to the residents.
And are those questions consistent with all
of our other applications?
Yes, definitely.
And you see how many speed lumps we have around the town.
If we have a serious speed issue,
I definitely think that this question will get people happy.
Yes, I want it here in front of my house
because I have a speed issue.
Vice Mayor, go ahead.
OK, so I wanted to go first because this is actually
a really important topic for me.
I used to live on Crom Street.
I lived on Crom Street for 10 years.
I raised my kids from infants to 10 years old
and a little bit older.
And I can tell you firsthand that this street is an issue.
People go speeding down the street.
I've had my neighbor's house almost get hit.
The only reason it did not get hit
is because there was a tree in front of it.
And it slammed into the tree.
We've had our mailbox taken out.
I've had cars hit that were parked on the side
because people speed through Crom Street.
And it's gotten worse.
What I don't understand is it was at 35 miles an hour
because half of the street is a golf course.
And a few years back, part of that street was a farm.
I lived directly across the street from the farm.
Now, it's all housing.
And Crom now extends to the other side of airport.
So we have kids that are walking down this residential street
to get to a school that has access
to the school on Crom Street.
Every other neighborhood per the California DMV, their speed
limit is 25.
This street is a residential street.
We have high density on both ends of Crom Street
from Union on that end.
We have the apartments.
And we have the high density--
what are they?
They're not condos.
Townhouses on the other side.
We now have all that new housing.
And all those kids are walking their way to school,
riding their bikes to school.
It is a high density street.
And a lot of families can't allow their kids
to be out front of their house because there is racing going on
down that street.
Now, there's been a lot of mitigation over the years trying
to keep it from going so fast.
43 miles an hour down that street is ridiculous.
That should not be OK.
And that should not be part of this factoring of your 87th
percentile.
Yeah, you're going to have 98% of violators.
Guess what?
At that point, maybe we get some traffic control
and we ticket every single one of them
for racing down a residential street.
I have talked to Mr. Gedney.
And I had said, do the petition for the speed
lumps because that will slow them down to 15 miles
an hour going over these speed bumps.
I don't know why we don't already
have them because it is a school district.
We have three entrances to Stella Brockman.
We have one on Silverado.
We have one on Crom.
And then I can't recall the other street.
Because that's a new policy we just created.
Well, I understand that, but what I'm saying is,
this is a residential street.
We have kids accessing that school
from three different points.
All three of those points need to be treated just
like all of our other schools under this new policy
and receive those speed lumps.
There shouldn't be a question to that.
But I haven't been on that street for 10 years.
I moved to the other side of town
where my kids could play in the front yard.
This street has always been an issue.
When I lived there, I asked for speed lumps.
At that time, speed lumps were not a standard in Manteca.
I was told that they could not happen.
And it never did.
So we had two cars totaled in front of my house
because people were speeding.
Like I said, we had our post office box
knocked out for months because, obviously, it takes time.
They have the curve in the street.
It does not slow them down.
They've put up stop signs.
It does not slow them down.
They've put up lights on those stop signs.
It does not slow them down.
We have at least put a sidewalk on the other side
by the golf course.
But the golf course, the fact that that's not housing
should not be a factor in this.
We have greatly increased the number of children using
the street, so I am in favor.
It's a residential street.
Plain and simple.
Residential streets are zoned at 25.
So I would be in favor of the 25.
And then you get people out there
to go after those violators.
They'll catch on.
They'll go 25, and they'll treat it as a true residential street
because right now, it's just being treated
as a highway, a thoroughfare.
And that's not OK.
That is not Louise.
That is not Moffat.
That is not Lathrop road.
It's Crom.
It's a residential street in the middle of our neighborhood.
So I apologize.
This is a very touchy subject because like I said,
I raised my kids on that street.
And I know exactly what these people are going through.
And it's been long overdue for something
to be done about the street.
Definitely, I just want to mention
that we do have a 25 mile per hour
when children are present signs.
And we are here tonight to continue to improve it.
This is not the last thing we're going to do at Crom.
And this is not the first thing we did at Crom.
Crom we did, as you mentioned, the new sidewalk
on the south side of Crom.
We had now continuous sidewalk for the children
going to the school.
And we did observe that this sidewalk is used heavily
now from those children.
And bike lane on both sides.
And we updated all the ADA curb ramp on that street.
And we put flashing stop sign on all the stop
sign on Crom Street.
And we also installed high visibility yellow crosswalk
on all the crosswalk there.
And all the crosswalks are controlled.
We totally understand.
And as I said--
Why is this not being treated as a true residential?
It's a collector.
It's a major collector.
It's a residential street.
We have people that live on that street
and we have access to a school there.
It needs to be treated as a true residential street.
So just like all the other residents,
it's 25 miles an hour.
I don't see any difference between the two.
Yeah, from engineering basis, I don't have a backup
to put it to 25, but--
So I have a question for you on that.
If you change it to 25 and people are going 30 or whatever,
is it enforceable?
I believe the police did put--
If the data doesn't show--
Yeah, I think Police Chief would probably
like to chime in at this point.
It has to deal with the-- well, that's loud.
It has to deal with the 80th percentile and having a radar
survey that supports that.
And so if it's dropped to 25 miles per hour,
you're not able to enforce speed via radar by law.
And so it would have to be a bumper piece, at 25.
If they're going there, you can't sit on the street and run
radar.
At 25 miles an hour speed limit?
25 miles an hour.
So at this point, we spend money on 30 mile an hour
signs, get more data, and then spend more money to make
it a true residential street.
Is that what I'm hearing?
Because that seems kind of backwards to me.
You're saying regarding the speed lumps?
I'm saying in regards to the speed limit.
You make it 30 miles an hour.
You spend money to change the signs.
And then the residents request more data
to show that these people still are not doing what
they're supposed to be doing.
And they continue to request 25 miles an hour.
And then we spend more money to go through this whole process
again.
I don't understand why it's not being
treated as a true residential neighborhood.
It used to be on the outer limits of Villa Ticino.
It is no longer on the outer limits of Villa Ticino.
Make it make sense to me because it doesn't make sense.
It is a residential street.
It's no different than any other residential street,
other than the fact that it has school access.
Not all residential streets do.
It has school access.
You have the foot traffic and the kids there.
So why wouldn't we be proactive and make it
what it needs to be now.
Yeah, once we collected the 85th percentile,
I'm not sure where to go from here.
Yeah, maybe if I could jump in, Vice Mayor.
So from an engineering standpoint,
we have essentially criteria that we
have to meet when we do these engineering and traffic surveys.
And when you look at a street like Crom Street,
while there are residents fronting it
and you do have the golf course on the South side,
it is what we call a collector street, meaning,
it's not just the folks who live on that street that
are driving to get out of their neighborhood.
Unlike, like a Foxfire, say, or a Greenview.
So this is a lot more cut through traffic, if you will.
