[0:01] All right, I call to order the regular city council
[0:03] meeting for August 18, 2026.
[0:07] City clerk roll call, please.
[0:09] Council members, Breitenbucher.
[0:10] Here.
[0:11] Halford.
[0:11] Here.
[0:12] Morowit.
[0:12] Here.
[0:13] Vice Mayor Lackey.
[0:14] Here.
[0:16] We'll move on to the next item, which is invocation and flag
[0:19] salute.
[0:19] And we are here with Mrs. Marcia Munroe from the Baha'i Faith.
[0:33] [INAUDIBLE]
[0:36] --the republic, one nation, under God, indivisible--
[0:42] [INAUDIBLE]
[2:31] Thank you.
[2:35] We will go ahead and move on to agenda review
[2:37] and supplemental reports.
[2:39] Mayor and council, we have the following supplemental reports.
[2:41] Communication received from the public for item C.15 Petition
[2:46] and communications received from the public for item D.2.
[2:49] Communications received from the public for item D.5.
[2:54] And an updated PowerPoint for item D.4 from city staff.
[2:58] As for agenda review, all city council meetings
[3:00] shall be conducted in orderly and efficient manner
[3:02] without willful disruption by any person
[3:04] or persons in attendance.
[3:06] The city has also adopted a decorum policy
[3:09] that governs public meetings, which
[3:11] states that all city council meeting attendees shall refrain
[3:13] from behavior that disrupts or that threatens to disrupt
[3:17] city government operations.
[3:19] This includes, but is not limited to harassment
[3:21] and/or intimidation of city staff, elected officials,
[3:24] or members of the public.
[3:26] Please be advised that should a disruption
[3:28] occur, a member of the city council
[3:30] shall issue the person or persons an initial warning.
[3:34] Should a second disruption occur by the same person or persons,
[3:36] a member of the city council shall ask the person or persons
[3:39] to leave the meeting.
[3:40] And Mayor and council [INAUDIBLE].
[3:42] All right, thank you, city clerk.
[3:45] Go ahead and move on to the next section, which is disclosure
[3:48] of ex parte communication.
[3:50] Anything from the council?
[3:52] OK, seeing none, we'll go ahead and head over down here
[3:55] for presentations.
[3:57] If the council can join me.
[3:59] First one.
[4:01] A.1, proclamation proclaiming August 2 through 8th,
[4:05] 2026 as national health center week.
[4:08] We have the director of government and community affairs
[4:11] at Golden Valley Health centers to accept tonight.
[4:50] Not yet.
[4:51] Not yet.
[4:56] Whereas community health centers have
[4:58] been providing high quality, affordable, comprehensive,
[5:01] primary and preventive health care for more than 60 years,
[5:06] positively impacting America's health care system.
[5:08] And--
[5:11] Whereas community health centers now serve more than 52 million
[5:14] Americans at over 17,000 service delivery sites across
[5:19] the country, providing care to individuals and families from
[5:22] all walks of life, regardless of background, income,
[5:25] insurance status or ability to pay.
[5:28] And--
[5:30] Whereas Golden Valley Health centers has served as a trusted
[5:33] provider in California's Central Valley since 1972, today,
[5:37] it operates 50 locations across Merced, San Joaquin,
[5:41] Stanislaus counties in delivering more than 786,000
[5:45] visits to over 161,000 patients annually.
[5:49] And--
[5:51] Whereas during national health center week,
[5:54] we celebrate the legacy of America's community health
[5:57] centers and their vital role in shaping the past, present,
[6:00] and future of America's health care system.
[6:02] And--
[6:05] Now, therefore, I Gary Singh, mayor of the city of Manteca,
[6:08] on behalf of the city council, do hereby recognize August 2
[6:12] through the 8th, 2026 as National Health Center Week.
[6:16] I encourage all residents to learn
[6:18] about the support and essential services
[6:21] provided by Golden Valley Health centers
[6:23] and other community health centers in our community.
[6:34] Would you like to step?
[6:35] Yes.
[6:38] Hi.
[6:39] My name is [INAUDIBLE].
[6:40] I'm the center manager for Golden Valley Health Care Center
[6:43] here in Manteca.
[6:44] We do have two locations, one for family medicine
[6:47] at 302 Northgate Drive, which offers pediatrician and family
[6:51] med services.
[6:53] And then we have an urgent care services
[6:56] located at 250 Northgate Drive, where
[6:58] we offer urgent care services.
[7:00] We just extended our hours until 9:00 PM.
[7:03] And we also offer same day sports
[7:06] physicals for the kids who are playing sports this year.
[7:09] So you guys can come and stop on by if you have children
[7:11] that need to have those done.
[7:13] Also, I wanted to mention that we
[7:15] did expand our PACE program for our elderly patients
[7:18] to the San Joaquin County area.
[7:20] So Manteca patients are also covered by PACE.
[7:25] [APPLAUSE]
[8:01] That will bring us to item A.2, certificates of recognition
[8:04] presented to American Legion Auxiliary Girls State Conference
[8:08] participants.
[8:09] Tonight, we have American Legion Auxiliary delegates to accept.
[8:16] All right, so first one is Adriana Rattaro.
[8:26] Udyati Tewai.
[8:29] Come on up.
[8:42] [SIDE CONVERSATION]
[8:54] Do you want to come up too, Chris?
[9:06] All right, this is certificate of recognition
[9:08] presented to Udyati Tewai.
[9:10] The Manteca City Council proudly recognizes you
[9:13] for being selected as Sierra High School's representative
[9:17] to attend the American Legion Auxiliary Girls State
[9:21] Conference.
[9:22] This prestigious selection reflects your leadership,
[9:25] character, and dedication to civic involvement.
[9:28] Congratulations on this outstanding achievement
[9:32] and for representing your school and community with pride.
[9:36] Go, Timberwolves.
[9:37] [APPLAUSE]
[9:48] Did you want to say anything?
[9:50] I knew you would.
[9:51] [LAUGHTER]
[9:52] There's nobody watching.
[9:55] And this is for Adriana.
[9:58] Thank you so much.
[10:01] Do you want to talk a little bit about the program
[10:04] and what it is?
[10:08] So the American Legion Auxiliary has
[10:10] been sending girls to Girls State for the last 83 years,
[10:15] I believe.
[10:16] And we have been able, through in Manteca,
[10:19] to send a girl from all five of our high schools.
[10:23] We do this total by charitable donations, which
[10:28] we work all year to raise.
[10:30] So it's a week long conference, where they
[10:32] learn about state government.
[10:34] They form cities, and city councils, and so on.
[10:43] [APPLAUSE]
[10:50] Wait, group picture, so one more.
[11:05] [APPLAUSE]
[11:20] All right, mayor and council, that
[11:21] will bring us to item A3, which is receive
[11:24] a brief presentation regarding the Community Budget Engagement
[11:28] Initiative, including a public survey and upcoming workshops.
[11:32] Tonight we have budget manager, Lana McBroom,
[11:34] to present that brief presentation for you.
[11:42] Good evening, mayor and council.
[11:44] Tonight, I'm introducing finance's new Community Budget
[11:47] Engagement Initiative, which includes an online survey
[11:50] and follow up workshops.
[11:55] We're gathering information for input before fiscal year
[11:59] '28 recommendations are developed
[12:01] so community priorities can be considered earlier
[12:03] in the process.
[12:05] Responses will help us design workshops
[12:08] around the budget topics and questions
[12:10] that residents want to explore.
[12:12] This earlier, broader engagement supports transparency
[12:16] and expands our public engagement practices.
[12:21] The survey asks which city services and priorities
[12:24] matter most.
[12:27] Sorry.
[12:28] Where future resources could make the greatest difference
[12:31] and how residents envision Manteca's future.
[12:35] The survey is open through August 31.
[12:38] You can use the online link found
[12:40] on the city of Manteca budget's page
[12:42] or you can scan the QR code that is on the screen.
[12:47] After the survey closes, staff will summarize the key themes
[12:51] and help shape September workshops
[12:53] and guide future council discussions.
[12:56] Results are one source of community input, not
[12:58] a final budget decision.
[13:00] Final priorities and appropriations
[13:02] remain subject to available resources, legal requirements
[13:06] and, of course, council action.
[13:08] We have some flyers on the back table.
[13:11] And you can also scan the QR code that is on the screen.
[13:14] We want to thank everyone for their participation.
[13:17] And we look forward to continuing the conversation
[13:19] at upcoming workshops.
[13:21] Thank you.
[13:23] Thank you.
[13:24] [APPLAUSE]
[13:28] Thank you all for doing this, and also
[13:31] getting this going for asking for community output.
[13:37] All right, with that, we'll go ahead
[13:39] and move on to section B, which is public comments.
[13:42] Mayor, at this time, you may call for public comment
[13:44] for items not listed on the agenda.
[13:47] Via Zoom, webinar, or in person, public comment
[13:49] is limited to three minutes per person.
[13:54] All right, let's start with Zoom.
[14:10] I have attendees, but no hands raised.
[14:13] OK, nobody on Zoom.
[14:14] Do you have any comment cards?
[14:15] The first comment card I have is Brad.
[14:20] Brad, come on up, sir.
[14:47] How's that?
[14:47] Good?
[14:49] Go ahead and start.
[14:50] Howdy, man.
[14:52] Hello.
[14:52] So what do we do here?
[14:56] Yeah, you have time and anything you would like to tell us.
[15:00] I got to push a button?
[15:01] Nope, just start talking.
[15:02] OK, terrific.
[15:05] Yeah, I just here-- basically I'll
[15:07] get to the nut in the shell.
[15:09] I'm here to complain about the systemic pattern
[15:12] of non-compliance with ADA violations, especially Title II.
[15:18] And I think it would be under Chapter 28, Section 35 1.51,
[15:26] as well as Chapter 24, part 2 chapter--
[15:34] actually, part 2 and section 11b 705 of the California Building
[15:42] Code, as well as California Civil Code 54.
[15:47] And it's been a systemic problem with this city.
[15:50] I've been here since 1973.
[15:52] And I watched the ADA grow up around me.
[15:55] And the noncompliance and the systemic pattern of--
[15:59] I don't know if you want to call it obfuscating, or deflecting,
[16:03] or just noncompliance as you go down
[16:06] the road doing a certain repavement projects and things.
[16:12] But there is an ongoing pattern.
[16:14] I've got a list of about 35 right here that I've done.
[16:18] And I could do this seven days a week, 24/7,
[16:21] which I probably will be doing.
[16:23] And I'll be filing formal grievances.
[16:25] I just wanted this on the public record
[16:27] because there could be a injunctive order issued,
[16:30] possibly down the road.
[16:32] So I highly recommend the city get very active
[16:37] and show proactive action, some issues taken
[16:43] care of immediately and specifically the golf
[16:46] course, who violate my civil rights,
[16:48] as well as the folks behind me back here.
[16:51] If you could see them in kind of shortened wheelchairs.
[16:54] But anyways, it's not only me, it's
[16:56] the disabled community wide at large.
[16:59] Not me, it's the blind, and disabled, the hearing,
[17:02] whatever it may be.
[17:03] But absolutely, they need to so show some actionable results
[17:09] on what they're going to do about the problems
[17:11] that I've been bringing to the city.
[17:13] And there's more to come.
[17:14] A lot of it.
[17:17] So
[17:17] I got about 48 seconds.
[17:19] I would like to mention that over here, for instance,
[17:22] on 2010, the ADA Title II Standard of Building
[17:28] was implemented in March 15 of 2012.
[17:33] And Northgate Commons is in direct violation
[17:36] with the workout equipment because it's not mirroring
[17:40] exactly like it is.
[17:41] I go 4 miles each direction to work out at Woodward Park daily.
[17:45] And I would recommend anybody within city council chambers
[17:47] that's interested in my issue, I can be contacted and found
[17:51] very easily through the City of Manteca or any other spot.
[17:54] And that's about all I need to say.
[17:56] And if anybody's got any questions, feel free to answer.
[17:59] But there's time constraints.
[18:00] So I know you guys got budget constraints too,
[18:03] but that's not relevant according to ADA.
[18:06] Thank you.
[18:07] Thank you, sir.
[18:11] The next public comment card I have is Darryl.
[18:22] I don't know if I can do this very fast either.
[18:24] I totally support what he's referring to.
[18:29] Anyway, I got some work for the City of Manteca
[18:32] on behalf of Union Pacific Railroad and particularly
[18:36] their police department.
[18:37] And I've talked to officers of our department.
[18:41] And we'd very much like you guys to trim the oleander bushes
[18:46] over there off of Manteca Avenue and Yosemite Avenue
[18:52] over there at the railroad crossings, which
[18:55] is city property.
[18:56] And the thing I want to bring out
[18:59] is they have to be able to see down at the Center Street
[19:04] crossing when they do their patrols.
[19:07] And I wanted to mention, too, that there's
[19:09] a sidewalk that's broken that the city is not fixed.
[19:13] It's about 25 feet to the crossing.
[19:17] I have a real problem on my scooter
[19:20] trying to dump over that way.
[19:21] But sometimes I have to get over for people coming my direction
[19:27] and trying to watch the traffic, the trains,
[19:30] and get over for everybody.
[19:32] And it should have been fixed a long time ago.
[19:35] But anyway, I'm sure that we'll get the proper cooperation
[19:42] on that, if you guys would.
[19:44] The next is noise ordinance regarding motels and hotels.
[19:51] And we've had a problem with one of the guys
[19:56] out there at the inn motel, actually, my neighbor in room
[20:01] 11.
[20:02] Anyway, I looked up the city ordinance
[20:05] because when I first moved there,
[20:06] we had a situation that the rules of the place
[20:12] was on the city-- on the ordinance on noise.
[20:16] You couldn't run your TV from 10 o'clock at night till, I think,
[20:22] it's 8 o'clock in the morning, currently.
[20:26] Anyway, that was put in.
[20:28] It wasn't a rule that the park outfit had
[20:35] or the motel management had.
[20:37] This is actually Manteca city law.
[20:40] I don't have the exact update on what the current thing is.
[20:49] What I'd like for you guys to do is pass an ordinance with that
[20:55] that if somebody is going to use either a television
[20:57] set or a radio, that they either have to use after 10 o'clock,
[21:02] that they have to use either a plug-in headphones.
[21:06] And that they have these other wireless ones now on Bluetooth,
[21:13] if you have the TV that will operate off that.
[21:16] Most of the new ones do.
[21:18] That way, if a person does run their TV all night
[21:22] or whatever the other person don't hear it.
[21:28] Reason I mentioned that was that that place was built in 1929.
[21:33] Sir.
[21:34] [INAUDIBLE] no soundproofing?
[21:37] Yes, sir.
[21:38] Sir, you're three minutes,
[21:40] And I had some other safety--
[21:43] Thanks.
[21:49] The next public comment card I have is Mike.
[22:06] Good evening.
[22:07] My name is Mike DeAnda.
[22:08] I'm the senior business rep for Operating Engineers Local 3.
[22:12] As you know, labor contract negotiations have stalled.
[22:17] This year's classification comp study
[22:18] identified many classifications well below market
[22:22] due to the subpar wages given in the past
[22:24] and takeaways the city asked the employees
[22:26] to sacrifice due to their poor fiscal position.
[22:31] In comparison to other similar cities,
[22:33] the city needs to bring their wages up to market
[22:35] and structure these increases so they don't fall behind
[22:37] during the duration of this contract.
[22:40] Without a fare increase, many of our members
[22:42] salaries will fall behind the market
[22:43] this year because the proposed three-year increase structure
[22:46] does not account for wage increases already being
[22:50] paid by the comparable agencies and the current inflation
[22:53] numbers.
[22:55] Again, the current offer has a structure
[22:57] that will ensure the workers, their salaries
[22:59] won't fall behind, as they have in the last 10 years,
[23:03] due to the COLAs that were well below the CPI numbers.
[23:07] Currently, the city has proposed increases starting at 2%.
[23:11] Again, well below the inflation rate.
[23:14] Meanwhile, management was given raises up to or above 20%.
[23:20] We want the same method of the wage increases management
[23:23] recently received-- increase the low end of the wages being
[23:27] offered to at least match the current inflation rate.
[23:32] No percentage cap in each year and front load
[23:35] the wages in year one.
[23:37] If no changes are made, our members and your employees
[23:41] will be performing their same essential duties with less
[23:43] spending power than before.
[23:45] This will or may force the skilled workforce out
[23:48] of their jobs, which will reflect negatively on the city.
[23:53] Back in 2008 and the years to follow,
[23:56] the current negotiations--
[24:00] back in 2008 and the years to follow
[24:04] showed significant losses and wages to the employees.
[24:07] And the message I want to get today
[24:11] is the current negotiations is not about just negotiations.
[24:14] It's about the past increases that were below market
[24:17] and lacked increases with no raises.
[24:20] During the 2008 recession, after year one
[24:23] of the contract, which was 4% a year,
[24:26] the employees were asked by the city
[24:28] to sacrifice three years of wages totaling 12%.
[24:32] This also included furloughs.
[24:34] The city stated they would make up these cuts,
[24:37] but they were forgotten and never happened.
[24:39] So this is the history we want you to understand what
[24:41] this current negotiations is.
[24:45] The employees request to catch up and stay caught up
[24:48] during the duration of this proposed contract.
[24:51] You have the opportunity today to make sure these workers who
[24:55] have been pushed aside for too long,
[24:57] receive the respect they deserve.
[24:59] These workers have done their part
[25:01] to create a stronger future for the city and its citizens.
[25:05] And we now respectfully request you do the same.
[25:08] [APPLAUSE]
[25:19] The next public comment card we have is Troy.
[25:33] Good evening, Mr. Mayor, council members.
[25:36] My name is Troy Stine.
[25:37] I am the CEO and founder of Stop Human Trafficking,
[25:40] an organization that serves right here in Northern
[25:42] California and tries to eradicate
[25:44] human trafficking of every kind, including labor trafficking, sex
[25:48] trafficking, organ trafficking, and benefits trafficking.
[25:52] One in six.
[25:54] One in six teenagers, stats will tell us,
[25:58] are currently being exploited online, one in six.
[26:02] The trauma and the pain, the relationship
[26:04] and family problems that awaits them if it is not interrupted
[26:09] is vast.
[26:10] Not to mention a lot of tears.
[26:13] I've served for many years in various capacities
[26:16] in the fight against human trafficking,
[26:18] a lot of which was focused on the restoration
[26:21] of the victimized.
[26:23] I heard the stories.
[26:24] I saw the agony and the anguish they
[26:27] experienced and certainly the tears.
[26:31] In May of 2025, just a little over a year ago,
[26:34] I launched stop human trafficking because we must
[26:37] alert our citizens and train our professionals to recognize
[26:41] the flags, the signs, and the tactics of human trafficking
[26:45] and exploitation before another young person is exploited
[26:49] or, God forbid, even trafficked.
[26:51] Recently, right here in Manteca, I was able to speak--
[26:54] we've currently done over 50 town hall meetings
[26:57] and presentations in just the last year,
[26:59] with distributing over 10,000 resources and worked with a lot
[27:02] of various community agencies.
[27:05] I was at the Thomas Toy Center.
[27:06] There was just about 31 kids.
[27:07] There wasn't a lot of kids there.
[27:09] But at the end of that presentation called
[27:11] Teen Empowerment Online Safety Strategies,
[27:14] it was discovered that four young people were
[27:16] being exploited online and they didn't even
[27:18] know that was happening to them until they were taught about it.
[27:24] And the tears.
[27:26] We want freedom for all young people, which is why I'm here,
[27:30] today, promoting an awareness event that we are hosting right
[27:34] here in Manteca on Saturday, November the 7th.
[27:37] It will be held at the Library Park, starting there.
[27:41] It's called the Freedom Walk.
[27:42] And I am asking for your support and for you
[27:45] to help me get the word out for this powerful community
[27:48] awareness event, where together we will walk one mile.
[27:52] And we will share signs, homemade, and so forth,
[27:55] not in protest but in awareness, that human trafficking is taking
[27:59] place right here at home.
[28:01] We must, get the word out and we must support our community.
[28:06] While we serve all 48 counties in Northern California,
[28:09] I live here.
[28:09] I've lived here for about 18 years.
[28:11] My four daughters live here with their husbands and my eight
[28:14] grandchildren.
[28:15] And it is imperative to me that we stop human trafficking.
[28:19] I'm going to present to you, in just a moment, a folder that
[28:22] has some information, as well as a flyer in it.
[28:24] And as I present this to you, I'm
[28:26] also going to give you a little jar.
[28:28] I've been a Christian for a long time.
[28:29] The Bible says that God stores our tears in a jar,
[28:31] and I would like that jar for these young people to be empty.
[28:34] Thank you.
[28:35] [APPLAUSE]
[28:48] Thank you sir.
[28:48] And yes, we definitely will help promote the event.
[28:53] And we would love for human trafficking
[28:56] to stop, especially in our city.
[29:00] The next public comment card I have is Jennifer.
[29:11] Hello, I'm back.
[29:13] Good afternoon or evening, I should say.
[29:15] My name is Jennifer Greenwood.
[29:17] I am a resident of Manteca, as well as the city employee
[29:20] of more than 21 years.
[29:22] And I'm currently the president of the Manteca Technical Support
[29:25] Services Association or as we know, MTSSA.
[29:29] I'm here tonight as a spokesperson for our membership,
[29:32] if I can get them to please stand.
[29:35] Not on behalf of myself.
[29:37] I am one vote, just like every other member.
[29:40] MTSSA represents a wide range of positions in every department
[29:44] in the city.
[29:45] Our jobs may be different, but our members
[29:47] are united in their concerns about wages, recruitment,
[29:51] retention, and the future of our workforce.
[29:54] Before negotiations began, we asked our membership
[29:56] to submit their priorities.
[29:58] They were more vocal than they have been in previous years.
[30:01] And from that process came 19 proposals.
[30:04] And getting our membership heard was a priority.
[30:08] MTSSA voted down our city's proposal in May.
[30:12] The primary concern was that the proposed 2% to 7% increases
[30:16] do not provide a COLA equally across the board.
[30:20] Some positions would receive a 2% per year.
[30:23] Most positions would be brought to median market over three
[30:26] years but without a COLA.
[30:28] And seven positions currently representing four employees
[30:31] would not reach full median.
[30:33] That means three years from now, we
[30:34] could be right back where we started,
[30:36] falling behind the market without a true cost of living
[30:39] adjustment.
[30:40] Inflation is currently approximately 3.8%,
[30:44] while many of the cities we compete with for employees
[30:47] are providing 3% to 4% COLAs.
[30:49] The Gallagher report itself recognized that its market
[30:54] data would no longer accurately reflect those changes as of July
[30:57] 1, 2026.
[31:00] I also want to clarify our total compensation.
[31:03] MTSSA does not receive certification pay
[31:07] or an annual stipend.
[31:08] And we did not get a reduction in the percentage
[31:10] of what we contribute to our PERS retirement.
[31:13] We do receive wellness hours, which
[31:15] were provided in lieu of additional personal income
[31:18] in previous contract.
[31:20] We are grateful to be in the upper echelon
[31:22] when it comes to benefits, but those benefits
[31:24] were factored in into the compensation
[31:27] offer from the city.
[31:28] It was recently reported that five of the seven bargaining
[31:31] units have signed.
[31:32] The other side of the story is that two
[31:34] of the units that have not signed
[31:37] represent more than 200 employees or over 40%
[31:40] of the city's full time workforce.
[31:43] And I think it needs--
[31:44] we need to be honest about the larger picture.
[31:46] And I'm quoting you cannot substantially increase
[31:50] compensation at the top, build out administration,
[31:53] and repeatedly ask residents to pay more,
[31:56] then suddenly preach fiscal restraint when the employees
[31:59] keeping the city running asked to be valued.
[32:02] MTSSA is not asking for proverbial key
[32:06] to the municipal cash box.
[32:09] Our current counter proposal is simple-- a 1% COLA each year,
[32:13] totaling 3% over the next three years.
[32:16] Equaling for our membership and bringing those seven positions
[32:19] to full meeting, which is, frankly, I
[32:21] do not believe 1% is enough and, we believe, a fair compromise.
[32:25] I'll finish up there.
[32:26] I think we got the point.
[32:27] Thank you.
[32:28] [APPLAUSE]
[32:39] The last card I have is [INAUDIBLE].
[32:49] Good evening, council.
[32:51] Thank you for the opportunity.
[32:55] I keep hearing that schools are not
[32:58] the responsibility of the city.
[33:00] It's only the MUSD.
[33:03] But I want to clarify that a misinformation is
[33:06] being spread so much that--
[33:10] let's discuss about the facts.
[33:13] The school district builds school,
[33:15] but the sites to be provided, adequate sites
[33:19] lies with the responsibility of the city.
[33:22] We treat Manteca general plan as a bible.
[33:26] And there are quite a few goals which
[33:31] says to provide adequate site for the neighborhood growth.
[33:37] And in two decades this has been not accomplished,
[33:42] though it's there in the bible.
[33:44] So let me read a couple of them which are there
[33:49] in the Manteca general plan.
[34:01] Yeah, so the goal is community design 4.7.
[34:08] Each neighborhood shall include a distinct center
[34:12] such as an elementary school.
[34:14] I repeat, such as an elementary school, neighborhood parks,
[34:18] and/or mixed use commercial area within a reasonable walking
[34:23] distance of the homes, approximately one half mile.
[34:28] So why is this not a walk to school?
[34:32] I hear from the council, there is no walk to school at all.
[34:38] But the Manteca general plan, I don't know when it was written.
[34:43] And there are a couple of other goals also.
[34:46] The goal land use 7, provide adequate land for development
[34:50] of public and quasi public uses, including parks, schools,
[34:56] and community facilities to support existing
[35:00] and new development and the community needs.
[35:03] These goals are never followed for the two decades.
[35:07] And residents are thrown under the bus.
[35:15] Kids future.
[35:16] They are commuting three to four hours for a commute to school
[35:21] and they are being misinformed that city doesn't
[35:25] have any responsibility.
[35:27] Please read through the Manteca general plan
[35:32] and implement infrastructure first.
[35:34] Infrastructure is not only about roads,
[35:37] it about schools, libraries, fire station, police station,
[35:44] and everything that is needed for the growth and the existing
[35:51] facility.
[35:51] Thank you.
[35:55] [APPLAUSE]
[35:58] That's all the cards that have been
[36:00] submitted for public comment.
[36:01] OK, anybody else would like to speak on item
[36:06] that's not on the agenda?
[36:10] Come on up, sir.
[36:21] Make this short.
[36:29] My name is Frank Granelas.
[36:30] I'm a resident of District 1.
[36:32] First and foremost, I'd like to give these individuals here,
[36:36] men and women, my empathy.
[36:38] I know what it is to grind every single day to work for a city
[36:42] and not be appreciated.
[36:43] Sometimes we even get hurt.
[36:45] Thank you for your service.
[36:46] From the police, the fire department, the people that
[36:50] clean the streets, the garbage men, every single one of you.
[36:53] Never compromise your value.
[36:56] You bring substance and value to this community.
[36:59] You are the backbone of this community.
[37:02] [APPLAUSE]
[37:09] Second of all, I'd like to just speak about the Manteca Arch.
[37:16] Stay with me because I'm going to go somewhere with this.
[37:18] This arch that we have on Main Street
[37:21] was approved by the city of Manteca, the city
[37:24] manager, and the city council.
[37:27] It started in September of 2025.
[37:30] Somebody might ask, well, who paid for that.
[37:34] Over $300,000 came from the ARPA,
[37:38] which is the American Rescue Plan Act,
[37:41] which is government funded, which means it was taxpayer
[37:45] funded.
[37:47] Another $300,000 came from the City General Fund,
[37:58] which is also taxpayers' money.
[38:00] So we paid for that arch.
