City Council - Regular Meeting

All right, I call to order the regular City Council meeting for August 18, 2026. City Clerk, roll call, please.

Council Members Brighton-Booker?

Here.

Alford?

Here.

Morawit?

Here.

Vice Mayor Lackey? Here. Mayor Singh?

Here. We'll move on to the next item, which is invocation and flag salute. And we are here with Ms. Marcia Monroe from the Bahia Bay.

Amen. Good night.

Thank you. Okay, we will go ahead and move on to agenda review and supplemental reports.

Mayor and Council, we have the following supplemental reports. Communication received from the public for item C-15. Petition and communications received from the public for item D-2. Communications received from the public for item D-5. and an updated PowerPoint for item D4 from city staff. As for agenda review, all city council meetings shall be conducted in an orderly and efficient manner without willful disruption by any person or persons in attendance. The city has also adopted a decorum policy that governs public meetings, which states that all city council meeting attendees shall refrain from behavior that disrupts or that threatens to disrupt city government operations. This includes but is not limited to harassment and or intimidation of city staff, elected officials, or members of the public. Please be advised that should a disruption occur, a member of the city council shall issue the person or persons an initial warning. Should a second disruption occur by the same person or persons, a member of the city council shall ask the person or persons to leave the meeting and mayor and council .

All right. Thank you, city clerk. Go ahead and move on to the next section, which is disclosure of ex parte communication. Anything from the council? Okay, seeing none, we'll go ahead and head over down here for presentations. If the council can join me. First one.

A1 proclamation proclaiming August 2nd through 8th, 2026 as National Health Center Week. We have the Director of Government and Community Affairs at Golden Valley Health Centers to accept tonight.

Whereas community health centers have been providing high-quality, affordable, comprehensive, primary, and preventive health care for more than 60 years, positively impacting America's health care system and

Whereas community health centers now serve more than 52 million Americans at over 17,000 service delivery sites across the country, providing care to individuals and families from all walks of life, regardless of background, income, insurance status, or ability to pay, and

Whereas Golden Valley Health Centers has served as a trusted provider in California's Central Valley since 1972. Today it operates 50 locations across Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus counties, and delivering more than 786,000 visits to over 161,000 patients annually. And?

Whereas during National Health Center Week, we celebrate the legacy of America's community health centers and their vital role in shaping the past, present, and future of America's health care system and... Now, therefore, I, Gary Singh, Mayor of the City of Manteca, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby recognize August 2nd through the 8th, 2026, as National Health Center Week.

I encourage all residents to learn about the support and essential services provided by Golden Valley Health Centers and other community health centers in our community.

Hi, my name is Kizzy Williams. I'm the center manager for Golden Valley Healthcare Center here in Manteca. We do have two locations, one for family medicine at 302 Northgate Drive, which offers pediatrician and family med services. And then we have an urgent care services located at 250 Northgate Drive, where we offer urgent care services. We just extended our hours until 9 p.m. And we also offer same-day sports physicals for the kids who are playing sports this year. So you guys can come and stop on by if you have children that need to have those done. Also, I wanted to mention that we did expand our PACE program for our elderly patients to the San Joaquin County area. So Manteca's patients are also covered by PACE.

That will bring us to item A2, certificates of recognition presented to American Legion Auxiliary Girls State Conference participants. Tonight we have American Legion Auxiliary delegates to accept.

All right, so first one is Adriana Retaro. Come on up. You want to come up too, Chris? All right, this is a certificate of recognition presented to Udhati Tavai. The Manteca City Council proudly recognizes you for being selected as Sierra High School's representative to attend the American Legion Auxiliary Girls State Conference. This prestigious selection reflects your leadership, character, and dedication to civic involvement. Congratulations on this outstanding achievement and for representing your school and community with pride. Go Timberwolves. Did you want to say anything? I knew you would. There's nobody watching. And this is for Adriana. Thank you so much. Do you want to talk a little bit about the program and what it is?

So the American Legion Auxiliary has been sending girls to girls' state for the last 83 years, I believe. And we have been able, in Manteca, to send a girl from all five of our high schools. We do this total by charitable donations, which we work all year to raise. So it's a week-long conference where they learn about state government. They form cities and city councils and so on.