And that's why it's a higher classification of roadway.
If you were to look at-- typically, when
you get into the nitty gritty of traffic analysis,
a typical home will generate approximately 10 trips a day.
And that's a one way trip.
So if you run to the store, that's two trips kind of thing.
So when we look at a street, like a Foxfire or Greenview,
they are generating the number of trips
that would be in that range, so to speak, from those houses
there.
You're not getting much more in the way of additional traffic
running through those streets, unlike Crom,
because it does have that connection to both Union
and Airport.
You're getting a lot more traffic.
You're getting the school traffic
from people beyond just the immediate neighborhood.
And you're getting people that that's
just another way because you've either got Louise to the north
or you've got Yosemite to the south.
And Crom's right in between.
So you do get those additional volumes.
And that's why I think, historically, it
has had a higher speed limit like 35.
And that's where we're trying to work within the limits
that we have from an engineering standpoint.
When we put out the tubes and we measure the speeds,
we measure the volumes, and then we look at the other criteria
to come up with what can we be defensible as,
and what can we provide for PD to enforce the speed
limit rather than just jump to what people would like it to be,
in this case, 25 miles an hour.
And so it is a bit of an incremental step, if you will.
But now, if we can get approval on the 30 miles an hour here
and if there is consensus amongst the neighborhood
to get the speed lumps, I think you will see that speed
drop because as you noted, there's
been a lot of incremental things that we've
done to try to get people to slow down.
And we have been somewhat successful.
You are going to always get that 15%.
Those are the people that are going to speed no matter what.
And that's why you have speed limits set at 85th percentile
because you're always going to get some of those outliers,
if you will.
But anyway, so if we can get it down to 30 now
and if the neighborhood supports the speed limits,
I think you'll see the speeds drop.
But it is an incremental process and we
have to work within the limits that we're given.
So for the California--
What's the time frame that we'd be looking
at for those speed lumps?
I'm sorry?
What's the time frame if--
he was to get the approval for the speed lumps, what's
the time frame that he's looking at,
that that neighborhood is looking at?
Once he submits a petition, probably four to six months.
City attorney, is there anything that
states I can't go out there and door knock?
For what?
For signatures.
For?
Speed lumps.
Yeah, no, I mean, they're saying once you get--
I understand.
I'm asking the city attorney, is there anything that says that I
cannot go out with Mr. Gedney and ask the neighbors on Crom
Street to sign that paper.
You're a resident like any other person in the city.
I think speed lumps should--
OK, thank you.
So once we do get an application, hopefully,
and it's approved, then it falls in with all of our other speed
lump requests.
Correct.
Anything else, Vice Mayor?
Thank you.
Council Member Halford, you know anything about speed trailers
and speed bumps and speeding?
Maybe.
Crom Street, when it was first built,
did not extend all the way to Airport.
It is a wide, straight street.
And there has historically been some speeding issues there.
I'm not sure what the original speed limit on it
was 25 years ago, whenever it was first built.
There were no sidewalks.
There are no sidewalks on parts of it, which was by design.
That's a rural estate zone there.
That's what people wanted and what people purchased
when they moved in there.
As a result of speeding complaints many years ago,
the little--
I don't know what you call that little divot that got put in,
that there was not sufficient room to make a roundabout
or to put an island in the middle of it.
Because when people get on the street, the line of sight,
there's no obstruction.
So it's easy to get up to speed.
So that was the purpose of that little divot that got put in.
After that, there's been a couple stop
signs that have been put in, which
are not good for speed control.
All it does is slow them down for the 150 feet on either side
of it, and create dust and noise issues,
and create stop sign violations, which is the same thing with
85th percentile.
That historically has been gauged
to be what is a safe speed because people normally
drive a safe speed for condition, which is what 22350
of the Vehicle Code says is you have to drive
what's [INAUDIBLE] condition.
The code also defines what a prima facie residential street
is.
It's been out of business for 18 years.
I don't remember the exact criteria,
but I don't think Crom Street meets that definition.
I think you have to have houses on both sides
for a certain distance.
Two lane road.
It has to be a certain density of houses within an x number.
And I would be surprised if Crom meets that definition for prima
facie 25, which means you have to justify a 25 mile an hour
speed limit based on the traffic safety and engineering study.
One crash in five years, now, you
cited several but more than five years ago
is not going to justify a reduction of speed limit,
particularly when it did not involve a pedestrian.
There is an existing school zone.
Does anybody know what the start and end zone points are,
the school zone?
500 feet.
500 feet from the limit of the school.
So that exists now, at 25, whenever there are children
present.
The other issue is if you set a speed limit that's lower
than what people perceive to be safe,
they're going to violate it.
It's going to happen because of human nature.
They're going to drive what they perceive to be safe.
I mean, I take that road quite a bit.
I don't drive 35 on it.
I drive about 30 miles an hour when I go down Crom Street.
If there are kids going to and from school,
obviously I'm driving 25.
I understand Mr. Gedney's position.
And he bought a house there.
Maybe he didn't realize the traffic that
was on there when he bought it.
He wants to sit in his front yard and enjoy the view,
have his grandkids play out front.
And he doesn't think that's safe to do
and doesn't appreciate the traffic that's on there.
I'm not sure what the traffic count is on.
I think I saw it on there, 2,500?
Around that, yeah.
Per day.
Obviously, it's concentrated in the morning and afternoon
when school's in session.
It would be nice if the traffic officers, when school's
in session, they could be out there working a little radar.
Encourage people to drive the 25 in the school zone.
I would be hesitant to put 25 miles an hour on Crom.
This going to encourage people to violate the speed zone.
And the history of crashes just doesn't justify it.
All right, Council Member Breitenbucher.
How do you follow that one?
No, I think the speed that they've come up with
is fine, as far as the form.
If you're filling out the form and you're not
willing to say that you want speed bumps in front
of your house, why are you filling it out?
You're expecting others to do what you don't want to.
I think it is a good question.
It shouldn't be a surprise.
And as far as the ownership, yes, if you're a renter,
that can cause problems.
Yeah, I'm OK with this.
I think it's reasonable.
And we can also do the speed bumps now.
So I think we're good.
Thank you.
Council Member Morowit.
Maybe I can ask the police chief to clarify
what a school zone is.
We hear it all the time.
What does it actually mean?
A school zone is--
it's marked out in certain areas near schools
within 500 feet of the school.
And it says when children are present--
and the Vehicle Code states that when children are present,
there can't be a barrier between them and where they're at.
For instance, here, just because school is in session
doesn't mean it's 25.
Children are present, but by the Vehicle Code,
there's a barrier because it has a cyclone fence.
And so it doesn't count as children are present.
Similar, we have them like by Sequoyah School and other areas
where children are present or Northgate
is a good one with Neil Hafley, where it just
has those like a little pylon with a chain.
That's a barrier.
And so if they're in that park playing, there's a barrier.