[38:03] In closing, if we can afford to put an arch that cost over
[38:08] $600,000, then we can afford to pay these individuals what they
[38:12] are worth.
[38:14] [APPLAUSE]
[38:23] In closing, I am not complaining, just
[38:26] simply making an observation.
[38:28] Thank you for your service.
[38:29] I appreciate every single one of you.
[38:31] Thank you.
[38:33] [APPLAUSE]
[38:41] Anyone else like to speak on an item that is not on the agenda?
[38:53] OK, seeing none, we'll go ahead and move on to the next section.
[39:04] All right, with that, we'll go ahead and go to consent items.
[39:11] We'll wait for room to clear.
[40:08] All right, we're going to consent items.
[40:12] Charlie Gina.
[40:16] C.15.
[40:20] OK, David and Mike.
[40:24] C.3, C.12, C.15.
[40:28] C.3, C.12, and C.15.
[40:37] All right, and I had C.15 also.
[40:40] With that, I can entertain a motion for all items not pulled.
[40:45] So moved.
[40:46] I have a motion from council member Breitenbucher.
[40:48] A second from Council Member Halford.
[40:50] All in favor, say aye.
[40:52] Aye.
[40:53] Opposed?
[40:53] Motion carries 5-0.
[40:55] Mayor, can I get clarification that you also pulled C.15?
[40:59] Yeah.
[40:59] That's the only one you pulled?
[41:00] Yeah.
[41:01] C.3.
[41:06] All right, C.3 adopt a resolution accepting--
[41:10] Mayor, we also had a member of the public pull C.6
[41:15] Oh, OK.
[41:17] Go ahead and add that on there.
[41:20] C.6.
[41:21] Do we need to redo the motion or are you good?
[41:27] As long as the maker of the motion
[41:29] is comfortable with C.6 being pulled as well, no need.
[41:33] OK with that, Dave?
[41:35] C.6?
[41:38] You made the motion.
[41:39] Yeah.
[41:40] And the second is good?
[41:41] All right.
[41:43] C.6 goes ahead.
[41:45] C3, adopt a resolution accepting the donation
[41:49] of one refurbished 8 by 40 insulated dog kennel container
[41:54] from Vault, Co.
[41:55] for use of the city's unsheltered emergency center
[41:58] and authorize the city manager or designee
[42:00] to execute agreement in all necessary documents
[42:02] to accept the donation.
[42:04] Tonight, we have Homeless and Housing Services Manager,
[42:07] Vielka Guarascio.
[42:12] Hi, there.
[42:13] Good evening, Mayor, Council.
[42:15] Vielka Guarascio, Homeless and Housing Services Manager.
[42:18] I'm here to answer any questions you may have.
[42:21] But before, I want to just take this time
[42:23] and thank Vault, Co. as well as Jill for the generous donation
[42:28] of the dog kennel for our unsheltered emergency
[42:31] center for unhoused, as well as a future program
[42:34] and collaboration that we are doing with hold for program
[42:38] for future individuals who are seeking sober living environment
[42:42] programs or other type of programming
[42:45] and their barrier is their pet.
[42:48] And they are unable to enter these programs because
[42:51] of finding either a family member or someone
[42:56] that they can trust.
[42:58] So with this dog kennel that will be going to 555,
[43:01] it will allow for these individuals
[43:04] to allow their pets to go to 555.
[43:07] And our His Way Refuge Center staff
[43:09] will be the ones overseeing and taking care of their pets.
[43:12] So I definitely want to take this moment
[43:14] and thank Doug and Jill for the great generosity and donation
[43:17] for these dog containers.
[43:20] I don't know if you want to invite them up
[43:22] if they'd like to say anything.
[43:23] Absolutely.
[43:24] Come on up.
[43:25] Doug.
[43:25] And Vielka, why don't you share, too--
[43:28] we have a lot of people here tonight.
[43:29] We've already had a success with it.
[43:32] And I think it's worth sharing because I think
[43:35] it's going to be a way bigger value than we're anticipating
[43:40] it to be.
[43:41] Absolutely.
[43:42] Well, in the meantime, if I can please
[43:43] have Jill and Doug come up and join me.
[43:48] You're not going to get away, Doug.
[43:50] [LAUGHTER]
[43:55] So go ahead and I will jump in.
[43:56] So one of the things that caught us
[43:58] on this whole situation of donating a kennel--
[44:01] I take homeless veterans off the street
[44:02] at our business in Stockton.
[44:04] And I happen to have a guy who came to me.
[44:06] And I kept wondering why he was missing his appointments.
[44:09] And I didn't understand that he didn't have anybody
[44:12] to set his dog with.
[44:13] And the places where they're putting him
[44:14] were these cages with plastic over them.
[44:17] And it was a horrible situation.
[44:18] So I own moving and portable storage.
[44:21] So we took an old insulated 40 foot container
[44:23] and turned it into a pretty exciting dog kennel
[44:26] that the homeless people are going
[44:27] to be able to use and put their dog in and go
[44:29] to their appointment, get them back.
[44:31] Get them spayed and neutered, is the goal by Jill.
[44:35] And that's the deal and helping out with the homeless program.
[44:38] So we also build some of our containers.
[44:42] And we make them into housing.
[44:43] So you guys have taken them in nicely and it was fun to donate.
[44:47] So we appreciate it.
[44:49] We got more coming.
[44:51] [APPLAUSE]
[44:56] I would just like to express my gratitude
[44:58] to this council and the city manager
[45:01] for accepting this container.
[45:06] It's going to be life changing for people and pets.
[45:10] And I truly appreciate it.
[45:12] Thank you.
[45:13] Thank you.
[45:15] Thank you.
[45:16] [APPLAUSE]
[45:19] Sorry, Mayor.
[45:20] Let me go ahead and just interject one second there.
[45:22] So I do want to take this time-- and I
[45:24] know city manager may announce this later,
[45:26] but we will be having a ribbon cutting for the dog containers,
[45:30] as well as a transitional housing containers that'll
[45:32] be going on at 555.
[45:34] So that is on Wednesday, September 9 at 10:00 AM.
[45:37] So I definitely would like to invite the public
[45:40] to see this ribbon cutting.
[45:42] And just to elaborate, it's just a great program
[45:44] that we'll be able to initial initiate
[45:49] at 555, because we've come that with our outreach.
[45:52] And the different individuals that we are coming across,
[45:55] the barrier is their pets.
[45:57] They take care of their pets better than themselves.
[46:00] So we're just creating this program
[46:02] to allow them to seek the services and the help
[46:04] that they need.
[46:05] Thank you.
[46:06] Thank you, Vielka.
[46:08] All right, now, let me ask council member Morowit,
[46:12] who pulled the item, if you actually
[46:14] have questions or comments.
[46:16] Well, a lot of questions have been answered.
[46:17] I had the pleasure of meeting Doug a few weeks ago when
[46:19] I went out with city staff.
[46:21] And we toured his business in Stockton.
[46:24] And he had a lot of different models
[46:27] that he used for homeless veterans, for folks.
[46:31] And these are just containers that are just very simple.
[46:34] But they were made into livable conditions
[46:36] with lighting, air conditioners for people.
[46:39] And then he showed us this very, very, very nice kennel.
[46:44] And it was designed with air conditioning as well.
[46:48] The floors are slatted so you could wash them down easily.
[46:51] And then they had ropes that opened up
[46:53] to the back of the vault of the building
[46:58] and went outside to another enclosed area, where
[47:01] you would feed the animals.
[47:03] And then they would go back and forth, so that way,
[47:06] it's basically very similar to what
[47:08] we have in our own animal control shelter
[47:11] that we have in Manteca.
[47:13] And when we were talking, he was very generous with his time.
[47:18] And we had other people there.
[47:19] And we were walking.
[47:21] And he showed a lot of interest in this.
[47:23] And I think before we even got back to town,
[47:26] I believe, he called our city manager-- we were in the car,
[47:28] and pretty much said, you know what?
[47:30] I'm going to donate one of these to the city.
[47:32] I think it's really important.
[47:34] And I can tell you how important it
[47:36] is because myself and Council Member Breitenbucher
[47:39] are on the 2 by 2 homeless and housing committee.
[47:42] And we go out on outreach every other week.
[47:45] And we also go out once a month usually for the operations
[47:49] quality of life operations.
[47:51] And I can tell you that the first time we did this,
[47:53] probably about three years ago, 2 and 1/2 years ago,
[47:56] we encountered a homeless individual that unfortunately
[47:59] got arrested and she had a dog.
[48:02] And it was horrible to take that dog away from her
[48:06] and separate her because she was so upset.
[48:09] She wasn't upset about going to jail.
[48:10] She understood that she had a warrant.
[48:12] She was fine with that, but she wanted
[48:14] to know what's going to happen to my dog.
[48:17] And a lot of people-- so that initiated another program where
[48:21] we have animal control follow along during those enforcements
[48:25] to take the dogs away, hold them until these individuals
[48:29] can be released from jail.
[48:32] But then the other encounter is when
[48:34] we're out on these outreaches, that when people want to go
[48:39] and we tell them, hey, why don't you go to the shelter?
[48:41] Why don't you go spend the day?
[48:42] Why don't you do this, spend the night?
[48:44] Their first idea is, I don't want
[48:45] to leave my dog outside in a crappy cage,
[48:48] out in the elements.
[48:50] Well, I can tell you, that's not the situation now.
[48:54] I mean, this is no different than any other home.
[48:57] It is like some temperature controlled.
[49:00] It's safe for them.
[49:01] They're not intermingled in little cages
[49:03] on top of other cages.
[49:05] They're separated.
[49:06] So when we went on that tour and this gentleman,
[49:10] Doug, offered that, I think he knows what he's done.
[49:13] But I can tell you that he's done a lot more than people
[49:17] could imagine because, like I say,
[49:19] you can't convince someone to go to a shelter for themselves
[49:23] if they don't think their animals are well taken care of.
[49:25] So this was a big deal to get this vault delivered.
[49:30] So I just want to say that's why I pulled it.
[49:33] Everybody looked at me.
[49:34] Why did you pull it?
[49:35] Because it deserves more than just that, yes,
[49:37] thanks for giving it to us.
[49:39] It really does.
[49:40] It really means a lot to our homeless.
[49:41] And it's going to help encourage homeless folks
[49:44] to go into the shelter with their animals,
[49:46] knowing that they're not left outside in that crappy cage,
[49:49] as I was told by this woman.
[49:51] So thank you, I appreciate that.
[49:54] Thank you, Council Member Morowit.
[49:57] Yes.
[49:58] So I wasn't able to go to the vault, but I did go by 555
[50:03] and take a tour of the unit.
[50:05] I had my granddaughter with me.
[50:06] And we went in there and it was nice and cool.
[50:09] It was very nice.
[50:11] This is a refrigerated unit that they've converted.
[50:13] And it had 10 stalls in there with doors on the side
[50:17] to go out.
[50:19] His Way is going to put artificial turf in the outside,
[50:22] so they're not on the asphalt. It was really nice.
[50:24] Today when we were out on outreach,
[50:27] I talked to a gentleman.
[50:28] He has a job but he's trying to get a place in Tracy, a room
[50:33] to rent.
[50:33] But he doesn't know if he can get enough hours
[50:35] to afford the room.
[50:36] And when I talked to him, go to 555.
[50:38] Have you ever tried there?
[50:39] He goes, no, I don't want my dog outside.
[50:43] So I told him, well, guess what?
[50:45] We got that problem solved.
[50:47] We have a kennel that you can put your dog in.
[50:50] It's air conditioned inside.
[50:51] And he goes, really?
[50:52] I go, yes.
[50:52] And he goes, OK, I'd like that.
[50:55] So we're already starting to fill it up.
[50:57] So we might want to be asking for a second.
[51:00] And then I was talking to another elderly lady
[51:03] who's hardcore, doesn't want to go in because of her pet.
[51:06] Told her the same thing and she was like, OK, yes, I'm
[51:10] going to think about that.
[51:11] It gives them now an option.
[51:13] And that's great because that's more
[51:16] that we can get into the program and get them moving forward.
[51:20] So thank you.
[51:21] Thank you very much for that.
[51:24] Thank you, Dave.
[51:27] Vice Mayor.
[51:29] You guys are angels.
[51:30] Seriously.
[51:31] Thank you so much for everything that you've
[51:34] done for our navigation center.
[51:37] To echo what the council members are saying,
[51:40] I was out on the quality of life operations
[51:43] and spoke to a lady who has a dog.
[51:46] And she would not go to 555 because why would she
[51:50] be comfortable in air conditioning
[51:52] while her pet is outside suffering?
[51:55] And they truly do take care of their pets.
[51:58] That is their emotional support.
[52:01] That is their safety.
[52:02] That is their security blanket, if you will.
[52:05] And the fact that we now have these air conditioned kennels
[52:11] shows them that we see the value of their family member.
[52:16] And that's what they are.
[52:18] They might be four legged, but their family.
[52:21] And so I don't know that this would
[52:25] have happened without you guys.
[52:27] So thank you so much for caring and to pouring
[52:31] into our community.
[52:32] It's very much appreciated.
[52:35] Thank you.
[52:36] Charlie.
[52:38] Thank you.
[52:39] I won't repeat everything they've said.
[52:43] And I'll just add that, definitely, you guys
[52:46] came through.
[52:46] And it's going to be such an asset for our navigation center.
[52:50] And it's already making a difference.
[52:52] So thank you so much for having the heart to do this.
[52:55] And pets are very important to people as I know.
[52:59] So with that, I'll entertain a motion.
[53:01] Motion for approval.
[53:04] I'll second.
[53:09] I vote yes.
[53:11] OK, all right.
[53:13] I have a motion from Council Member Morowit and a second
[53:17] from Vice Mayor Lackey.
[53:18] All in favor, say aye.
[53:19] Aye.
[53:21] Opposed?
[53:21] Motion carries 5-0.
[53:24] That takes us to--
[53:27] that takes us to C.6.
[53:30] C.6.
[53:32] Approved traffic calming measures along Sandra Street,
[53:36] Leo Street, Elm Street, Fishback Road, Coffeeberry Lane
[53:42] and direct staff to take all appropriate actions
[53:45] necessary to implement the measures in accordance
[53:48] with the City of Manteca Traffic Calming Program 2025
[53:53] city-wide guidelines.
[53:54] Mayor and council, tonight we have deputy director
[53:56] of engineering, Somporn.
[53:59] Somporn.
[54:02] Traffic calming, my favorite.
[54:05] Good evening, Mayor and city council members.
[54:07] So tonight, we have five street sections.
[54:10] They were nicely listed already.
[54:13] That has gone through the five steps-- four step
[54:18] process, excuse me, that was approved as part of the 2025
[54:21] traffic calming measures.
[54:24] So those five steps, just as a reminder.
[54:27] Step one is there's a request from the community, just one
[54:31] member of the community.
[54:33] Step two is the community member has
[54:34] to reach out to other members along their street segments.
[54:39] There is a requirement for a 2/3 commitment to installing
[54:43] an actual traffic calming device.
[54:46] Once we get that 2/3 vote, it gets turned over to engineering.
[54:50] We do the data gathering.
[54:51] We actually send folks out there and collect data
[54:54] during the mornings and the afternoon peaks.
[54:57] And then once we determine that there
[54:59] is a valid concern about traffic calming needs,
[55:04] we do the actual design.
[55:05] And here we are, tonight, looking for your approval
[55:08] on those designs and implementation.
[55:11] All right, thank you, Somporn.
[55:14] I think this was pulled by members of the public.
[55:19] Darryl.
[55:20] Darryl, come on up, sir.
[55:23] I want to give my support to this and what these are.
[55:27] You call them lumps.
[55:28] I call them speed bumps.
[55:29] Same thing.
[55:30] Anyway, I've been out there on this Elm Street Avenue
[55:35] and Argonaut Avenue.
[55:37] I sometime go out to Dave Thompson's church out
[55:39] at the brethren church.
[55:41] And I don't know how many times I've
[55:43] had to call the police on speeders in that area.
[55:46] It's that bad.
[55:48] And I urge the city council to pass this whole thing.
[55:53] I would make one real quick comment that we still
[55:57] need to get a speed bump thing down there on Maple
[56:00] Street from Manteca Avenue, or reverse Manteca Avenue
[56:05] and make it a one way.
[56:07] But the stop sign down there at the post office always being
[56:12] run.
[56:13] And it's bad enough that the postmaster took the mailbox
[56:19] across the street on Center Street.
[56:21] They removed it.
[56:22] And the reason they removed it, they
[56:24] didn't want to endanger their employees for going
[56:29] over picking the mail up.
[56:30] It's that bad.
[56:32] It's calmed down considerably.
[56:34] Of course, I haven't been downtown a few times
[56:36] in the heat, so I'm not sure exactly what's going on,
[56:39] but it's warranted to.
[56:42] Thank you.
[56:43] Thank you.
[56:48] Yes, I'm a believer in speed bumps, humps, lumps.
[56:53] Somporn, if you could tell me, do you know how many of these
[56:58] are on the list?
[56:59] I know there's a bunch of them that we're working on
[57:02] and a bunch on the list that also need to be installed still.
[57:05] I wouldn't be able to give you a number of the top of my head,
[57:08] but I do know the last time I checked,
[57:11] I want to say there was about 35 that was on the list.
[57:14] And we are slowly making our way through it.
[57:16] Requests do come in.
[57:18] And as they come in, they get added to the list.
[57:20] Right now, in terms of delivery, we typically
[57:24] give one out anywhere between six to nine months.
[57:27] So it does take some time to collect those signatures.
[57:30] We do need to also reach out to the residents
[57:33] to make sure that if you are the resident that's
[57:36] having these lumps right in front of your house,
[57:39] we do give you an opportunity to provide your feedback.
[57:42] And then we also have to collect the data to support the design.
[57:46] And then the ones that are already approved,
[57:49] are they all already installed or are they still waiting?
[57:52] So typically, once it's approved by city council,
[57:55] it takes another two to four weeks, sometimes six.
[57:59] It is installed by city staff, so it is installed
[58:01] by our streets department.
[58:05] I'm not sure if you want to chime in.
[58:06] Yes, I can chime in on that.
[58:08] So typically, once they've been approved by council and come in,
[58:13] we're about 30 to 60 days to do the install.
[58:15] There has been, excuse me, some of the new areas
[58:19] that are being--
[58:21] asphalt improvements.
[58:22] Those are taking a little bit longer to get done.
[58:23] They're being done by the contractor.
[58:25] But we try to do as they come within that 30 to 60 day window.
[58:28] So in the last two months, I think
[58:30] there's been 12 sets of lumps installed
[58:33] in various parts of town.
[58:35] And we have supply of them or are we still waiting on?
[58:39] No, we have, I don't know, 30 sets of lumps sitting in my yard
[58:44] right now.
[58:45] So yes, there's quite a bit to go.
[58:46] Some just came in the last week.
[58:48] Perfect.
[58:50] All right, any other questions from council?
[58:54] OK, no other questions.
[58:56] I'll entertain a motion.
[59:00] OK, I have a motion from Vice Mayor Lackey.
[59:02] Second from Council Member Halford.
[59:03] All in favor, say aye.
[59:04] Aye.
[59:05] Opposed?
[59:06] Motion carries 5-0.
[59:08] That will go ahead.
[59:08] Move on to C.12.
[59:10] Approve a professional services agreement with RRM Design Group
[59:15] in an amount not to exceed $554,054 to provide
[59:21] comprehensive architectural and engineering services
[59:26] for development of Manteca Fire Station Number 6 and authorize
[59:29] the city manager to sign the agreement and any associated
[59:31] documents.
[59:32] Mayor and council, tonight, we have Fire Chief Steven Islas.
[59:36] Do present.
[59:38] Good evening.
[59:39] So a brief update on where we're at.
[59:41] We're trying to get the plans completed
[59:43] for the new company six.
[59:46] In the process of doing so, it was the most--
[59:50] the most expedited and economical way
[59:52] to do that is to utilize plans that were used for company five.
[59:57] It's a really good firehouse.
[59:58] It's a good layout.
[1:00:00] It's got scalability to it, pace of growth.
[1:00:03] The issues that require changes to the plans.
[1:00:09] We need a longer apparatus.
[1:00:11] Right now it only fit one piece of apparatus per side.
[1:00:14] So that's been a--
[1:00:18] it was designed that way.
[1:00:19] So it wasn't a flaw but it's a poor design.
[1:00:21] So we needed that changed.
[1:00:22] And then because of the time, we need updates to code.
[1:00:27] So moving forward with that, there
[1:00:29] were two vendors that worked on those plans.
[1:00:32] The first was RRM.
[1:00:33] And they brought it to a 30%.
[1:00:36] And then it was kicked over to the design
[1:00:38] and build process to PBA.
[1:00:40] So because of the rights from those architectures,
[1:00:42] those were the options that we had
[1:00:45] moving forward with this plan.
[1:00:48] You have the amount from the proposal from RRM.
[1:00:52] And the amount from PBA was $733,325.
[1:00:59] So RRM came in substantially lower.
[1:01:03] That's where we're at with the process.
[1:01:07] And then how long do you think this process will take?
[1:01:11] The process of architecture?
[1:01:12] Yeah.
[1:01:13] The code up and the changes, I'm being told,
[1:01:17] will take approximately 60 to 90 days.
[1:01:21] Perfect.
[1:01:23] I like that we're going to go with double base
[1:01:25] because we have more space at the new station.
[1:01:30] Councilman Morowit.
[1:01:31] Yes.
[1:01:31] So I'm glad you mentioned station 5.
[1:01:34] I was on council when we broke ground on station 5.
[1:01:36] So it's good that you've made improvements
[1:01:39] because I've heard that there were some modifications that
[1:01:41] need to be made.
[1:01:42] Most importantly, what I wanted to bring to light
[1:01:45] is we are starting to build station six.
[1:01:48] You start someplace.
[1:01:50] And station 6 is the direct benefit from Measure Q.
[1:01:54] I mean, we talked about Measure Q and what it would do.
[1:01:56] And what we said we would do with it.
[1:01:58] So for folks that probably weren't excited about 3/4
[1:02:01] percent sales tax, I think this was a great start.
[1:02:04] I mean, this is what a directly benefit of the 3/4 percent sales
[1:02:09] tax.
[1:02:11] Fire station 6 is going to be built.
[1:02:14] And that's because of that.
[1:02:15] So I pulled it because this is the very first stage of building
[1:02:19] something, as you have to have a good design.
[1:02:21] And I think we've done a good job as far as what
[1:02:23] it costs to do the design.
[1:02:25] But now moving forward, it's actually going to happen.
[1:02:28] And that's going to give a great amount of protection
[1:02:30] to southwest Manteca and all of the city
[1:02:32] because, as we've talked about before,
[1:02:34] that fire stations, when occurrences happen
[1:02:37] on the south side, we pull from the north
[1:02:39] and we bring them south.
[1:02:40] So it's very important that we have a fire station 6 and a 5.
[1:02:45] And that gives protection along the 120 as well.
[1:02:48] So I'm just glad we're bringing it forward
[1:02:50] and we're starting the process now.
[1:02:52] So I'm looking forward to the groundbreaking in about a month
[1:02:54] or so.
[1:02:55] Yes, thank you.
[1:02:57] Thank you.
[1:02:58] Yes, and I agree.
[1:02:59] The other big win is for staff to be
[1:03:02] working on and saving money by using the plans from station 5.
[1:03:06] And just adding to them and not having to start from scratch.
[1:03:10] So definitely kudos to that too.
[1:03:17] Any of you guys want to add anything?
[1:03:19] District 1 over there.
[1:03:22] It's a first step in probably what, a two-year process,
[1:03:25] to get the station built. Not only is Measure Q
[1:03:29] helping pay for the station, it's already
[1:03:31] paying for the staff that we'll be staffing.
[1:03:35] Nine firefighters.
[1:03:36] Yeah, so there's nine firefighters.
[1:03:38] Well, three firefighters, three engineers, and a captain that
[1:03:41] are being paid for by Measure Q that are already on board
[1:03:45] and running a second engine out of station [INAUDIBLE].
[1:03:48] We're making progress.
[1:03:51] We'll get there hopefully before I get reelected.
[1:03:56] And the apparatus.
[1:03:58] Yeah, all the money adds up.
[1:04:02] All right.
[1:04:05] Any other comments from council?
[1:04:07] I will open this up for public comments.
[1:04:11] I got excited last time.
[1:04:16] Anybody on Zoom?
[1:04:22] I have no hands raised on Zoom for comment on item C.12.
[1:04:27] OK, no comment cards?
[1:04:28] No comment.
[1:04:29] OK, come up.
[1:04:36] Good evening.
[1:04:38] Thank you.
[1:04:39] I appreciate city for bringing fire station 6.
[1:04:42] And hopefully it operates in 2028.
[1:04:50] So I want to get a clarification on the site that is required.
[1:04:56] So I heard it is two acres or is it 2.82?
[1:05:02] 2 acres.
[1:05:03] Sorry?
[1:05:05] 2.82.
[1:05:07] [INAUDIBLE]
[1:05:09] I can't hear.
[1:05:10] 2 acres.
[1:05:11] 2 acres, OK.
[1:05:15] City has acquired 1.82 from the private developer and 1 acre
[1:05:22] from the school district.
[1:05:26] So city identifies the fire station 5
[1:05:32] is a 0.75 acre and a need to have a 2 acre fire station.
[1:05:38] Why doesn't city understand that school district also
[1:05:42] requires to support the growth, not reduce their school site?
[1:05:48] And the PQP area should be balanced
[1:05:52] as per the Manteca general plan-- the land use
[1:05:57] to provide adequate land.
[1:05:59] I appreciate that fire station is being taken care and also
[1:06:04] wish the city fulfill their responsibility to provide
[1:06:10] adequate land for the growth.
[1:06:13] The school capacity is 1,000.
[1:06:17] Sorry, for 1,000 kids capacity to support,
[1:06:21] a minimum of 15 acres is required.
[1:06:24] But the current site itself is 15.87 of the school district.
[1:06:31] And if 1 acre is given and it is 14.87 and it's not adequate
[1:06:39] for 1,000 kids.
[1:06:40] But how many kids in the region?
[1:06:42] There are 3,000 kids.
[1:06:44] What is the adequate planning missing by the city?
[1:06:47] Why doesn't it fulfill its responsibility for the kids
[1:06:51] along with the much needed both fire station and schools.
[1:06:58] All the public infrastructure are equally
[1:07:00] important for benefiting.
[1:07:02] For one, we should not dig a grave
[1:07:05] for the other public facility.
[1:07:08] Thank you.
[1:07:11] OK, thank you.
[1:07:15] Brad, can you clarify this whole 1.82, 2.82 situation
[1:07:21] or having one of you guys.
[1:07:23] Yeah, good evening, Mayor and council, Brad Wungluck,
[1:07:25] director of government services.
[1:07:27] So there are currently two sites.
[1:07:29] We have a site for the school that's
[1:07:31] 15.87 acres and a high density residential parcel that's 11.22.
[1:07:38] In discussions with the school district several months back,
[1:07:41] there was communication regarding the potential
[1:07:44] for a fire station along one of those sites
[1:07:49] with the previous fire chief.
[1:07:50] And the size that was determined that was necessary was 2.8.
[1:07:55] In conversations with the school district,
[1:07:57] there was the opportunity to acquire
[1:08:01] or for them to donate 1 acre of that land
[1:08:04] to the city that would not affect their design
[1:08:06] or the number of students on the site.
[1:08:08] So with that, there will be an item coming forward later that
[1:08:12] will essentially proposes to increase
[1:08:16] the acreage of public quasi public or public use
[1:08:19] on those parcels from the 15.87 to 16.87,
[1:08:24] reducing the high density residential,
[1:08:26] which will allow for the school to be built as designed
[1:08:31] and for the city to construct the two-acre fire station
[1:08:34] site as well.