All right, mayor and council that will bring us to item a three, which is receive a brief presentation regarding the community budget engagement initiative, including a public survey and upcoming workshops. Tonight, we have budget manager Lana McBroom to present that brief presentation for you.

good evening mayor and council tonight i'm introducing finance's new community budget engagement initiative which includes an online survey and follow-up workshops we're gathering information for input before fiscal year 28 recommendations are developed so community priorities can be considered earlier in the process Responses will help us design workshops around the budget topics and questions that residents want to explore. This earlier, broader engagement supports transparency and expands our public engagement practices. The survey asks which city services and priorities matter most, where future resources could make the greatest difference, and how residents envision Manteca's future. The survey is open through August 31st. You can use the online link found on the City of Manteca Budgets webpage, or you can scan the QR code that is on the screen. After the survey closes, staff will summarize the key themes and help shape September workshops and guide future council discussions. Results are one source of community input, not a final budget decision. Final priorities and appropriations remain subject to available resources, legal requirements, and of course, council action. We have some flyers on the back table, and you can also scan the QR code that is on the screen. We want to thank everyone for their participation, and we look forward to continuing the conversation at upcoming workshops. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Lana, for doing this and also getting this going or asking for community outputs. All right. With that, we'll go ahead and move on to section B, which is public comments.

Mayor, at this time, you may call for public comment for items not listed on the agenda. Via Zoom webinar or in person, public comment is limited to three minutes per person.

All right. Let's start with Zoom.

I have attendees, but no hands raised.

Okay, nobody on Zoom. Do you have any comment cards?

The first comment card I have is Brad.

Brad? Come on up, sir.

Howdy, man.

Hello. You have time, and anything you would like to tell us?

I got to push a button.

Nope, nope, just start talking.

Oh, okay, terrific. Yeah, I just hear, basically I'll get to the nut and the shell. I'm here to complain about the systemic pattern of noncompliance with ADA violations, especially Title II, and I think it would be under Chapter 28, Section 35, 1.51, as well as Chapter 24, Part 2, actually Part 2 and Section 11B, 705 of the California Building Code, as well as California Civil Code 54. and it's been a systemic problem with this city. I've been here since 1973 and I watched the ADA grow up around me and the non-compliance and the systemic pattern of like, I don't know if you want to call it obfuscating or deflecting or just non-compliance as you go down the road doing certain repayment projects and things, but there's an ongoing pattern. I've got a list of about 35 right here that I've done, I can do this seven days a week, 24 seven, which I probably will be doing and I'll be filing formal grievances. I just wanted this on the public record, because there could be a injunctive order issued possibly, you know, on the road. So I highly recommend the city get very active and show proactive action, you know, some some issues taken care of immediately. and specifically the golf course, who violate my civil rights, as well as the folks behind me back here. If you could see them, they're kind of short in wheelchairs. But anyways, it's not only me. It's the disabled community-wide at large. Not me. It's the blind, the disabled, the hearing, whatever it may be. But absolutely, they need to show some actionable results on what they're going to do about the problems that I've been bringing to the city. to come a lot of it so i got about 48 seconds i would like to mention that over here for instance on 2010 the ada title ii standard of building was implemented in march 15th of 2012. And Northgate Commons is in direct violation with the workout equipment, because it's not marrying exactly like it is that I go four miles each direction to work out of Woodward Park daily. And I would recommend anybody within city council chambers that's interested in my issue, I can be contacted and found very easily through the city of Antigua or any other spot. And that's about all I need to say. And if anybody's got any questions, be free to answer, but there's time constraints. So I know you guys got budget constraints too, but that's not relevant according to ADA.

Thank you. Thank you, sir.

The next public comment card I have is Darrell.

I don't know if I can do this very fast either. I totally support what he's referring to. Anyway, got some work for the city of Manteca on behalf of Union Pacific Railroad and particularly their police department. And I've talked to officers of our department. And we'd very much like you guys to trim the oleander bushes over there off of Manteca Avenue and Yosemite Avenue over there at the railroad crossings. which is city property. And the thing I want to bring out is they have to be able to see down at the Center Street crossing when they do their patrols. And I wanted to mention too that there's a sidewalk that's broken that the city has not fixed. It's about 25 feet to the crossing. I have a real problem on my scooter trying to dump over that way, but sometimes I have to get over for people coming my direction and trying to watch the traffic, the trains, and get over for everybody, and it should have been fixed a long time ago. But anyway, I'm sure that we'll get the... proper cooperation on that, if you guys would. The next is noise ordinance regarding motels and hotels. And we've had a problem with one of the guys out there at the inn motel, actually my neighbor in room 11. Anyway, I looked up the city ordinance, because when I first moved there, we had a situation that the rules of the place was on the ordinance on noise. You couldn't run your TV from 10 o'clock at night till I think it's 8 o'clock in the morning currently. Anyway, that was put in. It wasn't a rule. that the park outfit had, or the motel management had. This is actually Manteca City law. I don't have the exact update. on what the current thing is. Situation, what I'd like for you guys to do is pass an ordinance with that, that if somebody's gonna use either a television set or a radio, that they either have to use after 10 o'clock, that they have to use either a, plug in headphones, and they have these other wireless ones now on Bluetooth. If you have the TV that will operate off that, most of the new ones do. That way, if a person does run their TV all night or whatever, the other person don't hear it. The reason I mention that... was that that place was built in 1929. No soundproofing.