So it doesn't count as when children are present.
And so it's when they're walking--
to protect them when they're walking to and from school
because there's no barrier there.
Thank you.
Also when the school ground, the one carrying the stop sign
are in operation.
So yeah.
The crossing guard?
Yeah, crossing guard.
Crossing guard, OK.
I too lived about 1500 Block of Crom Street until about 2014.
Then I moved.
At that time, there was really nothing there.
It had no stop signs.
They had one.
I believe Council Member Moorhead
was pretty instrumental in getting a second stop
sign off one of the streets as well because she
lived in that area.
We didn't have districts then.
So now, I've been down that street because I do frequent it
as well because I live off of Northgate.
There's, I guess, flashing stop signs have been put in recently.
I've seen the--
247.
247 there on.
I've seen them also on the bike lanes, both sides.
So there's been a tremendous amount
of improvements in the last 10, 12 years actually.
I do think if you really want to slow people down,
signs are great.
But I don't know if Mr. Gedney would agree with me.
But that's how he made a living, was writing citations
for people who didn't pay attention to signs.
So in my mind, by reducing it to 30 miles an hour
and the ability now for him to be able to fill out a form--
and hopefully people will agree with him, put a speed lump,
or bump in, whatever you like to call them.
I think that's probably the better solution
because I can tell you that people don't like driving down
streets with speed bumps just because they don't like it.
And we have it down Hacienda.
We have it all over.
It used to be nearly impossible to put one of those in town.
It wasn't done when I was on council before, when
we came back it's important.
So the speed bumps and lumps to me
are really going to be what's going to be the important.
We also put those on the safe routes
to schools, in front of the schools.
Now that's become common practice.
I just had them installed those flashing LED lights
on the corner of London and Northgate as well.
That was another-- these are all traffic calming,
but a sign alone doesn't make the difference
if someone is just a jerk.
And like I say, if you make a career out of writing traffic
citations, I think you probably see more of those than I have.
But people who don't pay attention don't pay attention.
But I do think the speed lumps and bumps are probably
going to be the biggest answer to your problem.
And by going to 30, it allows you to do it.
And that's probably a better alternative than just a sign
because it really does slow you down.
And quite frankly, you will probably be very annoyed by them
as well.
But you're willing to make that sacrifice because
of your grandkids and other kids walking.
So I think it's a small price to pay for something that we
didn't do years ago.
I mean, literally, quite frankly,
until Mayor Singh came along, it was impossible to get it done.
I remember working with [INAUDIBLE]
before you came in engineering.
It took like two years sometimes to get one.
I think the ones at Hacienda took 18 months to get.
So what you do now and we just did at tonight's meeting
is proof of the pudding that it works.
And it's an ability for the neighbors to get something done.
So I think this is a good solution for a bad situation.
And I've gotten Mr. Gedney's emails
probably for over a year now.
And so I know he's very passionate,
but I think this might be the answer, some speed lumps.
Thank you.
Yeah, I know.
I've gone down Crom all the time.
I've sat with Mr. Gedney and watched these speeders, people
running stop signs.
End of the day, I think, for the people that are not
following the rules, it doesn't matter
what the speed limit sign says.
But we also need to make sure we can enforce it.
As you can see, with all of the speed bumps
and lumps going on throughout our city,
that has made a difference.
It is truly slowing people down.
I'm a believer.
I mean, unless you put something in their way,
they're not going to slow down no matter what the sign says.
This is why, I think now 7, 8 years ago,
I brought speed lumps, traffic calming to our city.
And it was a big push.
We didn't really want to do it.
I know people in the room that still don't like them.
But it's something I think has really worked out
really good, especially in neighborhoods and areas that
are thoroughfares or collectors, where it's creating
the issue of people speeding.
And I think slowing people down is your goal.
And I think now that we're going to get to that 30 mile magic
number in order to get speed lumps.
I think we're going to solve some of these issues
and hopefully, on the long run, slow people down.
So I'm supportive of this.
My biggest issue with taking it down to 25
is I don't think it's going to solve anything because I don't
think we're going to be able to enforce some people that
are going faster at that point for the police department.
And a good section of it is 25 right now
when children are present.
But I truly feel that the next solution-- and if you
have issues with your neighbors not willing
to sign that application, I'd be happy to come and help you
because I've convinced a lot of people about speed bumps.
So they work.
And you can see with all the ones we approved tonight.
And I think we've done like 50 of them
so far throughout the city.
So with that, I'll entertain a motion.
All right.
Second.
All right, we have a motion from Vice Mayor and a second for--
I'm going to give it to Charlie this time.
Second from Council Member Halford to adopt a resolution
approving amendment number 2 for the engineering and traffic
survey for speed limits, waive the first reading
by substitution of title and introduce an ordinance
of the City Council of the City of Manteca, State of California,
amending Manteca Municipal Code Title 10 vehicles and traffic
Chapter 10.12 speed limit section 10.12.020,
designated and authorizing the city manager to designate
to take all appropriate actions necessary to carry out
the purpose and intent of the resolution.
All in favor, say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries 5-0.
Thank you.
Thank you, Beshoy.
Want a break?
Can we take a break?
I'm going to call it myself.
OK, and now we're back.
Before we go to item D5, I know that at 10 o'clock,
we usually have to ask for an extension of time
and make sure the council still wants to keep going.
So if I can get a motion.
Second.
I have a motion and a second from Council Member
Breitenbucher.
All in favor, say aye.
Aye.
Wow.
Was that opposition?
All right, item D5 conduct a public hearing
and consider adopting a resolution, 1,
adopting the August 2026 park dedication and in lieu fee
and park acquisition and improvement fee nexus study, 2,
adopting the park acquisition and improvement fee project
list pursuant to Government Code sections 66016.5 and 66002, 3,
adopting updated park dedication and in lieu
fees, and park acquisition and improvement fees, 4,
directing staff to implement the updated fees effective January
1, 2027, including the phased implementation schedule, 5,
waive the first reading by substitution of the title,
and introduce an ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Manteca, State of California,
repealing and replacing chapter 3.20 of the Manteca Municipal
Code entitled park acquisition and improvement fees,
and adding chapter 3.21 of the Manteca Municipal Code entitled
park dedication and in lieu fees.
Mayor and council, tonight we have
director of parks, recreation, and transit, Brandy Clark.
Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council.
Brandy Clark, director of parks, recreation, and transit.
Before you tonight is a public hearing
to adopt a resolution adopting the park impact fee nexus
study and park impact fees.
This update is intended to ensure
that new residential development contributes its fair share
toward parkland and recreational facilities needed to serve
Manteca's continued growth.
This has been a significant and highly collaborative effort.
Staff worked closely with our consultants, legal counsel,
development services, and representatives of the Building
Industry Association to develop a program that
supports the city's long term park needs,
while recognizing the concerns of the development community.