[1:08:37] And the developer is not gaining any more acres?
[1:08:43] The private developer is losing 1 acre as part of--
[1:08:48] they're going from 11.22 to 10.22.
[1:08:52] OK, thank you.
[1:08:54] Any other public comments?
[1:08:58] You've already spoken, sir.
[1:09:04] OK, seeing none, I'll bring it back.
[1:09:09] If no other comments or questions from council,
[1:09:11] I'll entertain a motion.
[1:09:12] I do.
[1:09:13] Go ahead.
[1:09:14] So I'm going to go back a little ways in history
[1:09:16] for Manteca Fire.
[1:09:20] When I started, there was three stations.
[1:09:23] One was at Lincoln or on Powers, next to Lincoln School.
[1:09:27] Station 2 was on Center Street, next to Yosemite School.
[1:09:33] Station 3 was on Louise, across from Golden West.
[1:09:37] So when Manteca started building stations,
[1:09:40] they put them next to schools.
[1:09:42] And we, of course, we went to Del Webb to the north side
[1:09:45] because we needed one there.
[1:09:46] And five had to go to the southeast side
[1:09:49] at Woodward and Atherton.
[1:09:52] I'm glad to see that we are putting another station
[1:09:54] next to a school.
[1:09:58] That is what they should be.
[1:10:00] They should be there to protect the kids.
[1:10:04] And in the location it is, it will also
[1:10:07] provide coverage within the five minutes and make it safer.
[1:10:13] Measure Q staffed the engine at station 1.
[1:10:17] We're going to be looking at ways to get staffing
[1:10:20] for station 6.
[1:10:22] I don't see us wanting to go back
[1:10:24] to where we had the truck running first out, especially
[1:10:28] in that area.
[1:10:29] It'll be just as bad as it was at once.
[1:10:32] And so yes, Measure Q helps staffing,
[1:10:35] but that was to staff the engine at once
[1:10:37] to get the truck over where it needs to be.
[1:10:39] But it does not to be running first out.
[1:10:41] So that's what I have.
[1:10:44] Thank you.
[1:10:46] All right, I'll entertain a motion now.
[1:10:49] Motion to approve.
[1:10:50] Second.
[1:10:51] OK, I have a motion from Council Member Halford.
[1:10:53] Second from Council Member Morowit.
[1:10:54] All in favor, say aye.
[1:10:55] Aye.
[1:10:57] Opposed?
[1:10:58] Motion carries 5-0.
[1:11:00] Takes us to C.15.
[1:11:03] Adopt a resolution approving amendment number one to contract
[1:11:07] services agreement with Flock Safety for the addition of six
[1:11:11] Flock Condor cameras at an annual cost of $18,000
[1:11:16] for the remaining three years of the agreement,
[1:11:18] plus a one time installation fee of $1,500 for a total contract
[1:11:27] amount not to exceed $55,500.
[1:11:31] And further authorizing the city manager
[1:11:34] without further council action to procure additional Flock
[1:11:40] Condor cameras under the same type in future years,
[1:11:46] subject to appropriated funding within the police department
[1:11:50] approved annual budget and compliance
[1:11:52] with the city's purchasing policy.
[1:11:54] Mayor and council, tonight we have
[1:11:56] Police Chief, Stephen Schluer.
[1:11:58] All right, Chief.
[1:12:02] Good evening, Stephen Schluer, Chief of Police.
[1:12:05] First, I just want to say that these are condor cameras not
[1:12:09] ALPR cameras.
[1:12:10] However, they do have a capability of ALPR,
[1:12:12] but they're a condor camera.
[1:12:15] And there are five of them.
[1:12:16] And we're working jointly with parks, recreation, and transit
[1:12:20] to strategically place these five in our parks
[1:12:24] that are being vandalized and are being broken into.
[1:12:28] We plan on putting them in Northgate Park, two of them.
[1:12:33] One near the snack bar area and then one under the gazebo.
[1:12:37] Lincoln Park, one looking at the entrance of the pool,
[1:12:43] as well the outside of the restroom area
[1:12:46] there, that's in the middle of the park and under the gazebo.
[1:12:51] The next one is going to be the Skate Park.
[1:12:55] It will overlook the entire Skate Park.
[1:12:58] Morenzone Park is the next one that
[1:12:59] will be on the west side of the ball diamond
[1:13:04] there, looking at the side there,
[1:13:07] and the restroom area that's constantly being vandalized.
[1:13:10] And then Woodward Splash Pad will have one.
[1:13:14] And it'll be focused on the pump house
[1:13:18] and outside of the restroom area there for vandalism.
[1:13:24] I also have, Ian Osborne here, who
[1:13:26] is our Flock guru or our Flock guy
[1:13:30] here to answer any really specific questions that I
[1:13:32] may not be able to answer.
[1:13:36] Council, we want to start with questions or do you
[1:13:38] want me to open it up for public?
[1:13:42] OK, we'll open it up for public comment first.
[1:13:47] Anybody on Zoom?
[1:13:54] I have attendees on Zoom.
[1:13:56] However, no hands are raised for public comment on C.15.
[1:14:01] OK, comment cards?
[1:14:02] No comments.
[1:14:03] Anybody who would like to speak on item C.15?
[1:14:08] Come on up, sir.
[1:14:10] I wasn't familiar with what these are exactly,
[1:14:14] but I learned from the police department how these function.
[1:14:19] And I just want to tell you these cameras
[1:14:22] do a tremendous job.
[1:14:25] And the amount of violence down there at library park
[1:14:29] that these cameras have cut has been phenomenal.
[1:14:33] And there's been situations that we've
[1:14:35] had with vandalism to Union Pacific rail line that has
[1:14:41] been curbed by those cameras.
[1:14:43] And I am 100% in favor of them.
[1:14:47] And I back them all the way.
[1:14:49] They've been a big help to the police
[1:14:51] department and the general public at large.
[1:14:55] Sure.
[1:14:57] Anybody else who would like to speak on this item?
[1:15:04] OK, seeing none, we'll bring it back.
[1:15:06] We'll start with Vice Mayor.
[1:15:11] Thank you.
[1:15:12] OK, so I've done a lot of research this past week.
[1:15:17] I've asked a lot of questions for both Sergeant Osborne
[1:15:21] and Chief.
[1:15:23] And I'm going to play a little bit of devil's advocate here.
[1:15:28] Flock cameras, as we know, that's
[1:15:29] a very hot topic in the news right now.
[1:15:31] And I know that a lot of news that's coming out
[1:15:35] is misinformation.
[1:15:39] One of the things that has come out
[1:15:41] is the misuse of information collected from the cameras
[1:15:44] in another state, not here.
[1:15:47] It's brought out questions regarding regulation processes,
[1:15:51] sharing of information, and potential violation
[1:15:54] of constitutional rights.
[1:15:57] So at what point do we say-- and like I said,
[1:16:00] I'm playing devil's advocate here.
[1:16:03] At what point do we officially say
[1:16:04] that we are becoming a surveillance state?
[1:16:08] We have cameras on the streets.
[1:16:10] We have cameras on buildings, parks, trackers
[1:16:12] in our phones and cars.
[1:16:14] All are the result of trying to eliminate a problem.
[1:16:18] People are out there vandalizing.
[1:16:20] We put up cameras, they find a new place to vandalize.
[1:16:23] We put up more cameras.
[1:16:25] Eventually, cameras are everywhere.
[1:16:28] Just the other day, I was walking down the street,
[1:16:32] crossing the street, and a house very
[1:16:34] proudly announced that I was being recorded.
[1:16:37] I was on the other side of the street already,
[1:16:39] but that's how far their camera reached.
[1:16:43] It's my understanding that these new cameras
[1:16:45] are going to be placed at five parks that are known
[1:16:47] for a high rate of vandalism.
[1:16:49] So unfortunately, we live in a society
[1:16:51] where people think it's OK to destroy
[1:16:53] what doesn't belong to them.
[1:16:56] As a result, we're considering putting more eyes up
[1:16:59] to keep an eye on the areas that we can't physically be there.
[1:17:03] Our PD is good.
[1:17:04] They're really good.
[1:17:06] They can't be everywhere at once.
[1:17:08] And I understand this.
[1:17:10] So I've asked a lot of questions.
[1:17:12] I've done a lot of research.
[1:17:13] So a couple of questions just to put out there
[1:17:18] that I've already asked both of you that I think
[1:17:21] would be beneficial for the public to hear--
[1:17:26] these cameras, these condor cameras, are they the same
[1:17:28] as the pan-tilt cameras that you were talking to me about?
[1:17:31] Yeah, so condor is the pan-tilt zoom or PTZ camera
[1:17:36] that Flock offers.
[1:17:38] So and my understanding is that it's set on a fixed point
[1:17:45] unless somebody's at a computer changes
[1:17:48] the vantage point of that camera and circulates it around.
[1:17:53] Is that right?
[1:17:54] That's correct.
[1:17:54] That's how all of our cameras are currently set up.
[1:17:57] There is an option to monitor for movement.
[1:18:00] And so if it picks it up, it'll track the person
[1:18:02] until it goes out of frame.
[1:18:04] We don't use that currently, which
[1:18:06] we might with these ones because in the parks
[1:18:08] it makes more sense to do that.
[1:18:10] How clear is the picture?
[1:18:12] Does it pick up facial recognition
[1:18:15] or is it just like with the ALPR,
[1:18:18] it's distinguishing clothing colors, stuff of that nature?
[1:18:23] Yeah, so as they're defaulted right now-- well,
[1:18:26] let me back up.
[1:18:27] There is no facial recognition built
[1:18:28] into this software whatsoever.
[1:18:31] Currently, they're on poles 35, 40 feet in the air that
[1:18:36] are just general broad views.
[1:18:39] You cannot generally see faces.
[1:18:42] Sometimes you can't tell the gender,
[1:18:43] but you can tell if it's black pants, black shirt,
[1:18:47] if they have a backpack, or if they're riding a bicycle.
[1:18:51] So if it doesn't pick up facial recognition,
[1:18:54] how is it going to assist you in identifying those
[1:18:57] who are vandalizing our parks?
[1:18:59] Well, so facial recognition is computer software.
[1:19:02] We're old school, and we have officers that review the footage
[1:19:06] and are able to say, hey, that guy looks like Joe Schmo, who
[1:19:09] I contacted two days ago.
[1:19:12] We know most of our clientele.
[1:19:14] And so that's how most of the people
[1:19:16] get identified is just from other officers.
[1:19:18] And to clarify that, the difference
[1:19:21] between facial recognition and a video
[1:19:23] being able to pick up someone's face or two
[1:19:25] totally different things.
[1:19:26] Like Lieutenant Osborne said facial recognition
[1:19:28] would be taking that face that it picks up,
[1:19:30] putting it into a software program
[1:19:32] and then spitting out who that person is,
[1:19:35] where it will be able to pick up their face and their body.
[1:19:42] Then we look at that to determine who that person is.
[1:19:47] It's not just their clothing, but it
[1:19:48] will be able to track their clothing
[1:19:50] and be able to say, OK, so we have
[1:19:53] a guy with a black sweatshirt, white backpack, blue jeans
[1:19:58] shorts, and a green bike.
[1:20:00] And then we can look at the other cameras
[1:20:02] to see where that person may have gone
[1:20:05] or the direction of travel that person has gone.
[1:20:08] Does that make sense?
[1:20:14] OK, we're good.
[1:20:20] You'll be able to prosecute based off of the video
[1:20:23] that it takes or to be able to collect damages, however,
[1:20:29] that works out with the court systems?
[1:20:30] Yeah, at that point, it becomes evidence
[1:20:32] that is used throughout the court process.
[1:20:36] And so I know that Flock, because of the issues
[1:20:40] that they've been having nationwide,
[1:20:43] they're actually changing their policies.
[1:20:46] And they've been adjusting the way that their practices are
[1:20:50] happening.
[1:20:50] So instead of holding for 30 days evidence,
[1:20:53] they're holding for seven.
[1:20:54] And that's going to be applicable
[1:20:56] based on each jurisdiction.
[1:20:59] So we're still sticking with the 30 days?
[1:21:03] Correct, yes.
[1:21:04] We will stay with the 30 days because we're not only
[1:21:06] using these cameras in the park areas
[1:21:08] for the vandalism, which is a property crime.
[1:21:11] We also have these in other areas throughout the city.
[1:21:15] Let's take the jugging that just happened at the bank.
[1:21:21] They usually come in and they will surveil
[1:21:24] or they'll scan an area prior to doing their crime.
[1:21:28] They may come back a week later, or two weeks later,
[1:21:31] or jugging weeks later, or come back several times before they
[1:21:35] commit the actual crime.
[1:21:37] And then like with the jugging, we
[1:21:40] were able to get the person who was doing
[1:21:44] the jugging at the bank, and then
[1:21:47] go back and see that he was at the other locations
[1:21:51] up to 30 days prior.
[1:21:53] And so we were able to charge him
[1:21:54] with several other instances of doing the same crime.
[1:22:00] Chief, can you just define the definition
[1:22:02] of jugging for the folks?
[1:22:05] Those of us that aren't hip enough to know.
[1:22:07] OK, So Ian can do that.
[1:22:09] So jugging is a term-- it is a real thing.
[1:22:12] It's not something we made up.
[1:22:14] Essentially, a criminal will surveil the bank
[1:22:17] and wait for victims to come out where they're
[1:22:19] carrying obvious money bags.
[1:22:21] And it's not always the business type money bags.
[1:22:24] Sometimes it's just the envelope of cash.
[1:22:27] And sure enough, victims do walk out
[1:22:29] just carrying it in their hand.
[1:22:32] They will then leave the bank and either be robbed down
[1:22:35] the road or, in this case, this suspect,
[1:22:38] he was breaking into the vehicles at their next stop.
[1:22:41] So they get out of the bank, go to the grocery store.
[1:22:44] While the person was in the grocery store,
[1:22:45] they would break into the car and steal the cash.
[1:22:48] We didn't determine jugging.
[1:22:50] Somebody else somewhere-- it might even
[1:22:53] be in Webster's dictionary, I don't know,
[1:22:56] or the Urban Dictionary.
[1:22:59] All right, so it's my understanding
[1:23:01] that, Lieutenant Osborne, you conduct audits of the camera
[1:23:05] once a month.
[1:23:07] Or more.
[1:23:08] And Chief already informed me, but can you inform the public.
[1:23:14] Has Manteca ever uncovered any misuse of Flock information?
[1:23:19] No, it has not been uncovered doing a random audit.
[1:23:23] And we've never had any allegations that there
[1:23:29] was misuse of system.
[1:23:32] Can you tell I put a lot of thought into this this week?
[1:23:34] Yeah.
[1:23:40] Here's the issue that I'm having.
[1:23:43] Camera surveillance, the potential for it
[1:23:46] is really unlimited.
[1:23:47] We don't know where it's going in the future.
[1:23:51] We need to stay a step ahead and ensure that our residents are
[1:23:54] not only safe, but they're free to live
[1:23:56] with their constitutional rights.
[1:24:01] Most people I know are not in favor
[1:24:04] of being a surveillance state where every step they take
[1:24:08] is being tracked.
[1:24:10] With that being said, I am about kids.
[1:24:15] I am about families.
[1:24:16] And knowing that these cameras help with things such as Amber
[1:24:21] alerts.
[1:24:22] That's what triggers my brain.
[1:24:27] The way that this is written and the reason
[1:24:30] I'm going to decline on this is because I
[1:24:34] don't believe that council should be giving away
[1:24:42] their ability to decide on future Flock camera
[1:24:46] installation.
[1:24:48] I think that's something that needs
[1:24:50] to be decided as a council.
[1:24:54] Here, it states further authorizing city manager
[1:24:57] without further council action to procure additional Flock
[1:25:00] Condor camera units.
[1:25:02] I don't agree with that.
[1:25:03] I think that our ability to have surveillance around the city
[1:25:12] needs to have council consideration now
[1:25:14] and in the future.
[1:25:16] So that's where I'm at.
[1:25:19] So I have a question on that.
[1:25:20] So in the future, if we sign any new contracts, or extensions,
[1:25:24] or anything like that, is this item
[1:25:26] going to say that you're not coming back to council with it?
[1:25:30] It would come to council in the formal budget process.
[1:25:35] So say if they're--
[1:25:37] I'll give you a little bit of background and chief
[1:25:39] you can add to it as well.
[1:25:41] So we piloted the cameras like the camera
[1:25:45] that you saw at library park, that has really been
[1:25:49] a huge help in a lot of ways.
[1:25:51] It's even helping the local businesses
[1:25:53] downtown from vandalization.
[1:25:56] We had an incident at Lincoln Pool.
[1:25:58] We were able to arrest the suspects.
[1:26:01] So we've seen-- and we just piloted
[1:26:04] all different types of cameras.
[1:26:05] We were piloting Flock, ALPR.
[1:26:09] I mean, all of these brands.
[1:26:11] And they give them to you.
[1:26:12] It's a free demo.
[1:26:13] We're like, hey, let's try it out.
[1:26:15] Let's see what works.
[1:26:15] Let's see what happens.
[1:26:16] And we've seen a huge success.
[1:26:18] And so some of the reasons why we're
[1:26:20] bringing this forward tonight is we just invested $3.2 million
[1:26:25] in a beautiful splash pad for our community.
[1:26:29] And so at the end of the day, if there are issues with it
[1:26:32] or something happens with it being vandalized,
[1:26:35] we have to report to the public and say, we didn't know.
[1:26:38] We didn't have an officer there.
[1:26:40] So in some of these areas where we know that they're hot targets
[1:26:45] and as you know, the areas that are identified are.
[1:26:48] But at some point this gives the chief or I discretion.
[1:26:52] If we need to get one, it's in our operational means,
[1:26:55] we can do that.
[1:26:56] That doesn't mean we wouldn't notify you.
[1:26:58] It just may not come before council.
[1:27:00] And chief, you can add to that if you'd like as well.
[1:27:02] This also is for the condor camera,
[1:27:07] to procure additional condor cameras, which are not
[1:27:10] the ALPRs that you see at the intersections that are set up
[1:27:13] fixed to read license plates.
[1:27:15] These would be more a brand of security camera, not so much
[1:27:20] the ALPR that we have fixed throughout the city that
[1:27:27] are the license plate reader ones that pick up the vehicles.
[1:27:33] So these are more surveillance camera type things?
[1:27:35] These are just like a security camera, pan-tilt zoom security
[1:27:39] camera that Flock is the manufacturer.
[1:27:42] Is there an AI or a software attached to the back end
[1:27:45] of this for these condors?
[1:27:50] AI to do--
[1:27:52] A software to recognize?
[1:27:54] So it's not the facial recognition.
[1:27:58] It's the green bicycle and black shirt recognition.
[1:28:05] Also these cameras are a precursor to our [INAUDIBLE].
[1:28:13] And that's something which is the real time crime information
[1:28:16] center that we just are going to be receiving $750,000 from
[1:28:22] the federal government for to help build.
[1:28:27] And the cameras, although yet it does surveil certain areas
[1:28:34] or things that we have it up on, what they do on the back end,
[1:28:40] not on the back end of the system,
[1:28:41] but on the back end of the product is invaluable.
[1:28:45] One of the most recent-- we've had several cases to that we
[1:28:51] have solved major crimes with.
[1:28:53] A robbery recently.
[1:28:54] But most recently, as he was speaking about the human
[1:29:01] trafficking and stop, we did have a 12-year-old girl who was
[1:29:05] being lured online and left her family, went out.
[1:29:11] The Ring camera picked up a brief car
[1:29:14] that went by at her house.
[1:29:16] It also picked up her going out her front window of her bedroom.
[1:29:20] She went into that car and disappeared.
[1:29:24] No one knew where she went.
[1:29:25] We had a brief thing on the car.
[1:29:29] And we were able to, off of that Ring camera
[1:29:33] video, then take that description,
[1:29:36] put it into our Flock.
[1:29:37] And through our flock be able to pick up
[1:29:41] and realize what type of vehicle it was.
[1:29:44] Then another camera was able to pick up a plate.
[1:29:48] And we were able to backtrack.
[1:29:49] And then as we were getting ready to go to this person's
[1:29:54] house in Stockton that she fled to,
[1:29:56] she actually made it back home.
[1:30:01] And then there was some crimes that
[1:30:05] were alleged that occurred in Stockton with her.
[1:30:08] And so had we not had these Flock cameras that we have,
[1:30:13] had she not returned home, we would
[1:30:15] have been able to go to where we were able to find him
[1:30:18] at in coordination with our Flock, the Flock that's
[1:30:21] in the county, the Flock in Stockton
[1:30:24] and being able to put things together.
[1:30:28] Had she not returned home, I would
[1:30:30] like to think that we would have been able to do it--
[1:30:33] to safely get her out of harm's way.
[1:30:37] We had a robbery a couple of weeks ago at the convenience
[1:30:41] store at Yosemite and airport that a lady was inside the store
[1:30:49] when it was getting robbed.
[1:30:50] She calls.
[1:30:52] The person flees in a white, smaller vehicle.
[1:30:56] That was the description.
[1:30:57] We were able to pick it up on Flock and get a license plate
[1:31:00] and then eventually make an arrest at that person's home.
[1:31:03] And so they are great tools.
[1:31:07] And like with any tool, if they are misused,
[1:31:09] they can be a bad tool.
[1:31:11] And I'll be the first to admit that.
[1:31:13] However, we have safeguards in place at our police department.
[1:31:16] And I think the state of California
[1:31:17] does a pretty good job in having safeguards in place
[1:31:20] with the facial recognition and some of the other things.
[1:31:23] Yeah, we still have to do the old--
[1:31:25] one of the comments the other day
[1:31:27] that this takes away the gumshoe detective,
[1:31:29] but actually, it doesn't gives us
[1:31:31] leads to go and apprehend these suspects that
[1:31:36] are doing these crimes.
[1:31:37] Not all of them are just vandalism or drug use in a park.
[1:31:40] There are violent crimes that occur.
[1:31:43] Even in other cities.
[1:31:44] And in other cities, they can enter that license plate
[1:31:47] in, as it's called, a hot plate.
[1:31:49] Or hey, this person just robbed the AMPM
[1:31:53] at Wilson and the Crosstown.
[1:31:57] And put in that license plate so that if it comes into our town,
[1:32:01] we know.
[1:32:04] I've read things that say, oh, it's mistaken.
[1:32:07] People are being arrested for mistaken license plates or this,
[1:32:11] that, or the other, mistaken identity on the vehicle.
[1:32:18] When a car goes through and it picks up a hit,
[1:32:23] it'll send you a message.
[1:32:25] And it shows you a back picture of the vehicle and the license
[1:32:28] plate.
[1:32:28] And that portion-- and let's say the license plate was 1JTF 123.
[1:32:39] And there's a license plate frame or JT or JIE.
[1:32:44] And the license plate frame cuts it off
[1:32:47] and it shows that it says it's JTF instead of JTI.
[1:32:50] So it picks it up and we get a picture of that vehicle.
[1:32:54] And they'll tell you--
[1:32:55] Stockton, let's say, would say, hey,
[1:32:57] that's a green Toyota that did it.
[1:32:59] When it pops it up because it pictures the car,
[1:33:02] it comes back as, oh, no, that's a white Ford.
[1:33:07] And with this license plate, so you run it.
[1:33:09] Yeah, sure.
[1:33:10] The day is long.
[1:33:11] It comes back to a white Ford.
[1:33:13] And so that car wouldn't be stopped.
[1:33:16] But there are safeguards in place.
[1:33:17] And the human factor is very real in it with us.
[1:33:24] And I believe that they're invaluable to being safe.
[1:33:28] As far as the surveillance state, I've read the book, 1984.
[1:33:32] I was a government major.
[1:33:35] I know who Big Brother is.
[1:33:37] I don't think Orwell in that book was envisioning--
[1:33:45] he was envisioning the surveillance state.
[1:33:48] But we're not so much the surveillance state as people
[1:33:57] put us out to be.
[1:33:59] It's not the-- like I said, it's not the facial recognition.
[1:34:03] It's not the drive-through and it's picking up your IMEI
[1:34:06] on your phone.
[1:34:07] And people think, oh, because my phone's in my car.
[1:34:09] It picks up my phone.
[1:34:10] It knows where I'm at.
[1:34:11] That's not happening.
[1:34:13] It picks up a description of the vehicle, and the license plate.
[1:34:15] It doesn't pick up the person in the car.
[1:34:20] The condors that we'll have up at the other sites
[1:34:25] and the condors that we do have up now
[1:34:27] are targeted at high crime areas.
[1:34:30] We have one that's at a high crime area
[1:34:36] that we've had shootings at some establishments.
[1:34:41] And that's just so that it's reactive.
[1:34:44] And when we get RTCC in, in a few years,
[1:34:47] once our police department gets built,
[1:34:48] and we'll have personnel who will man it,
[1:34:52] not so much 24/7 because the evening or the morning hours
[1:34:55] don't need it as much.
[1:34:56] And so we'll have those people who are able to look at those.
[1:34:59] So to say that these cameras are something
[1:35:04] that is being used to surveil people
[1:35:11] know is to pick up criminal activity.
[1:35:13] And this here is just for condors
[1:35:15] and it's not for the ALPRs.
[1:35:19] Chief, how long have you had cameras in the city?
[1:35:24] Oh, geez.
[1:35:24] We started with a program called Vigilant.
[1:35:26] And it was a license plate reader.
[1:35:29] And Charlie maybe able to help us.
[1:35:32] We got those in '09, right after you left, maybe '10.
[1:35:37] Well, before that, we had a license plate readers
[1:35:39] on our cars.
[1:35:40] Yeah, we had license plate readers on our cars.
[1:35:43] We had Vigilant readers on our cars.
[1:35:44] So we've had them--
[1:35:47] that's before I was in Delta [INAUDIBLE].
[1:35:49] And so that was probably--
[1:35:51] we're looking like 2005, 2006.
[1:35:57] We've had video cameras.
[1:35:59] And the same thing with our body cameras, our body worn cameras.
[1:36:03] There's some misbelief about how these videos are stored.
[1:36:07] They're stored in the cloud.
[1:36:08] They can be accessed.
[1:36:10] All of our videos--
[1:36:11] Axon body worn cameras is the--
[1:36:14] even if you use the View, which got bought by Axon,
[1:36:17] all those are stored in the cloud.
[1:36:19] The proprietary access is to the police department.
[1:36:23] And same thing with Flock.
[1:36:25] It's stored in the cloud, but it's accessed by us.
[1:36:29] And we have agreements that that's accessed by us.
[1:36:34] All right, anybody else have comments.
[1:36:37] Just a brief comment.
[1:36:40] I think we go in every store, every market.
[1:36:43] I have them in my business.
[1:36:45] We have cameras everywhere.
[1:36:47] The only thing you do have to tell people
[1:36:49] is if you're doing audio, you have
[1:36:51] to let them know you're doing audio in your business,
[1:36:54] so that has to be told.
[1:36:56] My daughter is an attorney and she told me a long time ago
[1:36:59] there is no anticipation of privacy
[1:37:01] once you leave your home.
[1:37:03] That is just the way it is.
[1:37:05] Now, the question is who abuses it.
[1:37:07] I think the chief covered that well.
[1:37:09] Abuse is a potential problem, but not a problem in this city.
[1:37:14] I think the Lieutenant made it very clear that we
[1:37:17] have stops in place.
[1:37:20] We've checked.
[1:37:20] We've never had allegations of misuse.
[1:37:23] That is the proof in the pudding.
[1:37:25] Not a few complaints across the country
[1:37:27] or a few misguided officers.
[1:37:29] Bad apples, as I like to call them.
[1:37:31] And does not dictate the entire country.
[1:37:34] And these cities in California is probably especially tough
[1:37:40] on anticipation of privacy, especially
[1:37:43] by police departments and misuse.
[1:37:45] So I'm confident.
[1:37:47] These are specifically-- I think we're only here
[1:37:49] to decide if we want six cameras in high crime areas.
[1:37:53] And I think that's really what we have in front of us.
[1:37:56] All the other information-- although I appreciate.
[1:37:59] And I think we're going to have some type
[1:38:00] of a little briefing on that next month
[1:38:03] or something on Flock.
[1:38:05] I'll be asking that.
[1:38:06] Yeah, so that's going to be coming up.
[1:38:08] But in the meantime, six cameras, high crime areas,
[1:38:11] two of them in my district, I can tell you.
[1:38:13] You mentioned.
[1:38:15] The ones you also mentioned are areas
[1:38:17] that we have a lot of folks sleeping in barbecue areas
[1:38:20] and under coverings at night, burning up barbecues.
[1:38:25] We just reported a bunch of barbecues
[1:38:26] that are burnt up at Lincoln Park, Northgate, Woodward.
[1:38:30] This is not happening during the day, folks.
[1:38:32] This is happening at night.
[1:38:33] And we don't have enough police officers or people
[1:38:35] watching everything.
[1:38:36] So I'm looking forward to these cameras being there.
[1:38:39] I think it's going to help.
[1:38:40] Hopefully, you won't have any more problems.
[1:38:42] Maybe it'll be enough to deter people.
[1:38:44] But in the meantime, I'm in favor of it.
[1:38:47] And I like the way the program is set up
[1:38:48] as it is, especially to watch private property, vandalism,
[1:38:52] and crime.
[1:38:53] Thank you.
[1:38:54] Yeah, I agree.
[1:38:56] It doesn't matter how many officers we have.
[1:38:59] We never can be everywhere, every place.
[1:39:02] And these extra eyes help our officers, do their job better.
[1:39:08] And end of the day, I think they have helped tremendously
[1:39:12] in certain places.
[1:39:14] And the locations you mentioned are all been issues.
[1:39:18] And I think it will actually help
[1:39:20] people feel safer in the parks because they
[1:39:24] know that criminal activity is being watched.
[1:39:28] Eventually, like Chief said, with the Real Time Crime Center,
[1:39:32] this is vital to continue that going.
[1:39:36] I also feel that we do need to give some flexibility to-- we're
[1:39:41] not here to do the Chief's job and give him flexibility
[1:39:46] and the city manager to work together
[1:39:48] to move them around or also add another one depending on if they
[1:39:54] get other hot spots in the community,
[1:39:57] as long as we are told about them at the same time.
[1:40:00] So I think I'm good with the way it is also.
[1:40:03] And I think these need to happen.
[1:40:08] And I do feel that it has deterred a lot of crime,
[1:40:11] has solved a lot of crimes too.
[1:40:13] And something I will ask during my council comments
[1:40:17] tonight to give a thorough report on this
[1:40:20] into our next meeting.
[1:40:21] But for now, at least, let's look at C.15
[1:40:24] and see if we have consensus to move this forward.
[1:40:27] Motion for approval.
[1:40:28] Second
[1:40:30] OK, I have a motion from Council Member Morowit and a second
[1:40:33] from Council Member Breitenbucher.
[1:40:35] All in favor, say aye.
[1:40:37] Aye.
[1:40:38] And I had a comment or two.
[1:40:44] You gotta tell me.
[1:40:45] You gotta yell at me.
[1:40:47] You need to look this way.
[1:40:53] I'm very supportive of the cameras for a number of reasons,
[1:40:57] from both the prevention point of view
[1:40:58] and investigative point of view.
[1:41:00] The other reality of it is if we become
[1:41:02] known as not having cameras, guess who's coming to town?
[1:41:06] It'll be the people that we want on camera.
[1:41:10] The benefits of the cameras far outweigh any negative.
[1:41:14] And so I'm very supportive, both of the ALPR and the security
[1:41:20] cameras.
[1:41:21] They're a huge benefit.
[1:41:22] I mean, even to the point of if they
[1:41:23] get the call of an armed robbery at Wells Fargo,
[1:41:25] they can slave whatever cameras are in the neighborhood,
[1:41:28] in the area to look over and to see
[1:41:30] what is happening before the responding officers even get--
[1:41:35] with the Real Time Crime Center gets here.
[1:41:41] That's what that group would be tasked with because it's
[1:41:44] a little much to ask dispatch that they may or may not
[1:41:47] have time to do it right now.
[1:41:49] Tremendous benefit to the community, the safety.
[1:41:51] And I'm fully supporting.
[1:41:54] That's why I voted yes.
[1:41:56] Yeah, with the community, I think
[1:41:57] also it's a big win for our business owners
[1:42:00] and also encouraging more businesses
[1:42:02] to feel safe with retail crime in the city
[1:42:06] because we have these.
[1:42:07] And we've solved a lot of those cases too.
[1:42:10] Vice Mayor.
[1:42:12] I just want to be clear that I am support in support of our PD.
[1:42:18] And I do recognize the benefit of these cameras.
[1:42:22] And what I don't agree with on this particular item
[1:42:28] is the council giving the future ability
[1:42:34] to decide on whether or not procuring more Flock cameras
[1:42:38] is in the best interest of the community.
[1:42:42] Just as we have with this, we are given a recommendation.
[1:42:47] We are given all the information.
[1:42:49] And what this is stating is that the council,
[1:42:53] for future additional Flock Condor cameras,
[1:42:56] they just want to be known if they're going up.
[1:42:58] And I don't think that I can vote for that particular piece
[1:43:04] of this.
[1:43:04] Like I said, I recognize the benefit of these cameras.
[1:43:08] I do.
[1:43:10] And I said in the very beginning,
[1:43:11] I was playing devil's advocate.
[1:43:13] Our job is to speak for our constituents, for our people.
[1:43:17] And it has been a hot topic.
[1:43:20] But I truly believe that procuring additional condor
[1:43:25] cameras needs to be a council decision, which
[1:43:28] is why-- that is the reason why I'm voting no on this.
[1:43:31] OK, so it looks like we were in the middle of the motion,
[1:43:35] but I think it got done.
[1:43:38] Yeah, I think the vote occurred.
[1:43:39] You got that, Cass?
[1:43:42] Yeah, 4 yeses and 1 no.
[1:43:44] Yes.
[1:43:46] OK, with that, I think-- is that all the consent
[1:43:49] items that were pulled?
[1:43:51] It's all I have.
[1:43:52] OK, with that, I'm going to go ahead and do a 10-minute break.
[1:44:05] All right, we are back from break,
[1:44:06] and we have made it to public hearings.
[1:44:10] D1, conduct a public hearing and adopt
[1:44:13] a resolution approving the Manteca Transit Fixed-Route,
[1:44:17] redesign network, and authorizing implementation
[1:44:20] of the proposed redesign Fixed-Route network,
[1:44:23] effective October 1, 2026.
[1:44:26] Mayor and council, tonight we have transit manager,
[1:44:28] Juan Portillo.
[1:44:29] All right, transit my other favorite.
[1:44:37] Can you turn that microphone on?
[1:44:40] Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, city council members.
[1:44:43] Juan Portillo, transit manager with the Transit Division.
[1:44:47] This item is a public hearing to receive community input
[1:44:51] on the proposed Fixed-Route redesign network
[1:44:54] and adopt a resolution approving the network
[1:44:56] and authorize staff to implement the redesign.
[1:45:00] Effective October 1, 2026.
[1:45:04] The Transit Division began a comprehensive evaluation
[1:45:07] of the city's fixed-route transit system
[1:45:08] in the fall of 2025.
[1:45:11] The evaluation was initiated in response
[1:45:14] to continued residential and community growth,
[1:45:19] changing travel patterns, and evolving transportation needs
[1:45:23] of the community.
[1:45:25] The city retained Fehr & Peers consultants
[1:45:28] to evaluate the existing transit service,
[1:45:31] analyzing ridership and travel patterns,
[1:45:33] and identifying service gaps and opportunities,
[1:45:37] and to develop the recommended network.
[1:45:40] The proposed network would replace the existing four
[1:45:43] fixed-route service with five new routes.
[1:45:47] Routes 2, 4 and 5 would operate Monday through Saturday,
[1:45:50] while routes 1 and 3 would operate Monday through Friday.
[1:45:55] Weekday service will begin at 5:30 AM.
[1:45:58] Route 1, 3 would operate until 8:00 PM, while routes 2, and 4,
[1:46:03] and 5 would operate until 9:00 PM.
[1:46:06] Saturday service on routes 2, and 4,
[1:46:08] and 5 would operate from 8:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
[1:46:12] The proposed routes are intended to provide a simpler and more
[1:46:16] direct transit network.
[1:46:17] Paired routes would improve the two way travel
[1:46:20] on major corridors including Main Street, Union Road,
[1:46:23] Yosemite Avenue, and Louise Avenue,
[1:46:28] without requiring passengers to ride
[1:46:29] an entire loop to reach their destinations
[1:46:31] in opposite direction.
[1:46:34] Public participation was an important part
[1:46:36] of the design process.
[1:46:38] Outreach included four in-person workshops
[1:46:40] at the Manteca Transit Center.
[1:46:43] One was on January 29 and the other was May 11, 2026.
[1:46:48] We also had a virtual workshop on June 3, 2026.
[1:46:51] We had onboard and online surveys.
[1:46:54] And we did some outreach at the Manteca Senior Center
[1:46:56] and Eskaton Senior Living.
[1:46:59] And we participated in several community events.
[1:47:03] The outreach materials that was provided and surveys
[1:47:05] were also provided in Spanish.
[1:47:08] And the project consultant presented the proposed service
[1:47:11] concept to city council on June 16, 2026.
[1:47:16] And notice of tonight's public hearing
[1:47:17] was published in the Manteca Bulletin on July 10, 2026,
[1:47:22] at least 30 days before the hearing.
[1:47:25] I am available for any questions and invite
[1:47:27] the Mayor Singh to open the public hearing process.
[1:47:30] Thank you.
[1:47:32] All right, we will go ahead and open the public hearing at 8:15.
[1:47:44] Do we have any public comments on Zoom?
[1:47:52] I have attendees, but no hands raised for public comment
[1:47:55] on item D1.
[1:47:57] Any comment cards?
[1:48:01] I have no comment cards.
[1:48:03] Anybody in the public who would like to speak on item D1?
[1:48:08] I have a question.
[1:48:10] And I'm just wondering if this 5 o'clock in the morning
[1:48:15] start, it will have better service, maybe over to Lathrop,
[1:48:20] so we can catch the early morning ACE train?
[1:48:26] I think what they're asking is, Juan,
[1:48:29] is connection to the ACE station.
[1:48:31] Yes, correct.
[1:48:32] That's a great question.
[1:48:33] And because we're starting out at 5:30,
[1:48:35] we're able to add one early morning shuttle to the ACE
[1:48:39] train.
[1:48:40] So yes, we're going to provide one more.
[1:48:44] Looks like somebody's happy.
[1:48:48] All right, [INAUDIBLE] come on up, sir.
[1:48:54] So I appreciate city for extending the route
[1:49:00] to the neighborhood so that Sierra High School
[1:49:03] kids who were denied the bus service were able to use.
[1:49:08] But it's on the morning route only.
[1:49:11] But the evening route will take more than an hour to reach.
[1:49:16] Will the new change of routes will operate in both directions
[1:49:21] so that it will save time for the kids?
[1:49:23] Thank you.
[1:49:25] Juan, come on up.
[1:49:28] I believe the school that he's mentioned is Sierra high school.
[1:49:31] OK, perfect.
[1:49:32] So Sierra high school is--
[1:49:35] and Manteca High is one of the lucky schools
[1:49:37] because we're going to have four fixed routes in the PM
[1:49:40] to get them home.
[1:49:42] Currently, the students at Sierra High School
[1:49:44] are really taking advantage of the transportation system.
[1:49:47] Currently, they get picked up and they're
[1:49:49] taken to the Transit Center.
[1:49:50] And they can jump on different routes to get to their homes.
[1:49:54] The only reason why we did it in the morning
[1:49:56] was some communities there was a gap.
[1:50:01] A couple of south side communities
[1:50:04] didn't have the service.
[1:50:06] So what we did is we heard from the residents.
[1:50:09] And we had a tripper that gets them
[1:50:11] from this location like Crom up north
[1:50:14] and then straight to Sierra High School.
[1:50:16] But on the return, Sierra has many routes
[1:50:19] that will pick them up.
[1:50:20] They can go to the Transit Center.
[1:50:22] And then from there, they can take whichever route.
[1:50:24] There is a future route 6 that could
[1:50:27] be added that will do what the gentleman here is asking, is
[1:50:31] to pick up from Sierra and then go straight
[1:50:33] to the south side of Manteca.
[1:50:36] But there is other routes that do go south.
[1:50:39] It just doesn't go all the way south to,
[1:50:41] for example, Griffith Park or Woodward park.
[1:50:45] And I appreciate the route 5 and also appreciate
[1:50:49] the separate Sierra High School tripper.
[1:50:53] Anybody else in the public want to speak on this item?
[1:51:01] OK, seeing none, I'll go ahead and bring it back to council.
[1:51:05] I will go ahead and close the public hearing at 8:18.
[1:51:14] OK, council.
[1:51:15] Council Member, Halford.
[1:51:19] Sounds like a good plan.
[1:51:23] Vice Mayor.
[1:51:26] Thank you for all the work that you've put into this.
[1:51:28] I know it's been a long few months
[1:51:31] of making sure all this information gets out there.
[1:51:33] And I do appreciate the new route.
[1:51:39] Council Member Breitenbucher.
[1:51:41] Juan, thank you for listening to the citizens and their input
[1:51:45] and implementing into the route.
[1:51:47] So thank you again.
[1:51:48] Welcome.
[1:51:50] Council Member Morowit.
[1:51:52] I appreciate it.
[1:51:53] I think now we have a much more robust transportation
[1:51:56] in Manteca.
[1:51:57] Before people would complain.
[1:51:59] And now we have kids going to schools.
[1:52:01] We have more seniors involved.
[1:52:03] People can get from one place to the other.
[1:52:05] It used to be like an hour, hour and a half
[1:52:07] sometimes to wait if you missed the bus.
[1:52:09] So it's now becoming more with the Bay Area envision,
[1:52:11] where we envision what the Bay Area transit has done,
[1:52:14] so thank you.
[1:52:18] Yeah, I'd like to say thank you, Juan.
[1:52:20] Thank you for listening.
[1:52:22] Thank you for also getting out there in the public
[1:52:24] and sharing a lot of this information.
[1:52:25] We saw you at multiple events and community events.
[1:52:29] And also understanding some of the limitations
[1:52:33] when it comes to school district, and the bus service,
[1:52:35] and making sure we're also helping and doing our part
[1:52:38] in giving them access to the school.
[1:52:42] And especially the south side of the community,
[1:52:45] where some of the bus service is not available.
[1:52:48] I'm really liking the extra services.
[1:52:52] And then also a lot of the south that are taking the ACE train.
[1:52:56] So I like the ACE shuttle service also
[1:52:59] that can transfer and switch over once ACE is done.
[1:53:02] So this is great.
[1:53:04] And I think we're truly becoming transit
[1:53:08] oriented from where we started.
[1:53:10] We've come a long way.
[1:53:11] And I feel we're going to have that route 6 probably
[1:53:16] going to be coming soon in the horizon too.
[1:53:19] So thank you for all your work.
[1:53:20] And with that, I'll go ahead and entertain a motion.
[1:53:23] Second.
[1:53:24] OK, I have a motion from Vice Mayor Lackey,
[1:53:26] second from Council Member Breitenbucher
[1:53:29] to adopt a resolution approving the Manteca Transit Fixed-Route
[1:53:32] redesign network and authorizing the implementation
[1:53:35] of the proposed redesigned fixed route network.
[1:53:38] Effective October 1, 2026.
[1:53:41] All in favor, say aye.
[1:53:42] Aye.
[1:53:43] Opposed?
[1:53:43] Motion carries 5-0.
[1:53:45] Thank you.
[1:53:46] Thank you, Juan.
[1:53:48] D2, to conduct a public hearing and consider an addendum
[1:53:52] to the City of Manteca General Plan Update EIR prepared
[1:53:57] for the batch GPA sites 1 through 4,
[1:54:01] project pursuant to sections 15162
[1:54:05] and 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act
[1:54:10] guidelines, adopt a resolution approving General Plan
[1:54:14] Amendment, amending the land use designation of the project
[1:54:18] parcels identified in sites 1 through 4 project
[1:54:24] and waive the first reading by substitution of the title
[1:54:27] and introduce an ordinance of the City
[1:54:29] Council of the City of Manteca, State of California,
[1:54:32] amending the zoning map set forth in Section 17.20.040
[1:54:39] of chapter 17.20 of Title 17 of the Manteca Municipal Code
[1:54:45] by rezoning the project parcels identified in sites 1 through 4
[1:54:49] project.
[1:54:50] Mayor and council, tonight we have a associate planner, Sol.
[1:54:57] Good evening, Mayor and members of the city council.
[1:54:59] My name is Sol Jobrack, associate planner
[1:55:01] in development services.
[1:55:03] The resolution is-- it was a mouthful.
[1:55:04] I'm going to try to keep this item quicker for you all
[1:55:08] to enjoy.
[1:55:09] So this is a city initiated general plan amendment
[1:55:12] and zoning map amendment involving four sites located
[1:55:15] throughout the city.
[1:55:17] The four sites total approximately 32.91 acres.
[1:55:21] And the proposed amendments update the general plan
[1:55:23] and zoning designations for these properties.
[1:55:26] No specific developments are being approved tonight.
[1:55:29] The planning commission did approve this item 5 to 0
[1:55:34] on June 18.
[1:55:37] The amendments are intended to maintain consistency
[1:55:42] between the general plan and zoning maps,
[1:55:44] support future public infrastructure planning,
[1:55:47] and provide additional housing opportunities for the community.
[1:55:52] This slide here is proposing--
[1:55:54] it compares the existing and the proposed general plan
[1:55:56] designations.
[1:55:57] As you can see, site 1 adds a commercial area
[1:56:00] along East Bronson Road.
[1:56:02] Site 2 adjusts boundaries between a high density
[1:56:05] residential and a public quasi public area.
[1:56:08] Site 3 changes the northern portion
[1:56:10] from commercial to public quasi public.
[1:56:13] And site 4, while it's correct in the attachments tonight,
[1:56:18] this does show that the PQP.
[1:56:20] That is not the case.
[1:56:21] It is staying and remaining as commercial.
[1:56:23] The only change we're proposing is the medium density
[1:56:26] residential along the eastern portion of that property.
[1:56:30] The proposed zoning map amendments,
[1:56:33] are intended to correspond with the proposed general
[1:56:35] plan amendments.
[1:56:36] A very identifying or identical to the general plan
[1:56:40] designations.
[1:56:42] Staff finds that the amendments are consistent with the 2043
[1:56:46] general plan.
[1:56:48] These changes support orderly growth, additional housing
[1:56:50] opportunities, public facility planning,
[1:56:54] and a balanced mix of land uses throughout the city.
[1:56:58] An addendum to the general plan EIR was prepared.
[1:57:02] And staff determined that no subsequent or supplemental ER
[1:57:06] is required.
[1:57:07] Staff recommends that the city council consider the addendum,
[1:57:11] approve the general plan amendment
[1:57:12] and approve the zoning map amendment.
[1:57:16] That concludes staff's presentation.
[1:57:17] We're happy to answer any questions if you have any.
[1:57:19] Thank you.
[1:57:21] Thank you, Sol.
[1:57:24] OK, we'll go ahead-- and is there any questions from council
[1:57:27] before I open up the public hearing?
[1:57:30] OK, we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing at 8:25.
[1:57:37] Any questions or comments on Zoom?
[1:57:46] I have attendees, but no hands raised for public comment
[1:57:49] on item D2.
[1:57:51] OK.
[1:57:52] Comment cards?
[1:57:53] I have two comment cards.
[1:57:55] The first one is [INAUDIBLE].
[1:58:03] Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, council members,
[1:58:06] and the members of the public.
[1:58:08] My name is [INAUDIBLE], and I am a resident concerned about
[1:58:10] the proposed general plan amendment GPA 26-0052 and its
[1:58:16] impact on the site for proposed [INAUDIBLE] school.
[1:58:19] I want to bring attention to the city's existing general plan
[1:58:22] that has clear policies that require cooperation
[1:58:25] with this school district to protect school sites, which
[1:58:29] is the foundation for my opposition.
[1:58:31] I'm here to clarify that any amendment that
[1:58:33] fails to protect the school site or allows
[1:58:36] incompatible development on its land
[1:58:38] directly contradicts these existing policies.
[1:58:42] This land is intended to serve a public purpose, specifically
[1:58:45] as a future school site, as our community continues to grow.
[1:58:49] The need for educational facilities
[1:58:52] becomes increasingly important.
[1:58:54] Once land designated for public use
[1:58:56] is converted to residential or commercial development,
[1:58:59] it becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible,
[1:59:01] to recover suitable land for future school construction.
[1:59:05] My concern is not only the loss of the school site itself,
[1:59:08] but also the long term impact of residential development
[1:59:11] adjacent to the future school.
[1:59:13] Residential projects can create constraints on future school
[1:59:16] operations, including traffic circulation challenges, parking
[1:59:19] conflicts, noise complaints, student safety concerns,
[1:59:23] and limitations on future school expansion.
[1:59:26] These issues can complicate and potentially
[1:59:28] jeopardize the successful development of a school
[1:59:31] that our community may urgently need in the near future.
[1:59:35] Furthermore, approving rezoning the site
[1:59:37] may provide a short-term solution
[1:59:39] for housing or commercial needs while sacrificing
[1:59:41] a long-term community assets.
[1:59:44] Schools are critical public infrastructure that
[1:59:46] serves generations of families.
[1:59:50] We should be planning not only for today's need,
[1:59:52] but also for the needs for our children and future residents.
[1:59:56] I therefore demand the city commit
[1:59:58] in writing to upholding its policies, specifically
[2:00:01] policy PF-13 and PF P-32 by rejecting
[2:00:04] any land use changes that would jeopardize the school site.
[2:00:08] I respectfully ask the decision makers
[2:00:10] to consider the lasting value of preserving
[2:00:12] this land for public use and educational purposes.
[2:00:16] Before approving any zoning conversion,
[2:00:18] the city should conduct a thorough evaluation
[2:00:21] of future school needs, population growth projections,
[2:00:25] and alternative sites that could serve
[2:00:26] the public interest without eliminating a potential school
[2:00:30] location.
[2:00:31] Once the land is converted and developed,
[2:00:34] the opportunity to use it for a school may be lost forever.
[2:00:38] For that reason, I urge you to reject the proposed zoning
[2:00:41] amendment and preserve the site for its intended public purpose.
[2:00:45] In the end, I would like to reiterate
[2:00:47] that I oppose any amendment that does not explicitly
[2:00:49] protect the school from incompatible adjacent
[2:00:52] and on its land uses or reduce land availability.
[2:00:55] Thank you for your time and cooperation
[2:00:57] and thanks for the opportunity to speak up.
[2:01:00] Thank you.
[2:01:03] Next comment card.
[2:01:04] The last card I have is [INAUDIBLE].
[2:01:11] Good evening, council, fellow residents.
[2:01:18] This is regarding the site 2 and site 1.
[2:01:22] So both are interrelated.
[2:01:25] And while we appreciate the increase for 2 acre
[2:01:31] land for the fire station, the decrease
[2:01:34] of school site of 0.82 acre from PQP to HDR should be denied.
[2:01:45] And if city wants to use it for future use, public use,
[2:01:49] that's better for public use.
[2:01:52] And if it is unable to use for public use,
[2:01:55] it should be returned to MUSD.
[2:01:58] I'm not sure when 2 by 2 meetings with MUSD
[2:02:03] happens for the growth.
[2:02:06] When school district says it's a surplus land
[2:02:11] or it's not a building that is space allocated to that 1 acre.
[2:02:20] Why did the city not stand with public
[2:02:23] and ask, what about the future projection?
[2:02:27] So what about the future expansion.
[2:02:29] The three schools that were proposed,
[2:02:32] the Lathrop had a future building and a future bus drop
[2:02:38] off planning.
[2:02:39] Why did not city have requested for an adequate land
[2:02:45] to be allocated.
[2:02:47] Instead, it is being given to a high density residential.
[2:02:53] Also, there is no truth in loss of 1
[2:02:57] acre for the private developer.
[2:02:59] The site 1, which the city owns as an R1 zoning
[2:03:06] is being converted to commercial zone
[2:03:08] and given to the same private developer.
[2:03:12] The cost of the site 2 or a residential land is
[2:03:17] approximately 200k to 300k.
[2:03:20] So for the 1.82 acre that the private developer is giving,
[2:03:27] it costs around 400k, but the site he is receiving on the 0.94
[2:03:34] on the freeway exit being converted to commercial is close
[2:03:38] to a million.
[2:03:39] That means he has a profit of more than 500k profit.
[2:03:45] City could have requested more land
[2:03:47] for the exchange instead of reducing the school
[2:03:50] site from PQP to HDR.
[2:03:54] They could have asked 2 more acres
[2:03:57] to compensate the equal value so that we
[2:04:00] have enough public facilities.
[2:04:03] Thank you.
[2:04:04] And in that facility, there could
[2:04:06] have been a community [INAUDIBLE] program that
[2:04:11] can be distributed across four corners, which
[2:04:15] would be of a good public use.
[2:04:17] Thank you.
[2:04:21] That's all the cards.
[2:04:23] Anybody else in the public would like to speak on item D.2?
[2:04:33] OK, seeing none, I will go ahead and close the public hearing
[2:04:36] at 8:32.
[2:04:44] I have a question.
[2:04:48] Has the school, MUSD, ever approached
[2:04:51] the city regarding the site that they needed more space, they
[2:04:56] didn't want to do this change or anything from the school
[2:05:01] district that they need more space for their school?
[2:05:05] I can defer to the director on that question.
[2:05:09] I can unequivocally say, though, the school district has not
[2:05:12] made any comment about the loss of the 1 acre
[2:05:16] and how it might impact their school site.
[2:05:18] In fact, I can say that, in conversations with them,
[2:05:22] it does not jeopardize the number of students, the design
[2:05:24] of the school at all.
[2:05:27] And that's why when we went to the settlement negotiations,
[2:05:30] they were willing to transfer that 1 acre of land to the city,
[2:05:34] so that we do--
[2:05:36] are able to acquire the 2 acres to build the fire station.
[2:05:40] And they agree with this general plan amendment?
[2:05:43] We have been in communication as part of this.
[2:05:46] They're aware.
[2:05:47] They are also taking the 1 acre donation to the state,
[2:05:51] September 9th and 10th for their meeting,
[2:05:53] as part of this donation to the city.
[2:05:55] They're aware of the change, both to the HDR piece, as well
[2:05:59] as the PQP fire station site.
[2:06:01] They've been involved in the conversation for some time.
[2:06:04] Yeah.
[2:06:06] Do you know if there's going to be a bus stop over there?
[2:06:10] I am unaware if there will be a bus stop
[2:06:13] or where it would be located.
[2:06:14] I have not gotten into that conversation with the school
[2:06:17] district.
[2:06:23] All right, Council Member Morowit.
[2:06:29] So basically, this is because we're not using the school site
[2:06:33] and we're converting it back, is that basically the reason?
[2:06:37] Well, thank you, Council Member.
[2:06:39] So actually with these items, we don't consider uses.
[2:06:41] So uses are a separate issue, completely separate discussion.