I'd like to thank Megan Quinn of Harrison & Associates, who
will provide tonight's presentation,
as well as Megan Burke, the city's outside legal counsel,
for their guidance and extensive work throughout this process.
I'd also like to recognize Megan Kuster, administrative assistant
3, Michael Rosales, parks planning and development
manager, and Brad Wungluck, director
of development services for their hard work, collaboration,
and commitment to moving this project forward.
I'd also like to thank organizations and community
partners that submitted letters of support for this project.
Their engagement and support reflect the importance
of investing in parks and recreation facilities that
will serve Manteca residents now and into the future.
Finally, I'd like to thank the BIA and its members
for its communication, participation, and partnership
in helping us bring this item to the finish line.
With that, I'll turn it over to Megan Quinn.
I along with the rest of the team
will also be available for any questions that you may have.
Thank you very much, Brandy.
And good evening, Mayor Singh and members of the council.
I will try to go through this presentation
as quickly as possible.
I do know it's late.
So just here to talk tonight about the park
impact fees, a little bit about what development impact
fees are, and why they are important.
So development impact fees are one time fees.
I just want to mention that they're not taxes.
They are fees that are paid by new development
to mitigate their impacts on parks and recreation facilities.
They're based on their fair share.
And its one time fees, as I mentioned.
They can only fund capital costs.
It does not fund anything related
to operations or maintenance.
And that's what the fees are based on,
land acquisition for parks and recreation,
as well as the facilities costs for parks.
The funds must be used for their intended purposes.
And that's outlined in the capital improvement
plan in the nexus study as appendix A,
as well as part of the resolution for you
to adopt today.
Assembly Bill 602, or AB 602 went into effect in 2022.
And that made some changes to development impact fees.
So one of the changes that you'll see for the park fees
is the residential fee going to a per square foot basis, where
it used to be a per unit basis, as well as having that capital
improvement plan.
So as the park fees collect revenue,
we do have a plan for how those revenues are
going to be spent on parks, as well as looking at the existing
level of service compared to the proposed level of service.
The existing level of service right now in the city is 5.01
acres per 1,000.
And the adopted level service in your city
is 5, which is what this park fee is based on.
So it's very similar.
And lastly, nexus studies must be updated every eight
years moving forward.
So after you do this update, in eight years
you will be required to do another update at least in eight
years for impact fees.
One of the purposes for updating development impact fees,
is not only just required by Assembly Bill 1600,
is also just to make sure that we're aligning the development
impact fees with the cost of park infrastructure,
as well as land acquisition for parks.
It also satisfies the Mitigation Fee Act,
making sure that we're in alignment
with current legislation, as well as any case law.
It satisfies the Quimby Act, as well as AB 1600,
or also known as the Mitigation Fee Act for impact fees.
And fees are typically able to be effective 60 days
after the last action by City Council.
These fees will be effective on January 1.
A lot of times, different jurisdictions
will make them effective January one or July 1,
just making it a little bit easier for new development
to know when they're effective.
As part of this update, we did a lot.
As Brandy mentioned, it was a really collaborative effort,
working with city staff, working with different departments,
working with the development community, as well as the BIA.
We updated the data, the land use data,
making sure it was in alignment with the city's general plan,
making sure that all the population
assumptions and projected growth were updated.
Updating the park and recreation master plan
was adopted by this council.
It was in January of 2026 by LPA Design Studios,
and that was a visionary document for the future
of your park and recreation.
All of the information, the assumptions and everything
that was adopted in that document
is also included in our nexus study.
The methodology complies with all legal requirements,
including the Mitigation Fee Act, the Quimby Act,
as well as any recent case law, including
the sheets case that went to the Supreme Court not too long ago.
It demonstrates rough proportionality
to new development, as well as essential nexus to the fees
and to the land uses that is being charged.
We also had a lot of coordination meetings,
not only with internal city coordination meetings,
but with legal counsel.
And then we had a lot of stakeholder outreach meetings,
again, with the development community,
really working with them, making sure
that we had that stakeholder outreach, and the BIA as part
of this process.
There's two different fees as part of this.
One's the Quimby Act.
One is the Mitigation Fee Act, but the fees are the same.
The only difference is one's for subdivision
and one's for non subdivision.
And that's because one's governed by the Quimby Act
and one's governed by the Mitigation Fee Act.
So for the subdivision, that's for land acquisition.
And so as it's shown on this slide and in the nexus study,
that's based on the Quimby Act, 5 acres per 1,000.
As I said, the existing level of service within your city
is 5.01.
But Quimby is based up to 5 acres per 1,000.
And any new subdivision development
will pay that for land acquisition.
They will pay the Mitigation Fee Act for facilities.
For any non subdivisions, they will pay the Mitigation Fee Act.
And it will be the same for land and non land, the facility
component for whether it's a subdivision or non subdivision.
And again, it's based on that 5 acres per 1,000.
The fee is broken into neighborhood parks, community
parks, and special use parks.
And there's different costs for each of those.
And that's based on the park master plan, as well as
additional data and assumptions done
by Harrison & Associates and some conversations
with the development community.
So as you can see here, the cost for a facility for a park
for neighborhood is 800,000, as well as the land acquisition is
250,000.
Community parks are 143,500.
And the facility cost to build that is 1.25 million.
And special use parks is 250,000 for land acquisition and 1.25
million.
Again, it's 5 acres per 1,000 as our level of service.
And we do have to do this analysis as part of AB 602.
This just shows the 2024 and 2026 acreage
looking at that due to Quimby.
And this is pulled straight from the park master plan.
And what everyone really cares about-- what is the actual fee
amount?
So your existing fee for single family is 3.99.
And your proposed fee is 8.53.
For multifamily development, it is 5.57.
And your proposed fee is 13.48.
The increase is a little bit over 100% for single family
and about 140% for multifamily.
This really reflects the updated cost.
The fee had not been updated in a long time.
And the cost of land acquisition,
as well as facility costs has really
escalated since the fee was last completed,
as well as there's been a lot of additional compliance
and changes to the fee.
I know this table is pretty hard to see,
so it's also in the Nexus study, but this just
shows the different components of the fee
and how it's broken out per subdivision and non
subdivision, as well as the facility component,
and the land acquisition component.
This shows the estimated fee revenue if all of the land uses
are estimated in the general plan at 2,400 were to have built
out, as well as the single family and multifamily revenue
for those proposed fees, and at build out,
that would be about $358 million with impact fees.
For parks, some of these parks will be built and dedicated
instead of the revenue given to the city to build.
It's another big table, so apologies there,
but this is our capital improvement plan.
It's also included as a attachment as part of the agenda
tonight.
But this is another part that needs
to be adopted as part of the nexus study.
It's Appendix A as well, which shows all of the planned parks.
So while we do have this updated fee,
there is a plan for all the parks
that plan to be built by 2040.