[2:06:44] What we're trying to do is align things
[2:06:46] with what potential uses could be.
[2:06:49] So under PQP, it could be a list of them.
[2:06:51] It just so happens that there's this stuff going
[2:06:54] on in the background that's related.
[2:06:57] But who knows?
[2:06:58] The fire station could evaporate tomorrow.
[2:07:00] And it's all PQP and could be used for a school.
[2:07:02] We don't know.
[2:07:03] We try to align it to be able to accommodate this project
[2:07:06] or any future project.
[2:07:08] For government use, basically.
[2:07:10] For public use.
[2:07:11] Public use, I mean, which is-- so not just for homes,
[2:07:14] it's for public use.
[2:07:15] It's actually an increase in that public use acreage
[2:07:19] and a decrease in residential acreage.
[2:07:21] That's the purpose of this?
[2:07:22] And this is, like you say, to make sure it balances.
[2:07:27] General plans are not just-- they're just a road map.
[2:07:30] They're an overlay.
[2:07:31] It doesn't mean it happens, but we prepare for it
[2:07:34] so that if it does, they don't have
[2:07:35] to go through the long process of changing it
[2:07:37] again so that people know.
[2:07:39] So developers, and schools, and public entities
[2:07:42] know that if they use this land, it's
[2:07:44] already set up for, in this case, maybe for public use.
[2:07:48] We don't know what dictates public use yet.
[2:07:50] And honestly, we want to make sure these lines are
[2:07:53] appropriate to what is envisioned.
[2:07:55] If they're not, we could likely end up
[2:07:56] with a use that's on a zoning designation that
[2:07:58] isn't consistent.
[2:07:59] And we've created a bigger problem.
[2:08:02] So it's a better road map for the city in the future.
[2:08:08] I appreciate that.
[2:08:08] Thank you.
[2:08:09] Thank you.
[2:08:11] All right, thank you, Council Member Breitenbucher.
[2:08:17] So Brad, there was a thing that was sent to us.
[2:08:20] And it had the goals that was listed.
[2:08:25] And so I looked it up, the general plan, right?
[2:08:29] And it talks about the corps division of labor,
[2:08:33] MUSD's responsibility is an independent governmental agency
[2:08:37] solely responsible for funding, designing, constructing,
[2:08:41] and operation all public school facilities.
[2:08:43] City of Manteca does not build schools.
[2:08:46] Instead, its role is defined in land use planning, zoning,
[2:08:48] and coordination to ensure there is space for the schools
[2:08:51] as a community grows.
[2:08:53] That's the process we're doing today.
[2:08:55] Correct?
[2:08:56] That is part of the process.
[2:08:57] We are planning.
[2:08:58] I will note that the city development services and staff
[2:09:01] do have quarterly meetings with the school district
[2:09:03] in collaboration on these topics.
[2:09:05] So we are meeting to identify, not only
[2:09:08] the issues with this site and how
[2:09:10] we can move forward, but also others as well.
[2:09:12] And then on the goals, the land allocation goal, LU-7, city
[2:09:16] ensures that enough land is zoned for public and quasi
[2:09:19] public use, preventing residential growth from entirely
[2:09:22] crowding out space needed for future schools and parks.
[2:09:25] We've met that goal.
[2:09:27] Yes, we have.
[2:09:27] And two of the proposed general plan amendments
[2:09:29] go further in terms of adding additional public quasi public
[2:09:33] or public use acreage within the city.
[2:09:36] And the next one is growth coordination.
[2:09:38] The city shares its population housing growth forecast
[2:09:41] with MUSD, so the district can accurately
[2:09:43] predict future student enrollment
[2:09:45] and plan where to buy land for new campuses.
[2:09:47] And we do that too, right?
[2:09:48] Yes, we provide them data, if not quarterly,
[2:09:51] more often as they request it so they
[2:09:52] can project those student numbers.
[2:09:55] And then neighborhood design goals CD 4.7.
[2:09:58] The city designs urban master plan
[2:10:00] so that new neighborhoods are built with central hubs,
[2:10:03] ideally placing elementary schools
[2:10:05] or parks within a safe half mile walking
[2:10:07] distance for local families.
[2:10:09] And we have been working on that in our general plan.
[2:10:11] Correct, the 2024 general plan update
[2:10:13] has several of those central core areas,
[2:10:16] whether it's HDR, high density residential commercial.
[2:10:19] PQP, they're built within that central core to that goal, yes.
[2:10:24] OK, thank you.
[2:10:26] All right, Vice Mayor.
[2:10:32] Council Member Breitenbucher, you
[2:10:34] did a really good job asking all my questions.
[2:10:36] Thank you.
[2:10:37] Welcome.
[2:10:40] Council Member, Halford.
[2:10:44] Pretty much, ditto.
[2:10:45] They've covered it all.
[2:10:50] It all make sense.
[2:10:53] Obviously, there's some disagreement
[2:10:55] on what some people feel on the PQP and the [INAUDIBLE] the HDR.
[2:11:02] The net gain of PQP, fire station is very much needed.
[2:11:08] And district is happy with [INAUDIBLE] that they have,
[2:11:12] in addition to the other school sites,
[2:11:14] are available in the southwest portion of town.
[2:11:22] The section that has been quoted,
[2:11:25] the operative word in there is or, that it's
[2:11:29] a park, a school, or a commercial use area that's
[2:11:33] within a half a mile.
[2:11:35] And I would believe that I'm not aware of any subdivisions that
[2:11:43] have been built that don't have a park within a half a mile
[2:11:46] walking.
[2:11:49] I mean, I stand to be corrected if there are any,
[2:11:52] but I'm not aware of it.
[2:11:53] So I'm supportive.
[2:11:55] Thank you.
[2:11:57] Thank you.
[2:11:59] Maybe one more question regarding schools.
[2:12:03] Are we the one that decides how big or large
[2:12:06] a school site should be or is that a school district?
[2:12:10] That's a school district decision.
[2:12:12] However, we do work with them to identify
[2:12:14] sites that would potentially be large enough as we go through,
[2:12:16] not only the general plan update, a few years ago,
[2:12:19] but also as we move forward with future annexation potential
[2:12:22] sites.
[2:12:23] So the school district tells us how much
[2:12:25] land they potentially would need and to make
[2:12:28] sure the general plan is zoned.
[2:12:30] Correct?
[2:12:31] Correct.
[2:12:36] All right, if there's no any other questions,
[2:12:38] I'll entertain a motion.
[2:12:39] So moved.
[2:12:40] Second
[2:12:41] OK, I have a motion from Council Member Breitenbucher.
[2:12:44] Second from Council Member Halford to adopt a resolution
[2:12:47] approving general plan amendment amending the land use
[2:12:49] designation of the project parcels identified in sites 1
[2:12:53] through 4 project and waive the first reading by substitution
[2:12:57] of the title and introduce an ordinance of the city council
[2:13:00] and the City of Manteca, State of California,
[2:13:02] amending the zoning map set forth in Section 17.20.040
[2:13:08] of chapter 17.20 of Title 17 of the Manteca Municipal Code
[2:13:13] by rezoning the project parcels identified in sites 1 through 4
[2:13:17] project rezone.
[2:13:18] All in favor say aye.
[2:13:19] Aye.
[2:13:20] Opposed?
[2:13:21] Motion carries 5-0.
[2:13:23] That takes us to D.3.
[2:13:26] Conduct a public hearing for the Yosemite mixed use conversion
[2:13:29] batch GPA site five project and adopt a resolution
[2:13:33] making the necessary findings to adopt an initial study mitigated
[2:13:37] negative declaration and its associated mitigation,
[2:13:42] monitoring and reporting program prepared for the project,
[2:13:45] adopt a resolution approving a general plan amendment,
[2:13:50] redesignating the project parcel identified in the batch GPA site
[2:13:55] 5 project, and waive the first reading by substitution
[2:13:58] of the title, and introduce an ordinance of the city
[2:14:01] council of the City of Manteca,
[2:14:03] State of California amending the zoning map set forth in Section
[2:14:08] 17.20.040 of chapter 17.20 of Title 17 of the Manteca
[2:14:16] Municipal Code by rezoning the batch GPA site 5 parcels from
[2:14:23] public quasi public planned development, light industrial,
[2:14:28] and limited multiple family dwelling to the mixed use
[2:14:33] commercial zoning district.
[2:14:35] Again, we have associate planner, Sol.
[2:14:40] Mayor and members of the city council, Sol Jobrack, again,
[2:14:43] speaking on this item.
[2:14:45] The item before you is the Yosemite mixed use conversion
[2:14:48] project.
[2:14:49] We've also identified it as batch general
[2:14:51] plan amendment site 5.
[2:14:55] This is a city initiated Amendment involving
[2:14:57] approximately 22.95 acres located Southwest of Yosemite
[2:15:03] and South Airport Way.
[2:15:05] The project area consists of 10 parcels identified
[2:15:07] on the slide is intended to establish
[2:15:10] consistent general plan and zoning designations
[2:15:12] throughout the project area.
[2:15:14] The planning commission did consider this item at its June
[2:15:17] 18th meeting and recommended approval 5-0.
[2:15:22] The amendment is being proposed to resolve the existing
[2:15:25] inconsistencies between the general plan and zoning maps
[2:15:28] and establish a unified commercial mixed use land
[2:15:31] use pattern.
[2:15:33] The commercial mixed use designation
[2:15:34] would support future residential and commercial development
[2:15:37] opportunities and encourage infill development
[2:15:40] within the existing urbanized area.
[2:15:43] The amendment also advances the general plan's housing
[2:15:46] and economic development goals by creating greater flexibility
[2:15:50] for future development of these areas.
[2:15:54] This slide compares the existing and proposed general plan
[2:15:56] amendments.
[2:15:58] The approximate 23 acre project site area currently
[2:16:02] contains several general plan designations and the cleanup
[2:16:05] proposed general plan amendment would
[2:16:07] designate the entire project as commercial mixed use.
[2:16:10] This would create one consistent land use designation
[2:16:14] across all parcels.
[2:16:17] This here is the zoning map amendment.
[2:16:19] It compares the existing and proposed zoning designations.
[2:16:23] This is to correspond with the proposed general plan
[2:16:26] designations from the previous slide.
[2:16:29] Staff did evaluate the proposed amendments for consistency
[2:16:33] with the 2043 general plan and found that the proposed
[2:16:36] amendments are in the public's interest
[2:16:38] and consistent with the general plan.
[2:16:42] Staff recommends that the city council conduct a public hearing
[2:16:45] and take the following actions.
[2:16:47] First, we ask that you adopt the initial study,
[2:16:49] and mitigated negative declaration,
[2:16:51] and the associated mitigation, monitoring and reporting
[2:16:54] program.
[2:16:54] Second, we ask that you approve the general plan amendment,
[2:16:57] GPA 26-0039.
[2:16:59] And finally, third, we ask that you approve the zoning map
[2:17:02] amendment rezone application 26-0039.
[2:17:06] This concludes staff's presentation.
[2:17:08] We're happy to answer any questions if you have any.
[2:17:10] All right, thank you for that.
[2:17:13] Any questions or comments from council
[2:17:15] before I open a public hearing?
[2:17:19] OK, we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing at 8:44.
[2:17:25] Any questions on Zoom?
[2:17:35] I have attendees, but no hands raised for public comment
[2:17:37] for item D.3.
[2:17:39] Any comment cards?
[2:17:41] I have no comment.
[2:17:42] Anybody in the public would like to speak on item D.3?
[2:17:51] OK, seeing none, we'll go ahead and bring it back.
[2:17:54] Closing public hearing at 8:45.
[2:18:00] All right, question on this one, I guess, I have real quick is,
[2:18:07] you have some zoning that changed from PQP to CMU?
[2:18:14] Mayor, thank you for bringing that up.
[2:18:16] Assistant city manager Jorgensen just
[2:18:17] mentioned that we do show two parcels, 24130067 and 24130071.
[2:18:25] one under the ownership of SSJID and the other
[2:18:27] under the ownership of the city.
[2:18:29] I don't believe that was staff's intent to make that change.
[2:18:32] And we'd request city council approve amended resolutions that
[2:18:37] exclude those two parcels, as well as
[2:18:38] the ordinance doing the same.
[2:18:41] All right.
[2:18:45] People may not like that.
[2:18:50] 23067.
[2:18:55] So the 7.39 acres of PQP is going to remain?
[2:19:01] Parcel ending in 71 and 67 would remain PQP.
[2:19:07] Is that where our future potential Milo Candini
[2:19:09] would be coming through?
[2:19:10] I don't know to that, but I do know
[2:19:12] that's part of the wastewater treatment plant
[2:19:14] facilities at that location.
[2:19:22] And that was not part of the planning commission, those two
[2:19:27] parcels?
[2:19:28] That was part of the planning commission
[2:19:29] recommendation to city council.
[2:19:31] So the PQP was in there switching to CMU?
[2:19:34] It was.
[2:19:35] OK, all right.
[2:19:38] Good, yeah.
[2:19:39] We're going to leave it.
[2:19:41] A good catch.
[2:19:43] OK, I'll go back to council if any other questions.
[2:19:47] I'll start with Council Member Halford.
[2:19:52] Not now.
[2:19:56] Vice Mayor.
[2:20:00] No, you can't go there yet.
[2:20:03] Just remember Morowit.
[2:20:04] So basically, we had just a mix of everything
[2:20:07] on there-- existing mixed use commercial.
[2:20:08] We had multiple family.
[2:20:11] We had some PQP industrial.
[2:20:13] So now, we're just going to make it all one mixed use, CMU.
[2:20:17] Correct?
[2:20:17] That's correct.
[2:20:18] And the purpose of that was what we
[2:20:21] feel what we want to have there in the city that's
[2:20:23] consistent with--
[2:20:24] It is consistent.
[2:20:25] We do have development applications
[2:20:26] in on one of those parcels currently
[2:20:29] that is a clean-- this is actually part of a cleanup
[2:20:32] that we need to do for that project as well.
[2:20:35] So yes, it's consistent.
[2:20:37] We believe it's best for the city and best for that location.
[2:20:42] Once again, we have an applicant?
[2:20:44] Yes.
[2:20:45] [INAUDIBLE]
[2:20:47] I believe the applicant, the project that we're working
[2:20:51] on that has [INAUDIBLE] for a second has gone through planning
[2:20:55] commission or we--
[2:20:57] no it has not.
[2:20:59] Mayor and council.
[2:21:00] The specific projects are still under review pending tonight's
[2:21:04] action.
[2:21:05] Thank you.
[2:21:07] Very good.
[2:21:13] You Good, Council Member Morowit?
[2:21:14] I'm good.
[2:21:17] Yeah, no, I appreciate this cleanup.
[2:21:19] I also appreciate the consistency with CMU
[2:21:22] and actually also eliminating industrial in that area.
[2:21:26] Just with the changes with fez and all the things
[2:21:29] that are going to be happening around there.
[2:21:31] We definitely don't need that type of use.
[2:21:36] So I think CMU is more consistent with things
[2:21:39] to the east and the south.
[2:21:44] So with that, I do like this change
[2:21:47] and look forward to seeing that project move forward also
[2:21:50] when it comes.
[2:21:52] I'll entertain a motion.
[2:21:53] I'll make the motion to amend 24130067 and 71
[2:22:01] to leave them as PQP and accept the other CMU.
[2:22:06] I'll second.
[2:22:07] So we have a motion from council member Breitenbucher
[2:22:10] and a second from Vice Mayor Lackey to do the PQP,
[2:22:15] leaving it at PQP for 067 and 071,
[2:22:18] and adopt a resolution making the necessary findings to adopt
[2:22:21] an initial study mitigated neg deck and its associated
[2:22:26] mitigation, monitoring, and reporting program prepared
[2:22:29] for the project, adopt a resolution approving a general
[2:22:32] plan amendment redesignation, the project parcel identified
[2:22:36] in the batch GPA site 5 project and waive the first reading
[2:22:40] by substitution of Title and introduce an ordinance
[2:22:42] of the city council of the City Of Manteca, State of California,
[2:22:45] amending the zoning map set forth in Section 17.20.040
[2:22:50] of chapter 17.20 of Title 17 of the Manteca Municipal Code
[2:22:55] by rezoning the batch GPA site by project parcels from public
[2:22:59] quasi--
[2:23:02] planned development, light industrial, and limited multiple
[2:23:05] family dwelling to the mixed use commercial zoning district.
[2:23:10] All in favor, say aye.
[2:23:12] Aye.
[2:23:13] Opposed?
[2:23:14] Motion carries 5-0.
[2:23:15] Hopefully you got that.
[2:23:21] All right.
[2:23:25] OK, we'll move on to D.4.
[2:23:27] Conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution approving
[2:23:30] amendment number 2 for the engineering and traffic
[2:23:33] survey for speed limits, waive the first reading
[2:23:36] by substitution of a title.
[2:23:37] And introduce an ordinance of the city council of the City
[2:23:41] of Manteca, State of California, amending Manteca Municipal Code
[2:23:45] 10, vehicles and traffic chapter 10.12,
[2:23:49] speed limit section 10.12.020, designated and authorizing
[2:23:57] the city manager or designee to take all appropriate actions
[2:24:00] necessary to carry out the purpose and intent
[2:24:03] of the resolution.
[2:24:04] Mayor and council, tonight, we have Senior Engineer Beshoy.
[2:24:08] Good evening, Mayor and council members.
[2:24:11] This public hearing is to reduce the speed limit
[2:24:14] on Crom Street between Airport Way and Union Road
[2:24:19] from 35 to 30.
[2:24:21] California Vehicle Code give local jurisdictions
[2:24:24] authority to run a traffic and engineering survey to complete
[2:24:31] this reduction.
[2:24:33] When we received concern from public regarding current speed
[2:24:38] limit on Crom Street, we investigated the roadway element
[2:24:46] such as land use, public transit,
[2:24:49] pedestrian and public facilities, crash rate,
[2:24:52] which was lower than similar corridors in the state.
[2:25:00] We also reviewed five years of collision history.
[2:25:06] And we have 0 fatalities on this corridor.
[2:25:11] We have only one collision in July, 2024 with a severe injury.
[2:25:19] And it was between motorcycle and a vehicle.
[2:25:22] And was a primary contributing factor
[2:25:25] and defining as unsafe speed from the motorcycle.
[2:25:30] We also looked at free flow vehicles.
[2:25:33] We collected samples of 128 vehicle speed under free flow.
[2:25:41] And we gathered-- we calculated the 85th percentile.
[2:25:47] The 85th percentile is the speed which our observed vehicle,
[2:25:53] 85% of them, were at or below that speed.
[2:25:59] 15% are higher than that speed.
[2:26:01] 85th percentile for Crom Street on this study,
[2:26:06] it was 37 mile per hour.
[2:26:09] We rounded to the nearest 5, which is 35.
[2:26:12] And because of its proximity to the school,
[2:26:17] and the residential frontage, and also
[2:26:21] the one severe collision, engineering
[2:26:24] is recommending to reduce from 35
[2:26:28] to take another five mile per hour reduction
[2:26:31] from 35 to 30 mile per hour.
[2:26:39] And that's also supported by California Vehicle Code section
[2:26:46] 22358.6b.
[2:26:50] Staff does recommend reducing the speed limit
[2:26:53] to 30 miles per hour.
[2:26:55] Thank you.
[2:26:56] Any questions?
[2:26:59] All right.
[2:27:02] Any questions from council before I open up
[2:27:04] the public hearing?
[2:27:07] OK, we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing at 8:54.
[2:27:14] Anybody on Zoom?
[2:27:23] I have attendees on Zoom, but no hands raised for public comment
[2:27:27] for item D.4.
[2:27:29] Any comment cards?
[2:27:32] I have no comments.
[2:27:34] Anybody like to speak on item D.4?
[2:27:37] Come on up, sir.
[2:27:39] Just one first.
[2:27:42] I am all for reducing that to 30 miles an hour,
[2:27:47] I think would be a lot safer.
[2:27:48] Thank you.
[2:28:01] Hello, council members.
[2:28:03] I'm Raymond Gedney.
[2:28:04] I live on Crom Street at Foxfire.
[2:28:08] We moved there approximately 2 and 1/2 years ago.
[2:28:12] And as a retired traffic sergeant,
[2:28:15] I noticed the excessive speed on that street
[2:28:19] and the dangerous condition.
[2:28:21] Dangerous condition being foot traffic to and from school,
[2:28:27] dog walkers.
[2:28:28] There's a lot of pedestrian traffic out there.
[2:28:32] I've been working with the engineering department
[2:28:36] on getting that speed reduced.
[2:28:39] And also the housing on the other side of airport
[2:28:44] contributed to the traffic there.
[2:28:47] I worked with them and tried to get it down
[2:28:51] to 25 suggested speed.
[2:28:55] Eventually, I turned in a traffic calming form
[2:29:01] requesting 25.
[2:29:04] About two months ago, a month and a half
[2:29:07] ago, I received an email regarding--
[2:29:11] from the engineering department.
[2:29:13] And they stated that they were going
[2:29:15] to make a recommendation to council to reduce it to 25.
[2:29:20] Well, I was ecstatic about that because that's
[2:29:23] my main goal is to slow down the traffic there.
[2:29:28] And then I think it was about a week ago, a week and a half
[2:29:32] ago, in the evening, I got an email
[2:29:35] from the engineering department that they modified it
[2:29:38] to 30 miles an hour.
[2:29:40] I don't agree with that.
[2:29:42] I don't think 5 miles an hour is going to make much
[2:29:44] of a difference on that street.
[2:29:47] There's also the Assembly Bill 1014,
[2:29:51] which was passed this year, which has increased the amount
[2:29:55] that a local jurisdiction can reduce the speed from the 85th
[2:30:03] percentile, which is 37 miles an hour.
[2:30:07] It is my viewpoint that the speed can be reduced to 25
[2:30:15] and also rounded off down to 25, according to the Assembly Bill.
[2:30:21] So I'm referring you to the Assembly Bill.
[2:30:23] And I received no information from the engineering department
[2:30:29] or the traffic committee that there
[2:30:33] was going to be any consideration regarding
[2:30:37] that Assembly Bill.
[2:30:40] So I urge the council to pass it for a 25 miles per hour speed
[2:30:45] limit there and reduce the school zone to 20 miles hour.
[2:30:53] So that's my case.
[2:30:55] Mr. Gedney, a question for you.
[2:30:58] When you submitted the traffic calming,
[2:31:00] did you ever submit to get speed bumps, humps, lumps on Crom
[2:31:05] or you just asked for a reduction in speed limit?
[2:31:07] What happened is about a year and a half ago,
[2:31:10] I turned in the traffic calming form requesting speed bumps.
[2:31:18] And I was advised that they're not allowable
[2:31:20] for a 35 mile per hour zone.
[2:31:23] I wasn't aware of that.
[2:31:26] But that was the last request I made for it.
[2:31:28] And now, I get the notification regarding this reduction
[2:31:35] to 30 miles per hour.
[2:31:37] And then I also got a form with this regarding the speed lumps.
[2:31:43] I looked at the form.
[2:31:45] And I'm not too happy with the wording on the form
[2:31:48] because I was looking at it and it
[2:31:50] said-- one of the questions for the person
[2:31:54] to sign up on Crom Street is, would you like speed lumps
[2:32:00] in front of your house?
[2:32:02] And I don't think that's an appropriate question
[2:32:05] on that petition, because I think
[2:32:07] it's going to slant the response or the reaction of someone
[2:32:13] possibility of signing a petition.
[2:32:16] I think that's a negative inappropriate wording
[2:32:21] on that form.
[2:32:23] And also another question is, are you the owner of the house?
[2:32:29] I think that's irrelevant as far as--
[2:32:34] what does it matter who owns the house?
[2:32:36] It's who's living in that house.
[2:32:38] Because there is a significant number
[2:32:41] of renters on that street.
[2:32:43] So I have a problem with the wording on that form.
[2:32:47] And I've actually have two friends
[2:32:49] that have approved areas for speed lumps.
[2:32:54] And I'm going to show them that form to make sure
[2:32:56] that it's consistent with what they dealt with before.
[2:33:03] Thank you, sir.
[2:33:04] You're welcome.
[2:33:07] Anybody else would like to speak on this item?
[2:33:19] OK, seeing none, I will go ahead and close the public hearing
[2:33:22] at 9 o'clock.
[2:33:26] OK, a couple questions I have.
[2:33:30] First of all, Mr. Gedney brought up the fact of AB 1014.
[2:33:37] Can you explain that one?
[2:33:39] Yes, sure.
[2:33:42] The California Vehicle Code, the new law does provide the ability
[2:33:49] to reduce the 85th percentile by 12.4mph.
[2:33:55] So to take it to 25 miles per hour,
[2:33:58] we could be using additional lowering the speed
[2:34:01] by 5 miles per hour.
[2:34:04] But unfortunately, and that's why
[2:34:06] we had to correct that email that Mr. Gedney was
[2:34:09] talking about.
[2:34:11] That five mile per hour extra reduction
[2:34:15] comes with a very restriction requirements.
[2:34:20] Reading from California Vehicle Codes and the California
[2:34:24] [INAUDIBLE], it has to be one--
[2:34:27] it has to meet the following two requirements.
[2:34:31] Safety corridor.
[2:34:32] And the definition of safety corridor
[2:34:34] is a safety corridor that shall be defined as a roadway segment
[2:34:39] with an overall roadway network, where the highest
[2:34:43] number of serious injury and fatality crashes
[2:34:47] acquire guidance.
[2:34:51] Jurisdiction should use three or five
[2:34:53] years on the most recent crash data
[2:34:56] to determine a safety corridor.
[2:34:59] For crashes cover, safety corridor
[2:35:02] may be defined as a subset of an overall roadway network, where
[2:35:08] a minimum of 25% or fatality or serious injury crash acquire.
[2:35:14] And unfortunately, we don't have engineer bases
[2:35:19] to define Crom Street as meeting this kind of requirement.
[2:35:24] The second requirement is a land or facility
[2:35:27] that generates high concentration of bicycle
[2:35:32] and pedestrian.
[2:35:33] So we have the school and we have the bike lane.
[2:35:36] Totally agree.
[2:35:37] But it adds that following requirement
[2:35:41] and meet the following condition.
[2:35:44] Crash data demonstrate a high segment
[2:35:48] is within the top 20% of pedestrian and bicycle
[2:35:52] fatalities or serious injury over the three or five years.
[2:35:56] We looked at the five years and we couldn't find that,
[2:35:59] so we couldn't find a engineer basis
[2:36:03] to give the speed limit as a 25 mile per hour.
[2:36:11] Listen, I mean, we all know that speed limits establish
[2:36:17] at or near 85th percentile provides the law enforcement
[2:36:22] an appropriate level for citing drivers who travel at speed
[2:36:28] consider reasonable for-- consider by majority that
[2:36:34] it's reasonable to get cited.
[2:36:36] So if you look also at the data in the presentation--
[2:36:45] if we go to 25 miles per hour, 98%
[2:36:52] of the people that we observed in that sample
[2:36:56] will be violators.
[2:36:58] So we couldn't move forward with 25 mile per hour.
[2:37:01] And we recommend 30.
[2:37:04] OK, next question I have is, is reduction in speed
[2:37:10] a common traffic calming process that we
[2:37:14] use when it comes to our traffic calming application?
[2:37:18] So the traffic calming application
[2:37:20] is serving the speed lumps.
[2:37:24] And what we told-- what we affirm
[2:37:31] the resident is that when we reduce it to 30 mile per hour,
[2:37:36] we will be able to add the speed lumps on Crom
[2:37:39] because previously, it was rejected because it
[2:37:43] was a 35 mile per hour.
[2:37:45] But now, with a 30 mile per hour, near the 85th percentile,
[2:37:50] I can add the speed lump.
[2:37:53] So if this gets approved tonight,
[2:37:55] speed lump sums, whatever it is, will
[2:37:58] be a possibility for that road?
[2:38:00] Yes, we already approached Mr. Gedney with that application.
[2:38:06] And we told him you can start the petition and align
[2:38:09] with while we are trying to reduce the speed.
[2:38:13] And regarding the question, are you the owner
[2:38:18] or are you OK with having the speed lump in front
[2:38:23] of your house and the question application,
[2:38:26] we run through so many lessons learned that we go and put it
[2:38:31] in front of somebody's house.
[2:38:32] And they come during construction
[2:38:34] and say, no, we don't want it here.
[2:38:36] So from lesson learned from many years, we had to ask the people,
[2:38:43] are we going to put a speed lump in front of you
[2:38:45] or a sign in front of you?
[2:38:46] Are you OK with that?
[2:38:48] I mean, street already have seen so many signs.
[2:38:52] If when people are not happy, they just remove the sign
[2:38:55] and throw it away.
[2:38:56] They just pull it up.
[2:38:57] So we just trying to be proactive
[2:39:01] when we are asking those questions to the residents.
[2:39:04] And are those questions consistent with all
[2:39:06] of our other applications?
[2:39:07] Yes, definitely.
[2:39:08] And you see how many speed lumps we have around the town.
[2:39:15] If we have a serious speed issue,
[2:39:18] I definitely think that this question will get people happy.
[2:39:23] Yes, I want it here in front of my house
[2:39:26] because I have a speed issue.
[2:39:34] Vice Mayor, go ahead.
[2:39:37] OK, so I wanted to go first because this is actually
[2:39:40] a really important topic for me.
[2:39:42] I used to live on Crom Street.
[2:39:44] I lived on Crom Street for 10 years.
[2:39:46] I raised my kids from infants to 10 years old
[2:39:50] and a little bit older.
[2:39:51] And I can tell you firsthand that this street is an issue.
[2:39:56] People go speeding down the street.
[2:39:58] I've had my neighbor's house almost get hit.
[2:40:01] The only reason it did not get hit
[2:40:03] is because there was a tree in front of it.
[2:40:05] And it slammed into the tree.
[2:40:07] We've had our mailbox taken out.
[2:40:11] I've had cars hit that were parked on the side
[2:40:15] because people speed through Crom Street.
[2:40:19] And it's gotten worse.
[2:40:23] What I don't understand is it was at 35 miles an hour
[2:40:28] because half of the street is a golf course.
[2:40:30] And a few years back, part of that street was a farm.
[2:40:36] I lived directly across the street from the farm.
[2:40:39] Now, it's all housing.
[2:40:40] And Crom now extends to the other side of airport.
[2:40:44] So we have kids that are walking down this residential street
[2:40:49] to get to a school that has access
[2:40:52] to the school on Crom Street.
[2:40:55] Every other neighborhood per the California DMV, their speed
[2:41:00] limit is 25.
[2:41:01] This street is a residential street.
[2:41:05] We have high density on both ends of Crom Street
[2:41:09] from Union on that end.
[2:41:11] We have the apartments.
[2:41:13] And we have the high density--
[2:41:15] what are they?
[2:41:16] They're not condos.
[2:41:17] Townhouses on the other side.
[2:41:20] We now have all that new housing.
[2:41:22] And all those kids are walking their way to school,
[2:41:25] riding their bikes to school.
[2:41:27] It is a high density street.
[2:41:30] And a lot of families can't allow their kids
[2:41:34] to be out front of their house because there is racing going on
[2:41:40] down that street.
[2:41:41] Now, there's been a lot of mitigation over the years trying
[2:41:44] to keep it from going so fast.
[2:41:47] 43 miles an hour down that street is ridiculous.
[2:41:50] That should not be OK.
[2:41:52] And that should not be part of this factoring of your 87th
[2:41:56] percentile.
[2:41:57] Yeah, you're going to have 98% of violators.
[2:42:01] Guess what?
[2:42:02] At that point, maybe we get some traffic control
[2:42:05] and we ticket every single one of them
[2:42:09] for racing down a residential street.
[2:42:17] I have talked to Mr. Gedney.
[2:42:19] And I had said, do the petition for the speed
[2:42:24] lumps because that will slow them down to 15 miles
[2:42:27] an hour going over these speed bumps.
[2:42:28] I don't know why we don't already
[2:42:30] have them because it is a school district.
[2:42:33] We have three entrances to Stella Brockman.
[2:42:37] We have one on Silverado.
[2:42:39] We have one on Crom.
[2:42:40] And then I can't recall the other street.
[2:42:44] Because that's a new policy we just created.
[2:42:47] Well, I understand that, but what I'm saying is,
[2:42:51] this is a residential street.
[2:42:52] We have kids accessing that school
[2:42:54] from three different points.
[2:42:57] All three of those points need to be treated just
[2:43:00] like all of our other schools under this new policy
[2:43:03] and receive those speed lumps.
[2:43:05] There shouldn't be a question to that.
[2:43:08] But I haven't been on that street for 10 years.
[2:43:12] I moved to the other side of town
[2:43:14] where my kids could play in the front yard.
[2:43:17] This street has always been an issue.
[2:43:20] When I lived there, I asked for speed lumps.
[2:43:23] At that time, speed lumps were not a standard in Manteca.
[2:43:27] I was told that they could not happen.
[2:43:30] And it never did.
[2:43:31] So we had two cars totaled in front of my house
[2:43:35] because people were speeding.
[2:43:38] Like I said, we had our post office box
[2:43:41] knocked out for months because, obviously, it takes time.
[2:43:46] They have the curve in the street.
[2:43:47] It does not slow them down.
[2:43:49] They've put up stop signs.
[2:43:51] It does not slow them down.
[2:43:52] They've put up lights on those stop signs.
[2:43:54] It does not slow them down.
[2:43:56] We have at least put a sidewalk on the other side
[2:43:59] by the golf course.
[2:44:00] But the golf course, the fact that that's not housing
[2:44:02] should not be a factor in this.
[2:44:04] We have greatly increased the number of children using
[2:44:08] the street, so I am in favor.
[2:44:10] It's a residential street.
[2:44:13] Plain and simple.
[2:44:14] Residential streets are zoned at 25.
[2:44:17] So I would be in favor of the 25.
[2:44:20] And then you get people out there
[2:44:22] to go after those violators.
[2:44:24] They'll catch on.
[2:44:25] They'll go 25, and they'll treat it as a true residential street
[2:44:28] because right now, it's just being treated
[2:44:30] as a highway, a thoroughfare.
[2:44:32] And that's not OK.
[2:44:33] That is not Louise.
[2:44:34] That is not Moffat.
[2:44:36] That is not Lathrop road.
[2:44:39] It's Crom.
[2:44:39] It's a residential street in the middle of our neighborhood.
[2:44:42] So I apologize.
[2:44:45] This is a very touchy subject because like I said,
[2:44:47] I raised my kids on that street.
[2:44:50] And I know exactly what these people are going through.
[2:44:53] And it's been long overdue for something
[2:44:56] to be done about the street.
[2:44:57] Definitely, I just want to mention
[2:44:59] that we do have a 25 mile per hour
[2:45:03] when children are present signs.
[2:45:05] And we are here tonight to continue to improve it.
[2:45:09] This is not the last thing we're going to do at Crom.
[2:45:12] And this is not the first thing we did at Crom.
[2:45:15] Crom we did, as you mentioned, the new sidewalk
[2:45:18] on the south side of Crom.
[2:45:19] We had now continuous sidewalk for the children
[2:45:24] going to the school.
[2:45:25] And we did observe that this sidewalk is used heavily
[2:45:30] now from those children.
[2:45:31] And bike lane on both sides.
[2:45:34] And we updated all the ADA curb ramp on that street.
[2:45:39] And we put flashing stop sign on all the stop
[2:45:43] sign on Crom Street.
[2:45:45] And we also installed high visibility yellow crosswalk
[2:45:51] on all the crosswalk there.
[2:45:54] And all the crosswalks are controlled.
[2:45:56] We totally understand.
[2:45:58] And as I said--
[2:46:00] Why is this not being treated as a true residential?
[2:46:03] It's a collector.
[2:46:04] It's a major collector.
[2:46:05] It's a residential street.
[2:46:07] We have people that live on that street
[2:46:09] and we have access to a school there.
[2:46:11] It needs to be treated as a true residential street.
[2:46:16] So just like all the other residents,
[2:46:18] it's 25 miles an hour.
[2:46:20] I don't see any difference between the two.
[2:46:23] Yeah, from engineering basis, I don't have a backup
[2:46:27] to put it to 25, but--
[2:46:30] So I have a question for you on that.
[2:46:32] If you change it to 25 and people are going 30 or whatever,
[2:46:39] is it enforceable?
[2:46:42] I believe the police did put--
[2:46:46] If the data doesn't show--
[2:46:48] Yeah, I think Police Chief would probably
[2:46:50] like to chime in at this point.
[2:46:53] It has to deal with the-- well, that's loud.
[2:46:55] It has to deal with the 80th percentile and having a radar
[2:47:01] survey that supports that.
[2:47:02] And so if it's dropped to 25 miles per hour,
[2:47:05] you're not able to enforce speed via radar by law.
[2:47:09] And so it would have to be a bumper piece, at 25.
[2:47:13] If they're going there, you can't sit on the street and run
[2:47:16] radar.
[2:47:20] At 25 miles an hour speed limit?
[2:47:22] 25 miles an hour.
[2:47:25] So at this point, we spend money on 30 mile an hour
[2:47:29] signs, get more data, and then spend more money to make
[2:47:33] it a true residential street.
[2:47:35] Is that what I'm hearing?
[2:47:37] Because that seems kind of backwards to me.
[2:47:40] You're saying regarding the speed lumps?
[2:47:43] I'm saying in regards to the speed limit.
[2:47:46] You make it 30 miles an hour.
[2:47:48] You spend money to change the signs.
[2:47:52] And then the residents request more data
[2:47:56] to show that these people still are not doing what
[2:47:59] they're supposed to be doing.
[2:48:01] And they continue to request 25 miles an hour.
[2:48:05] And then we spend more money to go through this whole process
[2:48:09] again.
[2:48:11] I don't understand why it's not being
[2:48:12] treated as a true residential neighborhood.
[2:48:16] It used to be on the outer limits of Villa Ticino.
[2:48:19] It is no longer on the outer limits of Villa Ticino.
[2:48:26] Make it make sense to me because it doesn't make sense.
[2:48:29] It is a residential street.
[2:48:31] It's no different than any other residential street,
[2:48:34] other than the fact that it has school access.
[2:48:37] Not all residential streets do.
[2:48:39] It has school access.
[2:48:40] You have the foot traffic and the kids there.
[2:48:44] So why wouldn't we be proactive and make it
[2:48:48] what it needs to be now.
[2:48:52] Yeah, once we collected the 85th percentile,
[2:48:55] I'm not sure where to go from here.
[2:48:59] Yeah, maybe if I could jump in, Vice Mayor.
[2:49:02] So from an engineering standpoint,
[2:49:05] we have essentially criteria that we
[2:49:08] have to meet when we do these engineering and traffic surveys.
[2:49:11] And when you look at a street like Crom Street,
[2:49:14] while there are residents fronting it
[2:49:17] and you do have the golf course on the South side,
[2:49:19] it is what we call a collector street, meaning,
[2:49:22] it's not just the folks who live on that street that
[2:49:25] are driving to get out of their neighborhood.
[2:49:27] Unlike, like a Foxfire, say, or a Greenview.
[2:49:31] So this is a lot more cut through traffic, if you will.
[2:49:34] And that's why it's a higher classification of roadway.
[2:49:37] If you were to look at-- typically, when
[2:49:40] you get into the nitty gritty of traffic analysis,
[2:49:43] a typical home will generate approximately 10 trips a day.
[2:49:46] And that's a one way trip.
[2:49:48] So if you run to the store, that's two trips kind of thing.
[2:49:51] So when we look at a street, like a Foxfire or Greenview,
[2:49:56] they are generating the number of trips
[2:49:58] that would be in that range, so to speak, from those houses
[2:50:02] there.
[2:50:03] You're not getting much more in the way of additional traffic
[2:50:06] running through those streets, unlike Crom,
[2:50:09] because it does have that connection to both Union
[2:50:11] and Airport.
[2:50:12] You're getting a lot more traffic.
[2:50:14] You're getting the school traffic
[2:50:15] from people beyond just the immediate neighborhood.
[2:50:18] And you're getting people that that's
[2:50:20] just another way because you've either got Louise to the north
[2:50:23] or you've got Yosemite to the south.
[2:50:25] And Crom's right in between.
[2:50:27] So you do get those additional volumes.
[2:50:29] And that's why I think, historically, it
[2:50:31] has had a higher speed limit like 35.
[2:50:34] And that's where we're trying to work within the limits
[2:50:38] that we have from an engineering standpoint.
[2:50:40] When we put out the tubes and we measure the speeds,
[2:50:43] we measure the volumes, and then we look at the other criteria
[2:50:46] to come up with what can we be defensible as,
[2:50:49] and what can we provide for PD to enforce the speed
[2:50:53] limit rather than just jump to what people would like it to be,
[2:50:58] in this case, 25 miles an hour.
[2:51:00] And so it is a bit of an incremental step, if you will.
[2:51:03] But now, if we can get approval on the 30 miles an hour here
[2:51:07] and if there is consensus amongst the neighborhood
[2:51:11] to get the speed lumps, I think you will see that speed
[2:51:14] drop because as you noted, there's
[2:51:16] been a lot of incremental things that we've
[2:51:18] done to try to get people to slow down.
[2:51:20] And we have been somewhat successful.
[2:51:22] You are going to always get that 15%.
[2:51:25] Those are the people that are going to speed no matter what.
[2:51:27] And that's why you have speed limits set at 85th percentile
[2:51:31] because you're always going to get some of those outliers,
[2:51:34] if you will.
[2:51:36] But anyway, so if we can get it down to 30 now
[2:51:39] and if the neighborhood supports the speed limits,
[2:51:42] I think you'll see the speeds drop.
[2:51:44] But it is an incremental process and we
[2:51:46] have to work within the limits that we're given.
[2:51:48] So for the California--
[2:51:49] What's the time frame that we'd be looking
[2:51:51] at for those speed lumps?
[2:51:53] I'm sorry?
[2:51:53] What's the time frame if--
[2:51:55] he was to get the approval for the speed lumps, what's
[2:51:57] the time frame that he's looking at,
[2:52:00] that that neighborhood is looking at?
[2:52:03] Once he submits a petition, probably four to six months.
[2:52:12] City attorney, is there anything that
[2:52:14] states I can't go out there and door knock?
[2:52:20] For what?
[2:52:22] For signatures.
[2:52:23] For?
[2:52:23] Speed lumps.
[2:52:24] Yeah, no, I mean, they're saying once you get--
[2:52:27] I understand.
[2:52:28] I'm asking the city attorney, is there anything that says that I
[2:52:31] cannot go out with Mr. Gedney and ask the neighbors on Crom
[2:52:35] Street to sign that paper.
[2:52:38] You're a resident like any other person in the city.
[2:52:43] I think speed lumps should--
[2:52:45] OK, thank you.
[2:52:47] So once we do get an application, hopefully,
[2:52:50] and it's approved, then it falls in with all of our other speed
[2:52:54] lump requests.
[2:52:58] Correct.
[2:53:02] Anything else, Vice Mayor?
[2:53:05] Thank you.
[2:53:07] Council Member Halford, you know anything about speed trailers
[2:53:11] and speed bumps and speeding?
[2:53:15] Maybe.
[2:53:19] Crom Street, when it was first built,
[2:53:21] did not extend all the way to Airport.
[2:53:23] It is a wide, straight street.
[2:53:27] And there has historically been some speeding issues there.
[2:53:30] I'm not sure what the original speed limit on it
[2:53:32] was 25 years ago, whenever it was first built.
[2:53:39] There were no sidewalks.
[2:53:41] There are no sidewalks on parts of it, which was by design.
[2:53:44] That's a rural estate zone there.
[2:53:47] That's what people wanted and what people purchased
[2:53:52] when they moved in there.
[2:53:56] As a result of speeding complaints many years ago,
[2:53:59] the little--
[2:54:00] I don't know what you call that little divot that got put in,
[2:54:04] that there was not sufficient room to make a roundabout
[2:54:08] or to put an island in the middle of it.
[2:54:11] Because when people get on the street, the line of sight,
[2:54:18] there's no obstruction.
[2:54:19] So it's easy to get up to speed.
[2:54:21] So that was the purpose of that little divot that got put in.
[2:54:26] After that, there's been a couple stop
[2:54:27] signs that have been put in, which
[2:54:31] are not good for speed control.
[2:54:33] All it does is slow them down for the 150 feet on either side
[2:54:36] of it, and create dust and noise issues,
[2:54:38] and create stop sign violations, which is the same thing with
[2:54:43] 85th percentile.
[2:54:44] That historically has been gauged
[2:54:48] to be what is a safe speed because people normally
[2:54:52] drive a safe speed for condition, which is what 22350
[2:54:57] of the Vehicle Code says is you have to drive
[2:54:59] what's [INAUDIBLE] condition.
[2:55:02] The code also defines what a prima facie residential street
[2:55:05] is.
[2:55:07] It's been out of business for 18 years.
[2:55:08] I don't remember the exact criteria,
[2:55:10] but I don't think Crom Street meets that definition.
[2:55:13] I think you have to have houses on both sides
[2:55:15] for a certain distance.
[2:55:17] Two lane road.
[2:55:18] It has to be a certain density of houses within an x number.
[2:55:22] And I would be surprised if Crom meets that definition for prima
[2:55:27] facie 25, which means you have to justify a 25 mile an hour
[2:55:31] speed limit based on the traffic safety and engineering study.
[2:55:35] One crash in five years, now, you
[2:55:38] cited several but more than five years ago
[2:55:40] is not going to justify a reduction of speed limit,
[2:55:44] particularly when it did not involve a pedestrian.
[2:55:47] There is an existing school zone.
[2:55:49] Does anybody know what the start and end zone points are,
[2:55:53] the school zone?
[2:55:54] 500 feet.
[2:55:57] 500 feet from the limit of the school.
[2:55:59] So that exists now, at 25, whenever there are children
[2:56:03] present.
[2:56:07] The other issue is if you set a speed limit that's lower
[2:56:13] than what people perceive to be safe,
[2:56:16] they're going to violate it.
[2:56:18] It's going to happen because of human nature.
[2:56:24] They're going to drive what they perceive to be safe.
[2:56:30] I mean, I take that road quite a bit.
[2:56:34] I don't drive 35 on it.
[2:56:35] I drive about 30 miles an hour when I go down Crom Street.
[2:56:41] If there are kids going to and from school,
[2:56:44] obviously I'm driving 25.
[2:56:49] I understand Mr. Gedney's position.
[2:56:51] And he bought a house there.
[2:56:55] Maybe he didn't realize the traffic that
[2:56:58] was on there when he bought it.
[2:56:59] He wants to sit in his front yard and enjoy the view,
[2:57:03] have his grandkids play out front.
[2:57:08] And he doesn't think that's safe to do
[2:57:09] and doesn't appreciate the traffic that's on there.
[2:57:13] I'm not sure what the traffic count is on.
[2:57:15] I think I saw it on there, 2,500?
[2:57:17] Around that, yeah.
[2:57:20] Per day.
[2:57:21] Obviously, it's concentrated in the morning and afternoon
[2:57:23] when school's in session.
[2:57:24] It would be nice if the traffic officers, when school's
[2:57:30] in session, they could be out there working a little radar.
[2:57:33] Encourage people to drive the 25 in the school zone.
[2:57:39] I would be hesitant to put 25 miles an hour on Crom.
[2:57:45] This going to encourage people to violate the speed zone.
[2:57:50] And the history of crashes just doesn't justify it.
[2:58:00] All right, Council Member Breitenbucher.
[2:58:07] How do you follow that one?
[2:58:11] No, I think the speed that they've come up with
[2:58:13] is fine, as far as the form.
[2:58:16] If you're filling out the form and you're not
[2:58:19] willing to say that you want speed bumps in front
[2:58:21] of your house, why are you filling it out?
[2:58:24] You're expecting others to do what you don't want to.
[2:58:28] I think it is a good question.
[2:58:30] It shouldn't be a surprise.
[2:58:32] And as far as the ownership, yes, if you're a renter,
[2:58:36] that can cause problems.
[2:58:40] Yeah, I'm OK with this.
[2:58:41] I think it's reasonable.
[2:58:42] And we can also do the speed bumps now.
[2:58:45] So I think we're good.
[2:58:46] Thank you.
[2:58:47] Council Member Morowit.
[2:58:49] Maybe I can ask the police chief to clarify
[2:58:52] what a school zone is.
[2:58:55] We hear it all the time.
[2:58:56] What does it actually mean?
[2:58:58] A school zone is--
[2:59:01] it's marked out in certain areas near schools
[2:59:04] within 500 feet of the school.
[2:59:06] And it says when children are present--
[2:59:09] and the Vehicle Code states that when children are present,
[2:59:13] there can't be a barrier between them and where they're at.
[2:59:19] For instance, here, just because school is in session
[2:59:24] doesn't mean it's 25.
[2:59:27] Children are present, but by the Vehicle Code,
[2:59:29] there's a barrier because it has a cyclone fence.
[2:59:32] And so it doesn't count as children are present.
[2:59:35] Similar, we have them like by Sequoyah School and other areas
[2:59:39] where children are present or Northgate
[2:59:43] is a good one with Neil Hafley, where it just
[2:59:45] has those like a little pylon with a chain.
[2:59:49] That's a barrier.
[2:59:50] And so if they're in that park playing, there's a barrier.
[2:59:55] So it doesn't count as when children are present.
[2:59:57] And so it's when they're walking--
[2:59:59] to protect them when they're walking to and from school
[3:00:02] because there's no barrier there.
[3:00:04] Thank you.
[3:00:06] Also when the school ground, the one carrying the stop sign
[3:00:13] are in operation.
[3:00:15] So yeah.
[3:00:16] The crossing guard?
[3:00:17] Yeah, crossing guard.
[3:00:18] Crossing guard, OK.
[3:00:19] I too lived about 1500 Block of Crom Street until about 2014.
[3:00:25] Then I moved.
[3:00:29] At that time, there was really nothing there.
[3:00:31] It had no stop signs.
[3:00:32] They had one.
[3:00:34] I believe Council Member Moorhead
[3:00:36] was pretty instrumental in getting a second stop
[3:00:39] sign off one of the streets as well because she
[3:00:42] lived in that area.
[3:00:42] We didn't have districts then.
[3:00:45] So now, I've been down that street because I do frequent it
[3:00:49] as well because I live off of Northgate.
[3:00:53] There's, I guess, flashing stop signs have been put in recently.
[3:00:57] I've seen the--
[3:00:59] 247.
[3:00:59] 247 there on.
[3:01:02] I've seen them also on the bike lanes, both sides.
[3:01:07] So there's been a tremendous amount
[3:01:08] of improvements in the last 10, 12 years actually.
[3:01:13] I do think if you really want to slow people down,
[3:01:17] signs are great.
[3:01:18] But I don't know if Mr. Gedney would agree with me.
[3:01:20] But that's how he made a living, was writing citations
[3:01:23] for people who didn't pay attention to signs.
[3:01:25] So in my mind, by reducing it to 30 miles an hour
[3:01:30] and the ability now for him to be able to fill out a form--
[3:01:33] and hopefully people will agree with him, put a speed lump,
[3:01:36] or bump in, whatever you like to call them.
[3:01:39] I think that's probably the better solution
[3:01:42] because I can tell you that people don't like driving down
[3:01:46] streets with speed bumps just because they don't like it.
[3:01:50] And we have it down Hacienda.
[3:01:51] We have it all over.
[3:01:52] It used to be nearly impossible to put one of those in town.
[3:01:55] It wasn't done when I was on council before, when
[3:01:58] we came back it's important.
[3:02:00] So the speed bumps and lumps to me
[3:02:02] are really going to be what's going to be the important.
[3:02:04] We also put those on the safe routes
[3:02:06] to schools, in front of the schools.
[3:02:08] Now that's become common practice.
[3:02:10] I just had them installed those flashing LED lights
[3:02:13] on the corner of London and Northgate as well.
[3:02:17] That was another-- these are all traffic calming,
[3:02:20] but a sign alone doesn't make the difference
[3:02:22] if someone is just a jerk.
[3:02:24] And like I say, if you make a career out of writing traffic
[3:02:27] citations, I think you probably see more of those than I have.
[3:02:30] But people who don't pay attention don't pay attention.
[3:02:33] But I do think the speed lumps and bumps are probably
[3:02:35] going to be the biggest answer to your problem.
[3:02:39] And by going to 30, it allows you to do it.
[3:02:42] And that's probably a better alternative than just a sign
[3:02:45] because it really does slow you down.
[3:02:46] And quite frankly, you will probably be very annoyed by them
[3:02:50] as well.
[3:02:51] But you're willing to make that sacrifice because
[3:02:53] of your grandkids and other kids walking.
[3:02:55] So I think it's a small price to pay for something that we
[3:02:58] didn't do years ago.
[3:02:59] I mean, literally, quite frankly,
[3:03:01] until Mayor Singh came along, it was impossible to get it done.
[3:03:05] I remember working with [INAUDIBLE]
[3:03:07] before you came in engineering.
[3:03:09] It took like two years sometimes to get one.
[3:03:11] I think the ones at Hacienda took 18 months to get.
[3:03:14] So what you do now and we just did at tonight's meeting
[3:03:16] is proof of the pudding that it works.
[3:03:20] And it's an ability for the neighbors to get something done.
[3:03:23] So I think this is a good solution for a bad situation.
[3:03:28] And I've gotten Mr. Gedney's emails
[3:03:29] probably for over a year now.
[3:03:31] And so I know he's very passionate,
[3:03:34] but I think this might be the answer, some speed lumps.
[3:03:38] Thank you.
[3:03:39] Thank you.
[3:03:40] Yeah, I know.
[3:03:42] I've gone down Crom all the time.
[3:03:44] I've sat with Mr. Gedney and watched these speeders, people
[3:03:49] running stop signs.
[3:03:51] End of the day, I think, for the people that are not
[3:03:55] following the rules, it doesn't matter
[3:03:56] what the speed limit sign says.
[3:03:58] But we also need to make sure we can enforce it.
[3:04:03] As you can see, with all of the speed bumps
[3:04:08] and lumps going on throughout our city,
[3:04:12] that has made a difference.
[3:04:13] It is truly slowing people down.
[3:04:15] I'm a believer.
[3:04:17] I mean, unless you put something in their way,
[3:04:20] they're not going to slow down no matter what the sign says.
[3:04:24] This is why, I think now 7, 8 years ago,
[3:04:28] I brought speed lumps, traffic calming to our city.
[3:04:33] And it was a big push.
[3:04:35] We didn't really want to do it.
[3:04:37] I know people in the room that still don't like them.
[3:04:40] But it's something I think has really worked out
[3:04:43] really good, especially in neighborhoods and areas that
[3:04:46] are thoroughfares or collectors, where it's creating
[3:04:50] the issue of people speeding.
[3:04:53] And I think slowing people down is your goal.
[3:04:57] And I think now that we're going to get to that 30 mile magic
[3:05:02] number in order to get speed lumps.
[3:05:05] I think we're going to solve some of these issues
[3:05:07] and hopefully, on the long run, slow people down.
[3:05:11] So I'm supportive of this.
[3:05:14] My biggest issue with taking it down to 25
[3:05:17] is I don't think it's going to solve anything because I don't
[3:05:20] think we're going to be able to enforce some people that
[3:05:24] are going faster at that point for the police department.