And this is in alignment with the park master plan,
as well as working with city staff
to make sure that these are planned parks
that the city plans to build.
The estimated construction year, if there's
any additional funding sources, and the total cost.
As you can see there, the cost does--
is higher than the amount that would be funded
by development impact fees.
So development impact fees are new development's fair share.
The remaining is existing development's fair share.
Lastly, I just wanted to go over real briefly that we did send
the 30-day notice to all parties on July 39th in alignment with
the Mitigation Fee Act.
We published in the newspaper on July 10, as well as July 17.
We posted the nexus study more than 10 days prior,
as we have to do for the Mitigation Fee act on August
5th.
And then we're here today at our public hearing.
If adopted, the fees will go in effect on July 1st.
The last thing I want to mention is
there are phase fees that are included.
So there's the development impact fees
that are in the nexus study, which is the maximum justifiable
fee.
And then it's included with the phase fees amount
for developments that are in different processes and projects
farther along within the development process.
And that's included in your package.
I'm now open for any questions.
All right, thank you.
Council have any questions before I open up for public?
OK, we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing at 10:04.
Zoom, anybody there?
I do have attendees, but no hands
are raised for public comment on item D.5.
Anybody in the public would like to talk
about item D.5, park fees?
OK, seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing
at 10:04:52.
And bring it back.
Council Member Halford.
Is there an escalator built in?
Yes, there's an annual escalator.
It's the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index.
And it will be annually escalated on July 1st.
And it's good for eight years, I think, you said.
Yes, for eight years.
And then it will need to be updated.
Thank you.
When's the last time this was updated?
This was last updated in 2016.
Vice Mayor.
All right.
Council Member Morowit.
I'll make it fast.
2016, that's probably the reason it's such a large increase.
Went from 3.99 single family to 8.51.
That puts us at, what, 8, 10 years?
Yeah, it's been about 10 years.
It's almost 10 years.
So we've had a lot of increases in costs.
Not just the materials and in labor, I believe.
Yeah, and the annual escalations do not
keep up with that type of increase as well.
It tries to keep up with somewhat of an increase,
but the land acquisition cost, and as well
as the facilities cost, labor costs
has not kept up with that in the last 10 years.
Plus, as I mentioned, there's been additional changes
in terms of legislation and in terms of how
the fee needs to be calculated.
And so just ensuring that going to a per square foot and some
of those other changes, that's why you see that large increase.
So new development pays a portion of it.
And then of course, the existing pays a portion.
Yes, because we can only charge it for their fair share.
So it's a proportional amount of the total cost of the new parks
that are necessary at 2040.
And the Building Industry Association, also known as BIA,
was agreement with us?
Yeah, so we met with the BIA and we
did receive a letter of support in terms of this.
And so we met with the development community
and had good stakeholder outreach, as I mentioned.
Good, everybody's on board.
I think the most important thing about this
is that people are asking for better amenities, larger
parks like the one up north we're going to be working on
shortly, 60 acres.
So this is all going to play a part in that,
to build something nicer in certain communities
and neighborhoods.
But the developers always have the option of doing it in lieu,
building their own, or paying a fee.
Yes, they can either dedicate, build it themselves.
And dedicate it and do in lieu fee or pay the fee themselves.
So that seems to be depending on the builder
and how extravagant they want to go,
but it seems to work out well, so I appreciate it.
Thank you very much.
Council Member Breitenbucher.
Great job.
I think this is much needed.
Again, 10 years.
And on the new aquatics facility,
you have five acres down.
I'll double that to 10.
That's what they recommend for that size of area
with parking and all that.
Are you still coaching?
I'm glad we're finally here.
This is much needed.
Parks and recreation is so important to our city
for the longevity and also for our next generation.
We need to continue investing in that.
And I'm glad our partners that are helping pay these fees
are on board with it also.
And I know a lot of work went into this to make it happen.
And I'm also hoping, in the future,
we can work on these fees in a more timely manner
and not have to wait as long.
And I appreciate the escalator built
into because that'll keep us going with future expenses.
As we are continuing to bring more amenities into our parks,
I see more work to be done when it comes to our parks and rec
commission and ensuring they're bringing in what
the public actually wants.
And this will help us get to that point.
So thank you, and I'm glad this is here.
So with that--
Can I add something real quick?
Sure.
Thank you.
I don't know, do you like parks and rec.
I just want to really take a moment
and thank Brad for all your time, Brandy, Michael,
the Megans.
This is no small task to get this to the finish line
and with a letter of support from the BIA
in this day and age.
So thank you all.
And just a real quick story.
I think it was in probably--
I don't know, maybe 2014.
I remember at council meetings, for budget items,
you used to put these dots.
And I remember when we got the funding approved
to do the first ever master plan that was approved in '16.
And so, yes, this has taken us some time, but all of our fees
will soon be updated.
But I think that was instrumental
because we have some funding.
Obviously, development doesn't close all of the gaps
to get a project to the finish line.
There's much more involved in that.
But I think we have some opportunities coming up
that I'm going to be really excited to bring
before council on looking at some possibilities,
potentially with Measure Q, after we kick off
feeding the fire station 6.
And then some other funding sources
that we've been really creative at making sure
that we have to make sure that we're really
building this community to be the best community.
And so anyways, I was thinking about that story.
I remember you and Steve DeBrum.
And Steve DeBrum, he was like Toni, Toni.
And I was like, trust me.
You won't go wrong from this.
And at some point--
I mean, I hope you all are a part
of that because I remember getting
those green and red dots.
And we're here.
We have a pot.
That's why the splash pad was possible.
And so, I mean, look, it took over a decade,
but things are happening.
And because of Measure Q, things are happening
at a much faster pace.
And so I'm grateful for that.
I'm grateful that I was there during that time frame.
And I'm also grateful that we have some ideas.
We just got a federal earmark for almost $1 million
from Congress Representative Harder for a community center
so that we can actually start the planning.
And now, we've got some good funding sources.
So it's really an exciting time.
And these are needs we already should
have had in our community.
So I'm looking forward to bringing that
to council in the future.
And thank you guys all for supporting this tonight.
I think that this is a really good move for our community.
And thank you again to the team.
Just to add on, I remember those dots.
And Toni was not the city manager.
And she was saying, put more dots on my projects,
put more dots.
And we said, we don't have any money.
We don't have any money yet.
But by putting the master plan together in '16,
you're right, That is how we were
able to do the things we're doing and start the process.
So at the time, we just didn't have the money.
But by building in fees into the development,
it made a big difference.
You know what else you approved funding for at that meeting?
You gave us money for the master plan, for the parks master plan,
and you gave us money for tax measure exploration.
So both have been beneficial to the city in many, many ways.
So anyways, good memory.
Yes, I remember those dots.
I had just got on.
She brought him over for parks and rec, too.
When we were doing this stuff for parks and rec and what
everybody wanted [INAUDIBLE].