[3:05:29] And a good section of it is 25 right now
[3:05:33] when children are present.
[3:05:36] But I truly feel that the next solution-- and if you
[3:05:40] have issues with your neighbors not willing
[3:05:42] to sign that application, I'd be happy to come and help you
[3:05:46] because I've convinced a lot of people about speed bumps.
[3:05:50] So they work.
[3:05:51] And you can see with all the ones we approved tonight.
[3:05:54] And I think we've done like 50 of them
[3:05:57] so far throughout the city.
[3:06:01] So with that, I'll entertain a motion.
[3:06:07] All right.
[3:06:08] Second.
[3:06:09] All right, we have a motion from Vice Mayor and a second for--
[3:06:13] I'm going to give it to Charlie this time.
[3:06:15] Second from Council Member Halford to adopt a resolution
[3:06:18] approving amendment number 2 for the engineering and traffic
[3:06:20] survey for speed limits, waive the first reading
[3:06:23] by substitution of title and introduce an ordinance
[3:06:25] of the City Council of the City of Manteca, State of California,
[3:06:28] amending Manteca Municipal Code Title 10 vehicles and traffic
[3:06:33] Chapter 10.12 speed limit section 10.12.020,
[3:06:39] designated and authorizing the city manager to designate
[3:06:42] to take all appropriate actions necessary to carry out
[3:06:45] the purpose and intent of the resolution.
[3:06:47] All in favor, say aye.
[3:06:49] Aye.
[3:06:50] Opposed?
[3:06:50] Motion carries 5-0.
[3:06:52] Thank you.
[3:06:54] Thank you, Beshoy.
[3:06:57] Want a break?
[3:06:58] Can we take a break?
[3:07:02] I'm going to call it myself.
[3:07:10] OK, and now we're back.
[3:07:13] Before we go to item D5, I know that at 10 o'clock,
[3:07:18] we usually have to ask for an extension of time
[3:07:20] and make sure the council still wants to keep going.
[3:07:23] So if I can get a motion.
[3:07:26] Second.
[3:07:27] I have a motion and a second from Council Member
[3:07:30] Breitenbucher.
[3:07:31] All in favor, say aye.
[3:07:32] Aye.
[3:07:36] Wow.
[3:07:38] Was that opposition?
[3:07:43] All right, item D5 conduct a public hearing
[3:07:47] and consider adopting a resolution, 1,
[3:07:51] adopting the August 2026 park dedication and in lieu fee
[3:07:56] and park acquisition and improvement fee nexus study, 2,
[3:08:00] adopting the park acquisition and improvement fee project
[3:08:04] list pursuant to Government Code sections 66016.5 and 66002, 3,
[3:08:14] adopting updated park dedication and in lieu
[3:08:18] fees, and park acquisition and improvement fees, 4,
[3:08:22] directing staff to implement the updated fees effective January
[3:08:26] 1, 2027, including the phased implementation schedule, 5,
[3:08:32] waive the first reading by substitution of the title,
[3:08:35] and introduce an ordinance of the City
[3:08:37] Council of the City of Manteca, State of California,
[3:08:40] repealing and replacing chapter 3.20 of the Manteca Municipal
[3:08:44] Code entitled park acquisition and improvement fees,
[3:08:48] and adding chapter 3.21 of the Manteca Municipal Code entitled
[3:08:54] park dedication and in lieu fees.
[3:08:57] Mayor and council, tonight we have
[3:08:58] director of parks, recreation, and transit, Brandy Clark.
[3:09:11] Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council.
[3:09:14] Brandy Clark, director of parks, recreation, and transit.
[3:09:18] Before you tonight is a public hearing
[3:09:22] to adopt a resolution adopting the park impact fee nexus
[3:09:26] study and park impact fees.
[3:09:29] This update is intended to ensure
[3:09:31] that new residential development contributes its fair share
[3:09:35] toward parkland and recreational facilities needed to serve
[3:09:38] Manteca's continued growth.
[3:09:40] This has been a significant and highly collaborative effort.
[3:09:44] Staff worked closely with our consultants, legal counsel,
[3:09:48] development services, and representatives of the Building
[3:09:53] Industry Association to develop a program that
[3:09:57] supports the city's long term park needs,
[3:10:00] while recognizing the concerns of the development community.
[3:10:03] I'd like to thank Megan Quinn of Harrison & Associates, who
[3:10:08] will provide tonight's presentation,
[3:10:10] as well as Megan Burke, the city's outside legal counsel,
[3:10:14] for their guidance and extensive work throughout this process.
[3:10:17] I'd also like to recognize Megan Kuster, administrative assistant
[3:10:22] 3, Michael Rosales, parks planning and development
[3:10:25] manager, and Brad Wungluck, director
[3:10:27] of development services for their hard work, collaboration,
[3:10:31] and commitment to moving this project forward.
[3:10:34] I'd also like to thank organizations and community
[3:10:37] partners that submitted letters of support for this project.
[3:10:40] Their engagement and support reflect the importance
[3:10:43] of investing in parks and recreation facilities that
[3:10:46] will serve Manteca residents now and into the future.
[3:10:50] Finally, I'd like to thank the BIA and its members
[3:10:53] for its communication, participation, and partnership
[3:10:57] in helping us bring this item to the finish line.
[3:11:00] With that, I'll turn it over to Megan Quinn.
[3:11:03] I along with the rest of the team
[3:11:05] will also be available for any questions that you may have.
[3:11:13] Thank you very much, Brandy.
[3:11:15] And good evening, Mayor Singh and members of the council.
[3:11:19] I will try to go through this presentation
[3:11:21] as quickly as possible.
[3:11:23] I do know it's late.
[3:11:26] So just here to talk tonight about the park
[3:11:28] impact fees, a little bit about what development impact
[3:11:32] fees are, and why they are important.
[3:11:34] So development impact fees are one time fees.
[3:11:37] I just want to mention that they're not taxes.
[3:11:40] They are fees that are paid by new development
[3:11:42] to mitigate their impacts on parks and recreation facilities.
[3:11:47] They're based on their fair share.
[3:11:49] And its one time fees, as I mentioned.
[3:11:51] They can only fund capital costs.
[3:11:53] It does not fund anything related
[3:11:55] to operations or maintenance.
[3:11:57] And that's what the fees are based on,
[3:11:59] land acquisition for parks and recreation,
[3:12:02] as well as the facilities costs for parks.
[3:12:05] The funds must be used for their intended purposes.
[3:12:09] And that's outlined in the capital improvement
[3:12:11] plan in the nexus study as appendix A,
[3:12:14] as well as part of the resolution for you
[3:12:17] to adopt today.
[3:12:19] Assembly Bill 602, or AB 602 went into effect in 2022.
[3:12:24] And that made some changes to development impact fees.
[3:12:27] So one of the changes that you'll see for the park fees
[3:12:30] is the residential fee going to a per square foot basis, where
[3:12:33] it used to be a per unit basis, as well as having that capital
[3:12:38] improvement plan.
[3:12:39] So as the park fees collect revenue,
[3:12:41] we do have a plan for how those revenues are
[3:12:43] going to be spent on parks, as well as looking at the existing
[3:12:47] level of service compared to the proposed level of service.
[3:12:50] The existing level of service right now in the city is 5.01
[3:12:55] acres per 1,000.
[3:12:56] And the adopted level service in your city
[3:12:58] is 5, which is what this park fee is based on.
[3:13:01] So it's very similar.
[3:13:03] And lastly, nexus studies must be updated every eight
[3:13:07] years moving forward.
[3:13:08] So after you do this update, in eight years
[3:13:10] you will be required to do another update at least in eight
[3:13:13] years for impact fees.
[3:13:21] One of the purposes for updating development impact fees,
[3:13:25] is not only just required by Assembly Bill 1600,
[3:13:28] is also just to make sure that we're aligning the development
[3:13:31] impact fees with the cost of park infrastructure,
[3:13:34] as well as land acquisition for parks.
[3:13:37] It also satisfies the Mitigation Fee Act,
[3:13:39] making sure that we're in alignment
[3:13:40] with current legislation, as well as any case law.
[3:13:45] It satisfies the Quimby Act, as well as AB 1600,
[3:13:49] or also known as the Mitigation Fee Act for impact fees.
[3:13:53] And fees are typically able to be effective 60 days
[3:13:58] after the last action by City Council.
[3:14:01] These fees will be effective on January 1.
[3:14:04] A lot of times, different jurisdictions
[3:14:06] will make them effective January one or July 1,
[3:14:09] just making it a little bit easier for new development
[3:14:11] to know when they're effective.
[3:14:16] As part of this update, we did a lot.
[3:14:18] As Brandy mentioned, it was a really collaborative effort,
[3:14:21] working with city staff, working with different departments,
[3:14:24] working with the development community, as well as the BIA.
[3:14:28] We updated the data, the land use data,
[3:14:30] making sure it was in alignment with the city's general plan,
[3:14:33] making sure that all the population
[3:14:35] assumptions and projected growth were updated.
[3:14:38] Updating the park and recreation master plan
[3:14:41] was adopted by this council.
[3:14:44] It was in January of 2026 by LPA Design Studios,
[3:14:50] and that was a visionary document for the future
[3:14:53] of your park and recreation.
[3:14:55] All of the information, the assumptions and everything
[3:14:58] that was adopted in that document
[3:14:59] is also included in our nexus study.
[3:15:02] The methodology complies with all legal requirements,
[3:15:06] including the Mitigation Fee Act, the Quimby Act,
[3:15:09] as well as any recent case law, including
[3:15:12] the sheets case that went to the Supreme Court not too long ago.
[3:15:15] It demonstrates rough proportionality
[3:15:17] to new development, as well as essential nexus to the fees
[3:15:21] and to the land uses that is being charged.
[3:15:25] We also had a lot of coordination meetings,
[3:15:28] not only with internal city coordination meetings,
[3:15:32] but with legal counsel.
[3:15:33] And then we had a lot of stakeholder outreach meetings,
[3:15:36] again, with the development community,
[3:15:37] really working with them, making sure
[3:15:39] that we had that stakeholder outreach, and the BIA as part
[3:15:43] of this process.
[3:15:47] There's two different fees as part of this.
[3:15:49] One's the Quimby Act.
[3:15:50] One is the Mitigation Fee Act, but the fees are the same.
[3:15:53] The only difference is one's for subdivision
[3:15:55] and one's for non subdivision.
[3:15:57] And that's because one's governed by the Quimby Act
[3:15:59] and one's governed by the Mitigation Fee Act.
[3:16:02] So for the subdivision, that's for land acquisition.
[3:16:06] And so as it's shown on this slide and in the nexus study,
[3:16:10] that's based on the Quimby Act, 5 acres per 1,000.
[3:16:13] As I said, the existing level of service within your city
[3:16:18] is 5.01.
[3:16:19] But Quimby is based up to 5 acres per 1,000.
[3:16:22] And any new subdivision development
[3:16:24] will pay that for land acquisition.
[3:16:27] They will pay the Mitigation Fee Act for facilities.
[3:16:34] For any non subdivisions, they will pay the Mitigation Fee Act.
[3:16:37] And it will be the same for land and non land, the facility
[3:16:41] component for whether it's a subdivision or non subdivision.
[3:16:45] And again, it's based on that 5 acres per 1,000.
[3:16:53] The fee is broken into neighborhood parks, community
[3:16:56] parks, and special use parks.
[3:16:58] And there's different costs for each of those.
[3:17:01] And that's based on the park master plan, as well as
[3:17:04] additional data and assumptions done
[3:17:07] by Harrison & Associates and some conversations
[3:17:09] with the development community.
[3:17:11] So as you can see here, the cost for a facility for a park
[3:17:15] for neighborhood is 800,000, as well as the land acquisition is
[3:17:20] 250,000.
[3:17:21] Community parks are 143,500.
[3:17:25] And the facility cost to build that is 1.25 million.
[3:17:29] And special use parks is 250,000 for land acquisition and 1.25
[3:17:34] million.
[3:17:37] Again, it's 5 acres per 1,000 as our level of service.
[3:17:41] And we do have to do this analysis as part of AB 602.
[3:17:47] This just shows the 2024 and 2026 acreage
[3:17:51] looking at that due to Quimby.
[3:17:53] And this is pulled straight from the park master plan.
[3:17:59] And what everyone really cares about-- what is the actual fee
[3:18:01] amount?
[3:18:02] So your existing fee for single family is 3.99.
[3:18:07] And your proposed fee is 8.53.
[3:18:09] For multifamily development, it is 5.57.
[3:18:13] And your proposed fee is 13.48.
[3:18:16] The increase is a little bit over 100% for single family
[3:18:21] and about 140% for multifamily.
[3:18:23] This really reflects the updated cost.
[3:18:26] The fee had not been updated in a long time.
[3:18:28] And the cost of land acquisition,
[3:18:30] as well as facility costs has really
[3:18:32] escalated since the fee was last completed,
[3:18:35] as well as there's been a lot of additional compliance
[3:18:38] and changes to the fee.
[3:18:42] I know this table is pretty hard to see,
[3:18:44] so it's also in the Nexus study, but this just
[3:18:46] shows the different components of the fee
[3:18:48] and how it's broken out per subdivision and non
[3:18:50] subdivision, as well as the facility component,
[3:18:54] and the land acquisition component.
[3:18:59] This shows the estimated fee revenue if all of the land uses
[3:19:03] are estimated in the general plan at 2,400 were to have built
[3:19:08] out, as well as the single family and multifamily revenue
[3:19:11] for those proposed fees, and at build out,
[3:19:14] that would be about $358 million with impact fees.
[3:19:18] For parks, some of these parks will be built and dedicated
[3:19:21] instead of the revenue given to the city to build.
[3:19:27] It's another big table, so apologies there,
[3:19:30] but this is our capital improvement plan.
[3:19:32] It's also included as a attachment as part of the agenda
[3:19:37] tonight.
[3:19:37] But this is another part that needs
[3:19:39] to be adopted as part of the nexus study.
[3:19:41] It's Appendix A as well, which shows all of the planned parks.
[3:19:45] So while we do have this updated fee,
[3:19:47] there is a plan for all the parks
[3:19:49] that plan to be built by 2040.
[3:19:52] And this is in alignment with the park master plan,
[3:19:54] as well as working with city staff
[3:19:56] to make sure that these are planned parks
[3:19:58] that the city plans to build.
[3:20:00] The estimated construction year, if there's
[3:20:02] any additional funding sources, and the total cost.
[3:20:06] As you can see there, the cost does--
[3:20:09] is higher than the amount that would be funded
[3:20:11] by development impact fees.
[3:20:12] So development impact fees are new development's fair share.
[3:20:15] The remaining is existing development's fair share.
[3:20:20] Lastly, I just wanted to go over real briefly that we did send
[3:20:24] the 30-day notice to all parties on July 39th in alignment with
[3:20:29] the Mitigation Fee Act.
[3:20:30] We published in the newspaper on July 10, as well as July 17.
[3:20:36] We posted the nexus study more than 10 days prior,
[3:20:40] as we have to do for the Mitigation Fee act on August
[3:20:43] 5th.
[3:20:44] And then we're here today at our public hearing.
[3:20:47] If adopted, the fees will go in effect on July 1st.
[3:20:50] The last thing I want to mention is
[3:20:52] there are phase fees that are included.
[3:20:55] So there's the development impact fees
[3:20:58] that are in the nexus study, which is the maximum justifiable
[3:21:01] fee.
[3:21:01] And then it's included with the phase fees amount
[3:21:04] for developments that are in different processes and projects
[3:21:08] farther along within the development process.
[3:21:11] And that's included in your package.
[3:21:17] I'm now open for any questions.
[3:21:21] All right, thank you.
[3:21:25] Council have any questions before I open up for public?
[3:21:30] OK, we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing at 10:04.
[3:21:37] Zoom, anybody there?
[3:21:46] I do have attendees, but no hands
[3:21:48] are raised for public comment on item D.5.
[3:21:55] Anybody in the public would like to talk
[3:21:57] about item D.5, park fees?
[3:22:05] OK, seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing
[3:22:09] at 10:04:52.
[3:22:14] And bring it back.
[3:22:19] Council Member Halford.
[3:22:23] Is there an escalator built in?
[3:22:25] Yes, there's an annual escalator.
[3:22:27] It's the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index.
[3:22:30] And it will be annually escalated on July 1st.
[3:22:33] And it's good for eight years, I think, you said.
[3:22:35] Yes, for eight years.
[3:22:36] And then it will need to be updated.
[3:22:38] Thank you.
[3:22:41] When's the last time this was updated?
[3:22:43] This was last updated in 2016.
[3:22:51] Vice Mayor.
[3:22:53] All right.
[3:22:55] Council Member Morowit.
[3:23:01] I'll make it fast.
[3:23:03] 2016, that's probably the reason it's such a large increase.
[3:23:06] Went from 3.99 single family to 8.51.
[3:23:11] That puts us at, what, 8, 10 years?
[3:23:15] Yeah, it's been about 10 years.
[3:23:16] It's almost 10 years.
[3:23:17] So we've had a lot of increases in costs.
[3:23:20] Not just the materials and in labor, I believe.
[3:23:24] Yeah, and the annual escalations do not
[3:23:27] keep up with that type of increase as well.
[3:23:31] It tries to keep up with somewhat of an increase,
[3:23:34] but the land acquisition cost, and as well
[3:23:36] as the facilities cost, labor costs
[3:23:38] has not kept up with that in the last 10 years.
[3:23:42] Plus, as I mentioned, there's been additional changes
[3:23:44] in terms of legislation and in terms of how
[3:23:47] the fee needs to be calculated.
[3:23:49] And so just ensuring that going to a per square foot and some
[3:23:52] of those other changes, that's why you see that large increase.
[3:23:56] So new development pays a portion of it.
[3:23:58] And then of course, the existing pays a portion.
[3:24:01] Yes, because we can only charge it for their fair share.
[3:24:05] So it's a proportional amount of the total cost of the new parks
[3:24:09] that are necessary at 2040.
[3:24:12] And the Building Industry Association, also known as BIA,
[3:24:15] was agreement with us?
[3:24:17] Yeah, so we met with the BIA and we
[3:24:19] did receive a letter of support in terms of this.
[3:24:23] And so we met with the development community
[3:24:25] and had good stakeholder outreach, as I mentioned.
[3:24:29] Good, everybody's on board.
[3:24:30] I think the most important thing about this
[3:24:32] is that people are asking for better amenities, larger
[3:24:35] parks like the one up north we're going to be working on
[3:24:37] shortly, 60 acres.
[3:24:39] So this is all going to play a part in that,
[3:24:42] to build something nicer in certain communities
[3:24:45] and neighborhoods.
[3:24:46] But the developers always have the option of doing it in lieu,
[3:24:52] building their own, or paying a fee.
[3:24:54] Yes, they can either dedicate, build it themselves.
[3:24:58] And dedicate it and do in lieu fee or pay the fee themselves.
[3:25:02] So that seems to be depending on the builder
[3:25:05] and how extravagant they want to go,
[3:25:07] but it seems to work out well, so I appreciate it.
[3:25:10] Thank you very much.
[3:25:14] Council Member Breitenbucher.
[3:25:17] Great job.
[3:25:20] I think this is much needed.
[3:25:22] Again, 10 years.
[3:25:23] And on the new aquatics facility,
[3:25:26] you have five acres down.
[3:25:28] I'll double that to 10.
[3:25:31] That's what they recommend for that size of area
[3:25:33] with parking and all that.
[3:25:42] Are you still coaching?
[3:25:47] I'm glad we're finally here.
[3:25:49] This is much needed.
[3:25:51] Parks and recreation is so important to our city
[3:25:55] for the longevity and also for our next generation.
[3:25:59] We need to continue investing in that.
[3:26:02] And I'm glad our partners that are helping pay these fees
[3:26:08] are on board with it also.
[3:26:10] And I know a lot of work went into this to make it happen.
[3:26:15] And I'm also hoping, in the future,
[3:26:17] we can work on these fees in a more timely manner
[3:26:21] and not have to wait as long.
[3:26:23] And I appreciate the escalator built
[3:26:26] into because that'll keep us going with future expenses.
[3:26:35] As we are continuing to bring more amenities into our parks,
[3:26:39] I see more work to be done when it comes to our parks and rec
[3:26:42] commission and ensuring they're bringing in what
[3:26:46] the public actually wants.
[3:26:49] And this will help us get to that point.
[3:26:51] So thank you, and I'm glad this is here.
[3:26:55] So with that--
[3:26:57] Can I add something real quick?
[3:26:59] Sure.
[3:26:59] Thank you.
[3:27:00] I don't know, do you like parks and rec.
[3:27:02] I just want to really take a moment
[3:27:05] and thank Brad for all your time, Brandy, Michael,
[3:27:09] the Megans.
[3:27:11] This is no small task to get this to the finish line
[3:27:15] and with a letter of support from the BIA
[3:27:17] in this day and age.
[3:27:18] So thank you all.
[3:27:20] And just a real quick story.
[3:27:23] I think it was in probably--
[3:27:25] I don't know, maybe 2014.
[3:27:29] I remember at council meetings, for budget items,
[3:27:33] you used to put these dots.
[3:27:35] And I remember when we got the funding approved
[3:27:38] to do the first ever master plan that was approved in '16.
[3:27:42] And so, yes, this has taken us some time, but all of our fees
[3:27:46] will soon be updated.
[3:27:49] But I think that was instrumental
[3:27:51] because we have some funding.
[3:27:53] Obviously, development doesn't close all of the gaps
[3:27:56] to get a project to the finish line.
[3:27:57] There's much more involved in that.
[3:27:59] But I think we have some opportunities coming up
[3:28:02] that I'm going to be really excited to bring
[3:28:04] before council on looking at some possibilities,
[3:28:09] potentially with Measure Q, after we kick off
[3:28:11] feeding the fire station 6.
[3:28:13] And then some other funding sources
[3:28:15] that we've been really creative at making sure
[3:28:18] that we have to make sure that we're really
[3:28:20] building this community to be the best community.
[3:28:22] And so anyways, I was thinking about that story.
[3:28:24] I remember you and Steve DeBrum.
[3:28:26] And Steve DeBrum, he was like Toni, Toni.
[3:28:29] And I was like, trust me.
[3:28:30] You won't go wrong from this.
[3:28:33] And at some point--
[3:28:36] I mean, I hope you all are a part
[3:28:38] of that because I remember getting
[3:28:40] those green and red dots.
[3:28:42] And we're here.
[3:28:43] We have a pot.
[3:28:44] That's why the splash pad was possible.
[3:28:46] And so, I mean, look, it took over a decade,
[3:28:50] but things are happening.
[3:28:51] And because of Measure Q, things are happening
[3:28:53] at a much faster pace.
[3:28:55] And so I'm grateful for that.
[3:28:57] I'm grateful that I was there during that time frame.
[3:29:00] And I'm also grateful that we have some ideas.
[3:29:03] We just got a federal earmark for almost $1 million
[3:29:06] from Congress Representative Harder for a community center
[3:29:10] so that we can actually start the planning.
[3:29:12] And now, we've got some good funding sources.
[3:29:15] So it's really an exciting time.
[3:29:17] And these are needs we already should
[3:29:19] have had in our community.
[3:29:20] So I'm looking forward to bringing that
[3:29:23] to council in the future.
[3:29:24] And thank you guys all for supporting this tonight.
[3:29:27] I think that this is a really good move for our community.
[3:29:30] And thank you again to the team.
[3:29:32] Just to add on, I remember those dots.
[3:29:34] And Toni was not the city manager.
[3:29:36] And she was saying, put more dots on my projects,
[3:29:38] put more dots.
[3:29:39] And we said, we don't have any money.
[3:29:40] We don't have any money yet.
[3:29:41] But by putting the master plan together in '16,
[3:29:44] you're right, That is how we were
[3:29:46] able to do the things we're doing and start the process.
[3:29:49] So at the time, we just didn't have the money.
[3:29:51] But by building in fees into the development,
[3:29:54] it made a big difference.
[3:29:55] You know what else you approved funding for at that meeting?
[3:29:58] You gave us money for the master plan, for the parks master plan,
[3:30:00] and you gave us money for tax measure exploration.
[3:30:04] So both have been beneficial to the city in many, many ways.
[3:30:08] So anyways, good memory.
[3:30:11] Yes, I remember those dots.
[3:30:13] I had just got on.
[3:30:17] She brought him over for parks and rec, too.
[3:30:20] When we were doing this stuff for parks and rec and what
[3:30:23] everybody wanted [INAUDIBLE].
[3:30:26] Yes, no.
[3:30:27] Thank you for all the hard work.
[3:30:29] And this is a great thing.
[3:30:30] And this is a great job with this council, too,
[3:30:32] because we've really worked hard to update a lot of fees
[3:30:36] throughout everything and bring everything to modern times.
[3:30:41] So with that, who's ready for this motion?
[3:30:45] All right, we got a motion from Council Member Halford
[3:30:49] and a second from Vice Mayor Lackey.
[3:30:52] Here we go.
[3:30:54] To adopt a resolution--
[3:30:56] adopt the August 2026 dedication and in lieu fee and park
[3:31:01] acquisition and improvement fee nexus
[3:31:03] study, to adopt the park acquisition and improvement fee
[3:31:07] project list pursuant to Government Code section 66016.5
[3:31:13] and 66002, adopt updated park dedication and in lieu
[3:31:18] fees and park acquisition and improvement
[3:31:20] fees, direct staff to implement the updated
[3:31:23] fees effective January 1, 2027, including
[3:31:27] the phased implementation schedule,
[3:31:29] waive the first reading by substitution of the title,
[3:31:34] and introduce an ordinance of the City
[3:31:35] Council of the City of Manteca, State of California,
[3:31:39] repealing and replacing chapter 3.20 of the Manteca Municipal
[3:31:43] Code entitled park acquisition and improvement fees and adding
[3:31:47] chapter 3.21 of the Manteca Municipal Code entitled park
[3:31:52] dedications and in lieu fees.
[3:31:54] All in favor say aye.
[3:31:55] Aye.
[3:31:56] Opposed?
[3:31:57] Motion carries 5-0.
[3:31:59] Thank you.
[3:32:00] Congratulations.
[3:32:02] D.6.
[3:32:04] Conduct a public hearing for the Chamberlain Annexation Project
[3:32:08] and by motion find the project exempt from further
[3:32:11] environmental review pursuant to Section 15319 of the California
[3:32:17] Environmental Quality Act guidelines,
[3:32:19] adopt a resolution approving annexation and authorize staff
[3:32:23] to submit an application to the San Joaquin County Local Agency
[3:32:28] Formation Commission to initiate annexation proceedings
[3:32:33] for the Chamberlain Annexation parcels APN 218-020-08, -14,
[3:32:41] -17, -18, -19, -24, and 25, and waive the first reading
[3:32:48] by substitution of the title and introduce an ordinance
[3:32:51] of the City of Manteca, State of California,
[3:32:55] amending the zoning map set forth in Section 17.20.040
[3:33:01] of chapter 17.20 of Title 17 of the Manteca Municipal Code
[3:33:06] by assigning APN 218-020-14, -17,
[3:33:12] and -25 with a general commercial free zone
[3:33:16] designation.
[3:33:18] Mayor and council, tonight we have deputy director
[3:33:20] of development services planning, Jesus Orozco.
[3:33:24] Good evening, Mayor, council, members of the public,
[3:33:27] and staff.
[3:33:28] Someone teased me earlier about being last.
[3:33:30] But this would be the perfect way
[3:33:33] to celebrate my two years with the City of Manteca today.
[3:33:36] Yeah, all right.
[3:33:39] Two years, plus a day if you don't move faster.
[3:33:42] A couple of minutes.
[3:33:49] So before you is a annexation and a prezoning
[3:33:54] for the Chamberlain project.