Yes, no.
Thank you for all the hard work.
And this is a great thing.
And this is a great job with this council, too,
because we've really worked hard to update a lot of fees
throughout everything and bring everything to modern times.
So with that, who's ready for this motion?
All right, we got a motion from Council Member Halford
and a second from Vice Mayor Lackey.
Here we go.
To adopt a resolution--
adopt the August 2026 dedication and in lieu fee and park
acquisition and improvement fee nexus
study, to adopt the park acquisition and improvement fee
project list pursuant to Government Code section 66016.5
and 66002, adopt updated park dedication and in lieu
fees and park acquisition and improvement
fees, direct staff to implement the updated
fees effective January 1, 2027, including
the phased implementation schedule,
waive the first reading by substitution of the title,
and introduce an ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Manteca, State of California,
repealing and replacing chapter 3.20 of the Manteca Municipal
Code entitled park acquisition and improvement fees and adding
chapter 3.21 of the Manteca Municipal Code entitled park
dedications and in lieu fees.
All in favor say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries 5-0.
Thank you.
Congratulations.
D.6.
Conduct a public hearing for the Chamberlain Annexation Project
and by motion find the project exempt from further
environmental review pursuant to Section 15319 of the California
Environmental Quality Act guidelines,
adopt a resolution approving annexation and authorize staff
to submit an application to the San Joaquin County Local Agency
Formation Commission to initiate annexation proceedings
for the Chamberlain Annexation parcels APN 218-020-08, -14,
-17, -18, -19, -24, and 25, and waive the first reading
by substitution of the title and introduce an ordinance
of the City of Manteca, State of California,
amending the zoning map set forth in Section 17.20.040
of chapter 17.20 of Title 17 of the Manteca Municipal Code
by assigning APN 218-020-14, -17,
and -25 with a general commercial free zone
designation.
Mayor and council, tonight we have deputy director
of development services planning, Jesus Orozco.
Good evening, Mayor, council, members of the public,
and staff.
Someone teased me earlier about being last.
But this would be the perfect way
to celebrate my two years with the City of Manteca today.
Yeah, all right.
Two years, plus a day if you don't move faster.
A couple of minutes.
So before you is a annexation and a prezoning
for the Chamberlain project.
Some quick details on the project.
This is a city initiated annexation.
It entails approximately seven parcels, three of which
are developable commercial parcels.
The other four are encumbered as Caltrans right away parcels.
The overall annexation area includes approximately 17.4
acres.
And the general area is located on the Southern portion
of Lathrop Road and east of Inheritance Way and on--
I'm sorry, the western side of Inheritance Way
and on the eastern side of State Route 99, going northbound.
I do want to note that there is no development associated
with this project.
Some key facts about the project.
So right now, to the north of the project,
there is undeveloped commercial land.
On the eastern side, there's primarily rural residential
with some agricultural land as well.
And to the west and south is either State Highway 99 land
or unimproved public right of way.
On your screen, you'll also note that the highlighted are
the three parcels developable private parcels
within the annexation area.
The purpose behind this annexation
is really to streamline potential future development
to the north and to the east, as there
have been several inquiries.
But I do want to note, again, that there
is no development at this time.
This annexation would square off and provide for contiguous city
boundaries, as there are some odd or the existing city
boundaries are somewhat irregular
and this would allow for future development in a more
streamlined fashion.
I do want to note that the existing private commercial
sites are within this area are developed.
They will remain as existing nonconforming
until they decide to either expand, change in use,
or do other on site improvements.
So as long as they continue their uses as currently
in place, they would not be subject to the city
zoning standards.
That being said, those sites would
be prezoned with a general commercial zoning designation
upon completion of the annexation.
Since this project does not entail any development
and there are existing utilities within proximity
and there is no intensification of zoning,
the California Environmental Quality Act
does allow for an exemption for annexations of these nature.
Therefore, staff has prepared a notice of exemption
consistent with section 15319 of the CEQA guidelines.
And the project was also duly noticed
and no less than 20 days in the Manteca Bulletin
prior to this hearing.
That being said, staff is requesting
that the council consider finding the project exempt
from further CEQA, adopt a resolution authorizing
staff to submit an application to San Joaquin County Local
Agency Formation Commission, and introduce an ordinance
to prezone three other parcels within the annexation boundary.
That completes my presentation.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
All right, any questions from council?
All right, we'll open up the public hearing at 10:20.
Zoom.
I do have an attendee, but no hand.
OK, anybody in the public would like to speak on item D.6?
Good evening, Mayor Singh, Council.
My name is Dave Bramell.
I'm the fire chief of the Lathrop Manteca Fire District,
which is subsequently the district that
is most frequently impacted through annexation
and detachment.
Other people know me as Chief Isla's less handsome peer
to the West.
It's a pleasure to be here.
I've been a resident of Manteca for 49 years.
My family moved here in 1977, so I'm very familiar with the area,
but I've only been the fire chief next door
for about the last four years.
And in that time, we've been noticed north of 16
plus annexation applications have come through
or requests for mitigation agreements.
And so it happens to-- as you're well aware,
it happens well to the north, to the south, to the east,
and then to the extent possible, toward the west a bit, too.
So my goal in coming here tonight
is to talk a little bit about this specific annexation
and as it relates, perhaps, to the process of annexation
with the city.
The city has been very good with us
about providing notice and getting us on distribution lists
so that we can see and have an opportunity to comment
on projects frequently.
This annexation, I know, is a annexation
that's been initiated by the city, where the majority of them
are usually not in that frame.
So we're often contacted by a developer who reaches out.
Sometimes we're noticed about a project maybe a year prior.
We provide comment to that initial distribution.
And we might not hear for a year.
And then a developer contacts me and says,
I hear you're the guy that we do this with.
And it's usually because there's a pending LAFCO meeting.
And they know they have to mitigate the impact to the fire
district.
And as you're aware, that is required
via current LAFCO policy.
The challenge for the fire district
is that it usually keeps the fire district whole
from the aspect of the current value from the parcels that
are--
often, it's a single parcel or maybe
it's three or four parcels with only one
or two improvements on it.
And so by itself is not that much.
And so that impact, we typically negotiate over a 15 year
agreement with an escalator that assumes a certain percentage
of property tax increase.
And we call it good.
But depending on the parcel, that could be a developer writes
us a check for $38,000 and looks around their pockets for loose
change and satisfies this requirement.
Project moves on.
Detachment occurs.
And in perpetuity, the fire district
will never have that revenue again.
So it's one time monies.
And the city is negotiating and the developers
are negotiating in good faith with us to do that.
But the reason I bring it up tonight
is the Chamberlain Annexation is one that we haven't yet
had the opportunity to meet.
And the city has reached out.
I returned some of that as well.
And we just haven't been able to connect.
I know and I see in the documentation
the attachments tonight that that is certainly something
that both parties endeavor to do and accomplish.