[3:33:57] Some quick details on the project.
[3:33:59] This is a city initiated annexation.
[3:34:02] It entails approximately seven parcels, three of which
[3:34:05] are developable commercial parcels.
[3:34:08] The other four are encumbered as Caltrans right away parcels.
[3:34:14] The overall annexation area includes approximately 17.4
[3:34:19] acres.
[3:34:20] And the general area is located on the Southern portion
[3:34:25] of Lathrop Road and east of Inheritance Way and on--
[3:34:29] I'm sorry, the western side of Inheritance Way
[3:34:31] and on the eastern side of State Route 99, going northbound.
[3:34:35] I do want to note that there is no development associated
[3:34:38] with this project.
[3:34:43] Some key facts about the project.
[3:34:46] So right now, to the north of the project,
[3:34:49] there is undeveloped commercial land.
[3:34:52] On the eastern side, there's primarily rural residential
[3:34:55] with some agricultural land as well.
[3:34:58] And to the west and south is either State Highway 99 land
[3:35:04] or unimproved public right of way.
[3:35:07] On your screen, you'll also note that the highlighted are
[3:35:11] the three parcels developable private parcels
[3:35:14] within the annexation area.
[3:35:20] The purpose behind this annexation
[3:35:21] is really to streamline potential future development
[3:35:24] to the north and to the east, as there
[3:35:26] have been several inquiries.
[3:35:28] But I do want to note, again, that there
[3:35:30] is no development at this time.
[3:35:32] This annexation would square off and provide for contiguous city
[3:35:38] boundaries, as there are some odd or the existing city
[3:35:46] boundaries are somewhat irregular
[3:35:48] and this would allow for future development in a more
[3:35:52] streamlined fashion.
[3:35:55] I do want to note that the existing private commercial
[3:36:00] sites are within this area are developed.
[3:36:03] They will remain as existing nonconforming
[3:36:06] until they decide to either expand, change in use,
[3:36:10] or do other on site improvements.
[3:36:13] So as long as they continue their uses as currently
[3:36:17] in place, they would not be subject to the city
[3:36:22] zoning standards.
[3:36:24] That being said, those sites would
[3:36:26] be prezoned with a general commercial zoning designation
[3:36:30] upon completion of the annexation.
[3:36:35] Since this project does not entail any development
[3:36:38] and there are existing utilities within proximity
[3:36:44] and there is no intensification of zoning,
[3:36:47] the California Environmental Quality Act
[3:36:49] does allow for an exemption for annexations of these nature.
[3:36:52] Therefore, staff has prepared a notice of exemption
[3:36:56] consistent with section 15319 of the CEQA guidelines.
[3:37:01] And the project was also duly noticed
[3:37:03] and no less than 20 days in the Manteca Bulletin
[3:37:07] prior to this hearing.
[3:37:09] That being said, staff is requesting
[3:37:11] that the council consider finding the project exempt
[3:37:14] from further CEQA, adopt a resolution authorizing
[3:37:17] staff to submit an application to San Joaquin County Local
[3:37:21] Agency Formation Commission, and introduce an ordinance
[3:37:24] to prezone three other parcels within the annexation boundary.
[3:37:29] That completes my presentation.
[3:37:30] I'll be happy to answer any questions.
[3:37:34] All right, any questions from council?
[3:37:40] All right, we'll open up the public hearing at 10:20.
[3:37:45] Zoom.
[3:37:55] I do have an attendee, but no hand.
[3:37:58] OK, anybody in the public would like to speak on item D.6?
[3:38:10] Good evening, Mayor Singh, Council.
[3:38:12] My name is Dave Bramell.
[3:38:13] I'm the fire chief of the Lathrop Manteca Fire District,
[3:38:18] which is subsequently the district that
[3:38:22] is most frequently impacted through annexation
[3:38:24] and detachment.
[3:38:26] Other people know me as Chief Isla's less handsome peer
[3:38:31] to the West.
[3:38:34] It's a pleasure to be here.
[3:38:35] I've been a resident of Manteca for 49 years.
[3:38:37] My family moved here in 1977, so I'm very familiar with the area,
[3:38:41] but I've only been the fire chief next door
[3:38:43] for about the last four years.
[3:38:45] And in that time, we've been noticed north of 16
[3:38:50] plus annexation applications have come through
[3:38:52] or requests for mitigation agreements.
[3:38:55] And so it happens to-- as you're well aware,
[3:38:57] it happens well to the north, to the south, to the east,
[3:39:02] and then to the extent possible, toward the west a bit, too.
[3:39:06] So my goal in coming here tonight
[3:39:09] is to talk a little bit about this specific annexation
[3:39:11] and as it relates, perhaps, to the process of annexation
[3:39:14] with the city.
[3:39:14] The city has been very good with us
[3:39:17] about providing notice and getting us on distribution lists
[3:39:21] so that we can see and have an opportunity to comment
[3:39:23] on projects frequently.
[3:39:25] This annexation, I know, is a annexation
[3:39:28] that's been initiated by the city, where the majority of them
[3:39:32] are usually not in that frame.
[3:39:34] So we're often contacted by a developer who reaches out.
[3:39:38] Sometimes we're noticed about a project maybe a year prior.
[3:39:42] We provide comment to that initial distribution.
[3:39:44] And we might not hear for a year.
[3:39:46] And then a developer contacts me and says,
[3:39:47] I hear you're the guy that we do this with.
[3:39:49] And it's usually because there's a pending LAFCO meeting.
[3:39:52] And they know they have to mitigate the impact to the fire
[3:39:55] district.
[3:39:56] And as you're aware, that is required
[3:39:59] via current LAFCO policy.
[3:40:02] The challenge for the fire district
[3:40:03] is that it usually keeps the fire district whole
[3:40:06] from the aspect of the current value from the parcels that
[3:40:11] are--
[3:40:11] often, it's a single parcel or maybe
[3:40:13] it's three or four parcels with only one
[3:40:15] or two improvements on it.
[3:40:16] And so by itself is not that much.
[3:40:18] And so that impact, we typically negotiate over a 15 year
[3:40:23] agreement with an escalator that assumes a certain percentage
[3:40:26] of property tax increase.
[3:40:27] And we call it good.
[3:40:28] But depending on the parcel, that could be a developer writes
[3:40:32] us a check for $38,000 and looks around their pockets for loose
[3:40:36] change and satisfies this requirement.
[3:40:40] Project moves on.
[3:40:41] Detachment occurs.
[3:40:41] And in perpetuity, the fire district
[3:40:43] will never have that revenue again.
[3:40:45] So it's one time monies.
[3:40:47] And the city is negotiating and the developers
[3:40:49] are negotiating in good faith with us to do that.
[3:40:52] But the reason I bring it up tonight
[3:40:54] is the Chamberlain Annexation is one that we haven't yet
[3:40:56] had the opportunity to meet.
[3:40:57] And the city has reached out.
[3:40:59] I returned some of that as well.
[3:41:01] And we just haven't been able to connect.
[3:41:03] I know and I see in the documentation
[3:41:04] the attachments tonight that that is certainly something
[3:41:08] that both parties endeavor to do and accomplish.
[3:41:13] May I have just a little more time?
[3:41:17] And so I know that we're going to do that.
[3:41:19] And I'm not here to tell you that we're
[3:41:21] going to thwart that or be an obstacle to such.
[3:41:25] But I just would share that the sheer volume of annexations
[3:41:28] that come through is--
[3:41:32] it's exhausting, actually, in a lot of ways.
[3:41:34] But the district is looking to more closely look
[3:41:39] at these projects as they come through.
[3:41:41] We're working on developing a mitigation program so that it
[3:41:44] can expedite these processes and make it clear
[3:41:47] as we move forward.
[3:41:49] We're interested in arrangements,
[3:41:51] such as tax sharing agreements that
[3:41:52] might be untraditional from just simply paying us a lump sum
[3:41:56] to make us go away, for lack of a better term.
[3:41:59] So we're going to be looking at that
[3:42:00] a little closer because this in itself
[3:42:03] is not a significant impact.
[3:42:05] But there's discussion, as you're well aware,
[3:42:07] in this community, about a couple other big project
[3:42:09] areas of already established developed communities
[3:42:12] that would be a very significant impact.
[3:42:14] And so I want to get in front of it.
[3:42:16] And I just want to make the staff and council aware
[3:42:20] that we are looking a lot closer at this
[3:42:23] and making sure that the district-- because that's
[3:42:26] my charge, is to advocate for my district
[3:42:28] and make sure that funding sources are there.
[3:42:30] Because although, I understand fully
[3:42:33] the city's right to develop, I understand
[3:42:35] the concepts of general plans and sphere of influence,
[3:42:38] and I know how all of that works.
[3:42:41] And the city is going to grow.
[3:42:42] But the district still has a responsibility
[3:42:44] to serve areas that are outside of your sphere
[3:42:46] that are impacted by these areas that you plan to develop in.
[3:42:50] And so we just have to monitor that, and partner,
[3:42:52] and work with the city to make sure
[3:42:54] that it's best for all parties.
[3:42:56] And then lastly, I'll just say, in your documentation,
[3:43:00] the CEQA analysis talks about the fire station being
[3:43:05] the current station 33 being 2 miles away
[3:43:08] and the city 244 being a mile and a half.
[3:43:11] Pick a center parcel in the business that's there.
[3:43:14] Measure it.
[3:43:14] It's exactly the same.
[3:43:15] There are about 1.5, 1.6 miles apart.
[3:43:18] Also, it talks about a 1,200 feet away for a water supply.
[3:43:23] That is not really consistent with the municipal level
[3:43:26] of water supply.
[3:43:27] It is in a rural setting, technically,
[3:43:28] or unincorporated areas, but not so much in a municipal setting.
[3:43:32] So in any case, thank you for the extended time.
[3:43:34] I appreciate it.
[3:43:36] And I just wanted to provide those comments.
[3:43:38] Thank you.
[3:43:39] Thank you.
[3:43:42] Anybody else?
[3:43:47] OK, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing at 10:26
[3:43:57] and bring it back for council discussion.
[3:44:06] Some of the points that were raised
[3:44:09] has there been discussion regarding?
[3:44:15] One more time, Mayor.
[3:44:23] Oh, sorry.
[3:44:24] OK, I said, some of the points that were raised,
[3:44:26] has there been any discussion regarding the fire district?
[3:44:30] Yes, if I may just briefly, I do apologize.
[3:44:33] I did not speak on the detachment agreement.
[3:44:37] Staff is working and will continue
[3:44:38] to work with the fire district to come to a consensus
[3:44:41] and agreement on a tax sharing agreement
[3:44:44] as it relates to those specific parcels within the annexation
[3:44:50] area, which would be a requirement as part
[3:44:52] of the annexation application to LAFCO.
[3:44:55] With regards to the proximity of the fire station,
[3:44:59] I believe City of Manteca is fire station 4
[3:45:02] is slightly closer to than the district's fire station 33.
[3:45:09] There might have been some oversight
[3:45:10] on the exact distances, but they're generally close.
[3:45:14] Manteca being the closest for the most part.
[3:45:18] As far as the CEQA, again, since there's no actual development,
[3:45:23] the standard utility service plan
[3:45:26] that goes associated with this project
[3:45:28] would not be as detailed as we would normally
[3:45:30] see with projects that do have development associated
[3:45:33] with them.
[3:45:34] Currently, this is in the county and so it's
[3:45:37] on well and septic, correct?
[3:45:41] Correct.
[3:45:41] They're staying that way until there's development?
[3:45:44] That is correct.
[3:45:47] There's a water supply, you said, nearby?
[3:45:51] Well the water supply would be required upon development.
[3:45:54] And again, there's only three parcels.
[3:45:57] So they would have to pull something closer.
[3:45:59] That is correct.
[3:46:02] But to your point, Mayor, yes, there
[3:46:03] is a water supply that was extended east of 99
[3:46:07] along Lathrop Road that they would be able to connect.
[3:46:16] Charlie.
[3:46:23] I just want to thank Chief Bramell for coming out tonight.
[3:46:27] Somewhere out there, there's a picture
[3:46:29] of himself, and Division Chief Boris, and I on a grass fire,
[3:46:34] mopping up on 120 way back when you guys were
[3:46:38] starting as reserves.
[3:46:40] So it's good to see that you're taking care of Lathrop
[3:46:44] and watching out for their concerns and appreciate it.
[3:46:48] So thank you.
[3:46:53] Just briefly, I served on LAFCO, so I
[3:46:56] know this is always a concern of your predecessor,
[3:46:58] although you've done a much nicer job of presenting it today
[3:47:01] in front of us than he may have done a few years ago.
[3:47:06] That being said, though, I'm hopeful
[3:47:08] and I'm sure you'll reach out to us.
[3:47:10] Work on something, an appropriate detachment.
[3:47:13] It is important.
[3:47:14] Unfortunately, the Lathrop [INAUDIBLE],
[3:47:18] that is the issue with LAFCO.
[3:47:20] I mean, as we go farther north and we go east,
[3:47:23] that is a real issue for their district.
[3:47:26] So like I say, working with the developer's
[3:47:29] always probably even a little better.
[3:47:31] But I think with the city, I'm sure we'll do a fair exchange
[3:47:36] and work with you.
[3:47:37] And I'm sure you can reach out to us if there is a problem.
[3:47:40] So I'm hopeful.
[3:47:41] But thank you for your pleasant approach to the council tonight.
[3:47:48] Thank you.
[3:47:49] Yeah, thank you, Chief, for coming and also hanging out with
[3:47:52] us all the way until 10:30 at night.
[3:47:56] But yes, I think whatever we need to do,
[3:47:59] we will make it right with the city
[3:48:01] and make sure everything is moving forward.
[3:48:05] With that, I entertain a motion.
[3:48:09] So moved.
[3:48:13] This time, it's Council Member Breitenbucher and a second from
[3:48:17] Council Member Halford to adopt a resolution approving
[3:48:21] annexation and authorize staff to submit an application
[3:48:24] to the San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission
[3:48:27] to initiate annexation proceedings for the Chamberlain
[3:48:30] Annexation. parcels APN 218-020-14, -17, -18, -19, -24,
[3:48:37] and -25, and waive the first reading by substitution of title
[3:48:42] and introduce an ordinance of the City of Manteca,
[3:48:44] State of California, amending the zoning map set forth
[3:48:48] in Section 17.20.040 of chapter 17.20 of Title 17 of the Manteca
[3:48:57] Municipal Code by assigning APN 218-020-14, -17,
[3:49:04] and -25 with a general commercial free zone
[3:49:07] designation.
[3:49:09] All in favor, say aye.
[3:49:11] Aye.
[3:49:12] Opposed?
[3:49:14] Motion carries 5-0.
[3:49:18] I need a five minute break.
[3:49:25] Sorry.
[3:49:28] All right, we're back.
[3:49:30] We're almost there.
[3:49:31] All right, that brings us to item E.1,
[3:49:33] establish a city council ad hoc 2 by 2 Veterans Memorial
[3:49:37] Committee and appoint two council members
[3:49:39] to serve on the committee.
[3:49:40] Good evening, Mayor and Council.
[3:49:42] Tonight's staff is seeking city council's appointment
[3:49:45] of two council members to serve on an ad hoc, 2 by 2 committee,
[3:49:49] working with staff on a Veterans Memorial.
[3:49:54] That's it?
[3:49:55] That's it.
[3:49:56] It's up to you now.
[3:50:00] All right, I feel like I'm in the war zone here in the middle.
[3:50:09] I guess I'll go to public comments.
[3:50:13] Anybody on Zoom?
[3:50:18] I do have one attendee with no hand raised.
[3:50:21] All right, any comment cards?
[3:50:23] No comment cards.
[3:50:25] I'll be instructing people.
[3:50:28] Anybody in the public would like to speak on this item?
[3:50:50] Forming this ad hoc is a great thing for us.
[3:50:54] I think for veterans, it will help
[3:50:58] get you all out in the community and understand
[3:51:01] the veterans needs and what you can do as a community
[3:51:06] to help the veterans.
[3:51:07] So thank you very much for considering this.
[3:51:12] And I look forward to all the great things
[3:51:15] that you're going to do with us.
[3:51:16] Thank you.
[3:51:18] Thanks for the help.
[3:51:24] Wow.
[3:51:26] All right.
[3:51:29] Anybody else?
[3:51:34] Seeing none, we'll go ahead and bring it back
[3:51:37] to council discussion.
[3:51:38] I don't know, do we need council discussion or can
[3:51:41] I just make a motion?
[3:51:42] All right, I flipped a coin earlier just to let you know.
[3:51:47] All right.
[3:51:48] I would like to make a motion to establish a city council ad hoc
[3:51:51] 2 by 2 Veterans Memorial Committee
[3:51:53] and appoint Council Member Dave Breitenbucher and me to serve
[3:51:58] on the committee.
[3:52:00] That's what I got.
[3:52:04] Do I have a second on that?
[3:52:08] Anybody?
[3:52:13] I heard a second.
[3:52:16] So I have a motion and a second.
[3:52:21] All in favor, say aye.
[3:52:22] Aye.
[3:52:24] Opposed?
[3:52:29] Abstain?
[3:52:32] All right, I got 4-0, 1 All right, moving to E.2.
[3:52:46] E.2, establish the city council ad hoc solid waste committee
[3:52:49] and appoint two council members to serve on the committee.
[3:52:53] Good evening, Mayor and council.
[3:52:54] Tonight's staff is seeking city council's appointment
[3:52:57] of two council members to serve on an ad hoc, 2 by 2 committee
[3:53:01] to work with staff on solid waste and disposal options.
[3:53:07] All right, let's go to public comments.
[3:53:12] Jeff.
[3:53:13] Jeff, you want to tell us--
[3:53:17] you got nothing?
[3:53:20] Anybody on Zoom?
[3:53:24] I do have some attendees with no hand raised.
[3:53:26] OK, anybody in the public would like to speak on the 2
[3:53:30] by 2 solid waste committee?
[3:53:37] Seeing none, we'll go ahead and bring it back.
[3:53:40] You guys want to discuss this one?
[3:53:42] Anybody, eager to jump on board?
[3:53:49] Bada-boom.
[3:53:53] All right, let's see who the trash talkers are.
[3:53:57] I would like to establish a city council ad hoc 2 by 2
[3:54:01] solid waste committee and appoint Council Member Morowit
[3:54:05] and Vice Mayor Regina Lackey to serve on the committee.
[3:54:11] Mayor, just confirming that is your motion.
[3:54:13] That is my motion.
[3:54:17] OK, I got a motion and a second.
[3:54:18] All in favor, say aye.
[3:54:19] Aye.
[3:54:25] Do I have a no or an abstention?
[3:54:29] Aye, yes.
[3:54:32] It's going to be fun.
[3:54:33] It really will be.
[3:54:36] Guys, don't talk too much trash, all right?
[3:54:41] All right, that was a 5-0, by the way, on that one.
[3:54:46] With that, we're going to move on
[3:54:47] to-- thank God we're finally here.
[3:54:50] City manager comments.
[3:54:52] All right, thanks, Mayor and council.
[3:54:54] So just a quick recap.
[3:54:55] Big thank you for the parks fee, getting it
[3:54:58] to the finish line and all the support
[3:55:00] from everyone that came along with it.
[3:55:04] We haven't been here in a while.
[3:55:05] So I do want to thank the Sunrise Kiwanis for the 4th
[3:55:10] of July parade.
[3:55:11] And then also, I wanted to thank parks and recreation
[3:55:14] and PD for hosting the National Night Out Community Party.
[3:55:18] Again, I thought that was really nice.
[3:55:21] Some special events coming up-- we have Loma ribbon cutting.
[3:55:25] It's supposed to be on Friday at 11,
[3:55:27] but I saw something on social media.
[3:55:28] It might be at 2:00.
[3:55:29] So keep your eyes out for whatever time it is.
[3:55:33] I'm not sure if it changed, but excited that Loma is open.
[3:55:36] Music on Maple will be on the 20th.
[3:55:40] Manteca Citizens Academy will kick off next week.
[3:55:42] This last week we started level up.
[3:55:45] We have lots of upcoming ribbon cuttings and groundbreaking.
[3:55:50] So the way Veterans Village will be on September 8.
[3:55:53] The transitional housing and dog containers ribbon cutting
[3:55:56] will be on September 9.
[3:55:58] We're going to be doing a groundbreaking for our Police
[3:56:01] Department on October 7 and then fire station 6 on October 14.
[3:56:05] So all of this will be put on social media and more details
[3:56:09] to come on that.
[3:56:10] We'll also be doing a little event
[3:56:13] at what we're calling Mural Alley on September 17,
[3:56:19] before [INAUDIBLE].
[3:56:21] So more details to come for that.
[3:56:23] August 20, I want to take a moment.
[3:56:25] We're going to be launching our new website, which is going
[3:56:28] to include some ADA components.
[3:56:30] It's going to have an AI chatbot to help
[3:56:33] our residents with questions that they have in real time.
[3:56:36] And I want to take a moment and thank
[3:56:38] Penny, who is our IT and innovation director,
[3:56:41] and her team.
[3:56:42] It looks really amazing.
[3:56:44] They've done a good job.
[3:56:46] And we've needed the update for quite some time.
[3:56:48] So thank you, Penny, to you and your team for all
[3:56:51] that you're doing.
[3:56:52] And I hope that the citizens in our community
[3:56:55] enjoy it just as much as we are.
[3:56:57] It's really user friendly.
[3:56:59] And then lastly, I want to close out the meeting just saying
[3:57:02] that, even though tonight it was a long meeting, that I just
[3:57:06] want to state that we do understand and respect
[3:57:08] all of our employees and their right to express their views.
[3:57:12] We recognize the importance of negotiation.
[3:57:15] And with that, we've also had with the two bargaining groups
[3:57:18] that were here tonight, a total of 17 meetings with them,
[3:57:22] combined to date, with multiple emails, several costing
[3:57:26] of proposals, budget presentations.
[3:57:30] We are definitely committed to working collaboratively
[3:57:33] and constructively with our employee
[3:57:35] reps to reach an agreement.
[3:57:37] We value all of our employees.
[3:57:39] So I just want to make sure that that's clear.
[3:57:41] But most importantly, we're committed
[3:57:43] to maintaining long term success of our city
[3:57:45] and we talk about that a lot here.
[3:57:48] We've been engaged in discussions.
[3:57:50] And I'm optimistic that we're going
[3:57:53] to find a good common ground.
[3:57:55] And also to yearly--
[3:57:59] I believe there's new legislation tied to it.
[3:58:01] It's tied to our retention rates.
[3:58:03] And we have a really high retention.
[3:58:08] And I do plan on keeping that.
[3:58:10] We have a really good work culture.
[3:58:13] So I'm really optimistic that we'll move this forward.
[3:58:18] So I just wanted to close the meeting with that
[3:58:20] and thank everyone tonight for-- who came out.
[3:58:25] The next meeting will be September 1.
[3:58:28] And that concludes my report, unless council has any questions
[3:58:32] for me this evening.
[3:58:33] Thank you.
[3:58:35] All right, thank you, Toni.
[3:58:38] All right, Council Member Halford.
[3:58:43] Long but good meeting.
[3:58:44] Good night.
[3:58:46] Vice Mayor.
[3:58:51] Good to be back.
[3:58:52] See you on the 1st.
[3:58:54] 1st?
[3:58:56] Oh.
[3:59:02] The next time we see you, congratulations, grandma.
[3:59:10] Shout out to the budget engagement process.
[3:59:13] Thank you guys for doing that and allowing the citizens
[3:59:16] to take part in it.
[3:59:18] That's a great thing.
[3:59:19] I want to thank Brandy for helping Daryl tonight
[3:59:22] and addressing his concerns.
[3:59:24] [INAUDIBLE] and streets.
[3:59:26] I was told you guys are already working
[3:59:27] on the concerns for Mr. Peters.
[3:59:30] I'm glad to hear that.
[3:59:31] You and I were in high school together.
[3:59:33] And then we talked about the Flock cameras.
[3:59:36] And I didn't get to mention this because Gary passed me
[3:59:39] in comments.
[3:59:41] Yeah, it's a long night.
[3:59:43] But library and Lincoln Park have benefited greatly
[3:59:46] from those cameras.
[3:59:48] We appreciate them.
[3:59:49] And then the three of us were out on quality of life operation
[3:59:55] last Saturday.
[3:59:56] Yeah.
[3:59:57] And they had 14 arrests and 14 citations.
[4:00:03] I can't remember, did we get anybody directed to 555?
[4:00:08] Three got directed to 555.
[4:00:10] So very good night we had there.
[4:00:14] And again, that kennel is going to make a difference.
[4:00:18] And like I said, we should probably
[4:00:20] be looking at that second in the near future.
[4:00:23] So as the process goes there, I'm glad we got the roof going.
[4:00:28] We got it purchased.
[4:00:31] And we're going to move forward.
[4:00:32] So that's another great thing.
[4:00:34] With the police station, fire station,
[4:00:36] we've got a lot going on.
[4:00:38] And the streets and everything else that's going on.
[4:00:42] Thank you.
[4:00:44] All right, Council Member Morowit.
[4:00:48] A great meeting.
[4:00:49] I will thank staff for all what they did tonight.
[4:00:52] I mean, we had a bit of a break.
[4:00:54] So moving forward, we had a lot of staff, a lot of meeting.
[4:00:58] Long night.
[4:00:59] Everybody was on their game.
[4:01:01] So I appreciate that.
[4:01:02] And to the folks that came to speak about their bargaining
[4:01:06] groups, I appreciate how respectful
[4:01:08] they were coming to the meeting and expressing their concerns.
[4:01:12] And we take those very seriously at the City of Manteca.
[4:01:15] So thank you and have a good evening.
[4:01:18] All right, thank you.
[4:01:20] Yeah, this has got to be one of the longest meetings I've ever
[4:01:22] had the four years.
[4:01:25] No, not all.
[4:01:28] There's been some doozies.
[4:01:30] But thank you for everyone coming out tonight.
[4:01:34] It was a great meeting.
[4:01:36] Thank you to all the staff that came and voiced their concerns.
[4:01:40] And we hear you.
[4:01:41] And I know our staff's going to be working diligently
[4:01:45] to get a solution.
[4:01:48] And so hopefully, we're going to hear that soon.
[4:01:52] Also a lot of good stuff covered tonight.
[4:01:58] One of the things I do want to see
[4:01:59] if we have council consensus, I would
[4:02:01] like to see our police department come back
[4:02:04] and present to us when it comes to Flock cameras and a policy
[4:02:11] and procedures that we follow and talk about some of the myths
[4:02:16] out there and Flock overall.
[4:02:20] And so that way we can also educate
[4:02:22] the council and our public.
[4:02:24] So you guys are good with that.
[4:02:26] I would like to see a presentation come back
[4:02:28] to us sooner.
[4:02:31] So it looks like we got nods.
[4:02:32] So we're good with that.
[4:02:35] With that, it's been a long time since we've had a meeting.
[4:02:38] And then we might be a little rusty, but here we are.
[4:02:41] We made it to the end.
[4:02:43] Do we want to pick a date for them to come back?
[4:02:47] Is that what you're asking, Cass?
[4:02:50] When can you present that to us?
[4:02:51] By next meeting?
[4:02:56] What kind of effort?
[4:02:58] Roll tide effort?
[4:03:02] All right, sounds good.
[4:03:03] September 1st.
[4:03:09] He's excited.
[4:03:11] And with that, those are my comments for tonight.
[4:03:14] I do want to adjourn tonight's meeting.
[4:03:17] We lost a great person in our community and wonderful person.
[4:03:22] And he will be sorely missed.
[4:03:24] And so I would like to adjourn tonight's meeting
[4:03:26] in the memory of Bruce Bell.