May I have just a little more time?
And so I know that we're going to do that.
And I'm not here to tell you that we're
going to thwart that or be an obstacle to such.
But I just would share that the sheer volume of annexations
that come through is--
it's exhausting, actually, in a lot of ways.
But the district is looking to more closely look
at these projects as they come through.
We're working on developing a mitigation program so that it
can expedite these processes and make it clear
as we move forward.
We're interested in arrangements,
such as tax sharing agreements that
might be untraditional from just simply paying us a lump sum
to make us go away, for lack of a better term.
So we're going to be looking at that
a little closer because this in itself
is not a significant impact.
But there's discussion, as you're well aware,
in this community, about a couple other big project
areas of already established developed communities
that would be a very significant impact.
And so I want to get in front of it.
And I just want to make the staff and council aware
that we are looking a lot closer at this
and making sure that the district-- because that's
my charge, is to advocate for my district
and make sure that funding sources are there.
Because although, I understand fully
the city's right to develop, I understand
the concepts of general plans and sphere of influence,
and I know how all of that works.
And the city is going to grow.
But the district still has a responsibility
to serve areas that are outside of your sphere
that are impacted by these areas that you plan to develop in.
And so we just have to monitor that, and partner,
and work with the city to make sure
that it's best for all parties.
And then lastly, I'll just say, in your documentation,
the CEQA analysis talks about the fire station being
the current station 33 being 2 miles away
and the city 244 being a mile and a half.
Pick a center parcel in the business that's there.
Measure it.
It's exactly the same.
There are about 1.5, 1.6 miles apart.
Also, it talks about a 1,200 feet away for a water supply.
That is not really consistent with the municipal level
of water supply.
It is in a rural setting, technically,
or unincorporated areas, but not so much in a municipal setting.
So in any case, thank you for the extended time.
I appreciate it.
And I just wanted to provide those comments.
Thank you.
Anybody else?
OK, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing at 10:26
and bring it back for council discussion.
Some of the points that were raised
has there been discussion regarding?
One more time, Mayor.
Oh, sorry.
OK, I said, some of the points that were raised,
has there been any discussion regarding the fire district?
Yes, if I may just briefly, I do apologize.
I did not speak on the detachment agreement.
Staff is working and will continue
to work with the fire district to come to a consensus
and agreement on a tax sharing agreement
as it relates to those specific parcels within the annexation
area, which would be a requirement as part
of the annexation application to LAFCO.
With regards to the proximity of the fire station,
I believe City of Manteca is fire station 4
is slightly closer to than the district's fire station 33.
There might have been some oversight
on the exact distances, but they're generally close.
Manteca being the closest for the most part.
As far as the CEQA, again, since there's no actual development,
the standard utility service plan
that goes associated with this project
would not be as detailed as we would normally
see with projects that do have development associated
with them.
Currently, this is in the county and so it's
on well and septic, correct?
Correct.
They're staying that way until there's development?
That is correct.
There's a water supply, you said, nearby?
Well the water supply would be required upon development.
And again, there's only three parcels.
So they would have to pull something closer.
That is correct.
But to your point, Mayor, yes, there
is a water supply that was extended east of 99
along Lathrop Road that they would be able to connect.
Charlie.
I just want to thank Chief Bramell for coming out tonight.
Somewhere out there, there's a picture
of himself, and Division Chief Boris, and I on a grass fire,
mopping up on 120 way back when you guys were
starting as reserves.
So it's good to see that you're taking care of Lathrop
and watching out for their concerns and appreciate it.
So thank you.
Just briefly, I served on LAFCO, so I
know this is always a concern of your predecessor,
although you've done a much nicer job of presenting it today
in front of us than he may have done a few years ago.
That being said, though, I'm hopeful
and I'm sure you'll reach out to us.
Work on something, an appropriate detachment.
It is important.
Unfortunately, the Lathrop [INAUDIBLE],
that is the issue with LAFCO.
I mean, as we go farther north and we go east,
that is a real issue for their district.
So like I say, working with the developer's
always probably even a little better.
But I think with the city, I'm sure we'll do a fair exchange
and work with you.
And I'm sure you can reach out to us if there is a problem.
So I'm hopeful.
But thank you for your pleasant approach to the council tonight.
Thank you.
Yeah, thank you, Chief, for coming and also hanging out with
us all the way until 10:30 at night.
But yes, I think whatever we need to do,
we will make it right with the city
and make sure everything is moving forward.
With that, I entertain a motion.
So moved.
This time, it's Council Member Breitenbucher and a second from
Council Member Halford to adopt a resolution approving
annexation and authorize staff to submit an application
to the San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission
to initiate annexation proceedings for the Chamberlain
Annexation. parcels APN 218-020-14, -17, -18, -19, -24,
and -25, and waive the first reading by substitution of title
and introduce an ordinance of the City of Manteca,
State of California, amending the zoning map set forth
in Section 17.20.040 of chapter 17.20 of Title 17 of the Manteca
Municipal Code by assigning APN 218-020-14, -17,
and -25 with a general commercial free zone
designation.
All in favor, say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries 5-0.
I need a five minute break.
Sorry.
All right, we're back.
We're almost there.
All right, that brings us to item E.1,
establish a city council ad hoc 2 by 2 Veterans Memorial
Committee and appoint two council members
to serve on the committee.
Good evening, Mayor and Council.
Tonight's staff is seeking city council's appointment
of two council members to serve on an ad hoc, 2 by 2 committee,
working with staff on a Veterans Memorial.
That's it?
That's it.
It's up to you now.
All right, I feel like I'm in the war zone here in the middle.
I guess I'll go to public comments.
Anybody on Zoom?
I do have one attendee with no hand raised.
All right, any comment cards?
No comment cards.
I'll be instructing people.
Anybody in the public would like to speak on this item?
Forming this ad hoc is a great thing for us.
I think for veterans, it will help
get you all out in the community and understand
the veterans needs and what you can do as a community
to help the veterans.
So thank you very much for considering this.
And I look forward to all the great things
that you're going to do with us.
Thank you.
Thanks for the help.
Wow.
All right.
Anybody else?
Seeing none, we'll go ahead and bring it back
to council discussion.
I don't know, do we need council discussion or can
I just make a motion?
All right, I flipped a coin earlier just to let you know.
All right.
I would like to make a motion to establish a city council ad hoc
2 by 2 Veterans Memorial Committee
and appoint Council Member Dave Breitenbucher and me to serve
on the committee.
That's what I got.
Do I have a second on that?
Anybody?
I heard a second.
So I have a motion and a second.
All in favor, say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Abstain?
All right, I got 4-0, 1 All right, moving to E.2.
E.2, establish the city council ad hoc solid waste committee
and appoint two council members to serve on the committee.
Good evening, Mayor and council.
Tonight's staff is seeking city council's appointment
of two council members to serve on an ad hoc, 2 by 2 committee
to work with staff on solid waste and disposal options.
All right, let's go to public comments.
Jeff.
Jeff, you want to tell us--
you got nothing?
Anybody on Zoom?
I do have some attendees with no hand raised.
OK, anybody in the public would like to speak on the 2
by 2 solid waste committee?
Seeing none, we'll go ahead and bring it back.
You guys want to discuss this one?
Anybody, eager to jump on board?
Bada-boom.
All right, let's see who the trash talkers are.
I would like to establish a city council ad hoc 2 by 2
solid waste committee and appoint Council Member Morowit
and Vice Mayor Regina Lackey to serve on the committee.
Mayor, just confirming that is your motion.
That is my motion.
OK, I got a motion and a second.
All in favor, say aye.
Aye.
Do I have a no or an abstention?
Aye, yes.
It's going to be fun.
It really will be.
Guys, don't talk too much trash, all right?
All right, that was a 5-0, by the way, on that one.
With that, we're going to move on
to-- thank God we're finally here.
City manager comments.
All right, thanks, Mayor and council.
So just a quick recap.
Big thank you for the parks fee, getting it
to the finish line and all the support
from everyone that came along with it.
We haven't been here in a while.
So I do want to thank the Sunrise Kiwanis for the 4th
of July parade.
And then also, I wanted to thank parks and recreation
and PD for hosting the National Night Out Community Party.
Again, I thought that was really nice.
Some special events coming up-- we have Loma ribbon cutting.
It's supposed to be on Friday at 11,
but I saw something on social media.
It might be at 2:00.
So keep your eyes out for whatever time it is.
I'm not sure if it changed, but excited that Loma is open.
Music on Maple will be on the 20th.
Manteca Citizens Academy will kick off next week.
This last week we started level up.
We have lots of upcoming ribbon cuttings and groundbreaking.
So the way Veterans Village will be on September 8.
The transitional housing and dog containers ribbon cutting
will be on September 9.
We're going to be doing a groundbreaking for our Police
Department on October 7 and then fire station 6 on October 14.
So all of this will be put on social media and more details
to come on that.
We'll also be doing a little event
at what we're calling Mural Alley on September 17,
before [INAUDIBLE].
So more details to come for that.
August 20, I want to take a moment.
We're going to be launching our new website, which is going
to include some ADA components.
It's going to have an AI chatbot to help
our residents with questions that they have in real time.
And I want to take a moment and thank
Penny, who is our IT and innovation director,
and her team.
It looks really amazing.
They've done a good job.
And we've needed the update for quite some time.
So thank you, Penny, to you and your team for all
that you're doing.
And I hope that the citizens in our community
enjoy it just as much as we are.
It's really user friendly.
And then lastly, I want to close out the meeting just saying
that, even though tonight it was a long meeting, that I just
want to state that we do understand and respect
all of our employees and their right to express their views.
We recognize the importance of negotiation.
And with that, we've also had with the two bargaining groups
that were here tonight, a total of 17 meetings with them,
combined to date, with multiple emails, several costing
of proposals, budget presentations.
We are definitely committed to working collaboratively
and constructively with our employee
reps to reach an agreement.
We value all of our employees.
So I just want to make sure that that's clear.
But most importantly, we're committed
to maintaining long term success of our city
and we talk about that a lot here.
We've been engaged in discussions.
And I'm optimistic that we're going
to find a good common ground.
And also to yearly--
I believe there's new legislation tied to it.
It's tied to our retention rates.
And we have a really high retention.
And I do plan on keeping that.
We have a really good work culture.
So I'm really optimistic that we'll move this forward.
So I just wanted to close the meeting with that
and thank everyone tonight for-- who came out.
The next meeting will be September 1.
And that concludes my report, unless council has any questions
for me this evening.
Thank you.
All right, thank you, Toni.
All right, Council Member Halford.
Long but good meeting.
Good night.
Vice Mayor.
Good to be back.
See you on the 1st.
1st?
Oh.
The next time we see you, congratulations, grandma.
Shout out to the budget engagement process.
Thank you guys for doing that and allowing the citizens
to take part in it.
That's a great thing.
I want to thank Brandy for helping Daryl tonight
and addressing his concerns.
[INAUDIBLE] and streets.
I was told you guys are already working
on the concerns for Mr. Peters.
I'm glad to hear that.
You and I were in high school together.
And then we talked about the Flock cameras.
And I didn't get to mention this because Gary passed me
in comments.
Yeah, it's a long night.
But library and Lincoln Park have benefited greatly
from those cameras.
We appreciate them.
And then the three of us were out on quality of life operation
last Saturday.
Yeah.
And they had 14 arrests and 14 citations.
I can't remember, did we get anybody directed to 555?
Three got directed to 555.
So very good night we had there.
And again, that kennel is going to make a difference.
And like I said, we should probably
be looking at that second in the near future.
So as the process goes there, I'm glad we got the roof going.
We got it purchased.
And we're going to move forward.
So that's another great thing.
With the police station, fire station,
we've got a lot going on.
And the streets and everything else that's going on.
Thank you.
All right, Council Member Morowit.
A great meeting.
I will thank staff for all what they did tonight.
I mean, we had a bit of a break.
So moving forward, we had a lot of staff, a lot of meeting.
Long night.
Everybody was on their game.
So I appreciate that.
And to the folks that came to speak about their bargaining
groups, I appreciate how respectful
they were coming to the meeting and expressing their concerns.
And we take those very seriously at the City of Manteca.
So thank you and have a good evening.
All right, thank you.
Yeah, this has got to be one of the longest meetings I've ever
had the four years.
No, not all.
There's been some doozies.
But thank you for everyone coming out tonight.
It was a great meeting.
Thank you to all the staff that came and voiced their concerns.
And we hear you.
And I know our staff's going to be working diligently
to get a solution.
And so hopefully, we're going to hear that soon.
Also a lot of good stuff covered tonight.
One of the things I do want to see
if we have council consensus, I would
like to see our police department come back
and present to us when it comes to Flock cameras and a policy
and procedures that we follow and talk about some of the myths
out there and Flock overall.
And so that way we can also educate
the council and our public.
So you guys are good with that.
I would like to see a presentation come back
to us sooner.
So it looks like we got nods.
So we're good with that.
With that, it's been a long time since we've had a meeting.
And then we might be a little rusty, but here we are.
We made it to the end.
Do we want to pick a date for them to come back?
Is that what you're asking, Cass?
When can you present that to us?
By next meeting?
What kind of effort?
Roll tide effort?
All right, sounds good.
September 1st.
He's excited.
And with that, those are my comments for tonight.
I do want to adjourn tonight's meeting.
We lost a great person in our community and wonderful person.
And he will be sorely missed.
And so I would like to adjourn tonight's meeting
in the memory of Bruce Bell.