Yes, sir. So you're three minutes.

OK. And I had some other safety things. Thanks.

The next public comment card I have is Mike.

Good evening. My name is Mike DeAnda. I'm the senior business rep for Operating Engineers Local 3. As you know, labor contract negotiations have stalled. This year's classification comp study identified many classifications well below market due to the subpar wages given in the past and takeaways the city asked the employees to sacrifice due to their poor fiscal position. In comparison to other similar cities, the city needs to bring their wages up to market and structure these increases so they don't fall behind during the duration of this contract. Without a fair increase, many of our members' salaries will fall behind the market this year because the proposed three-year increase structure does not account for wage increases already being paid by the comparable agencies and the current inflation numbers. Again, the current offer has a structure that will ensure the workers, their salaries will fall behind as they have in the last 10 years due to the COLAs that were well below the CPI numbers. Currently, the city has proposed increases starting at 2%, again, well below the inflation rate. Meanwhile, management was given raises up to or above 20%. We want the same method of the wage increases management recently received. Increase the low end of the wages being offered to at least match the current inflation rate. No percentage cap in each year and front load the wages in year one. If no changes are made, our members and your employees will be performing their same essential duties with less spending power than before. This will or may force the skilled workforce out of their jobs, which will reflect negatively on the city. Back in 2008 and the years to follow, the current negotiations, back in 2008 and the years to follow, showed significant losses in wages to the employees. And the message I want to get today is the current negotiations is not about just negotiations. It's about the past increases that were below market and lacked increases with no raises. During the 2008 recession, after year one of the contract, which was 4% a year, employees were asked by the city to sacrifice three years of wages totaling 12%. This also included furloughs. The city stated they would make up these cuts, but they were forgotten and never happened. So this is the history we want you to understand what this current negotiations is. The employees request to catch up and stay caught up during the duration of this proposed contract. You have the opportunity today to make sure these workers who have been pushed aside for too long receive the respect they deserve. These workers have done their part to create a stronger future for the city and its citizens, and we now respectfully request you do the same.

The next public comment card we have is Troy.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, council members. My name is Troy Stein. I am the CEO and founder of Stop Human Trafficking, an organization that serves right here in Northern California and tries to eradicate human trafficking of every kind, including labor trafficking, sex trafficking, organ trafficking, and benefits trafficking. One in six, one in six teenagers, stats will tell us, are currently being exploited online. One in six. The trauma and the pain, the relationship and family problems that awaits them, if it is not interrupted, is vast, not to mention a lot of tears. I've served for many years in various capacities in the fight against human trafficking, a lot of which was focused on the restoration of the victimized. I heard the stories. I saw the agony and the anguish they experienced and certainly the tears. In May of 2025, just a little over a year ago, I launched Stop Human Trafficking because we must alert our citizens and train our professionals to recognize the flags, the signs, and the tactics of human trafficking and exploitation before another young person is exploited or, God forbid, even trafficked. Recently, right here in Manteca, I was able to speak what we've currently done over 50 town hall meetings and presentations in just the last year with distributing over 10,000 resources and work with a lot of various community agencies. I was at the Thomas Toy Center. There was just about 31 kids. There wasn't a lot of kids there. But at the end of that presentation called Teen Empowerment Online Safety Strategies, it was discovered that four young people were being exploited online and they didn't even know that that was happening to them until they were taught about it. and the tears. We want freedom for all young people, which is why I'm here today promoting an awareness event that we are hosting right here in Manteca on Saturday, November the 7th. It will be held at the library park starting there. It's called the Freedom Walk. And I am asking for your support and for you to help me get the word out for this powerful community awareness event where together we will walk one mile and we will share signs, homemade and so forth, not in protest, but in awareness that human trafficking is taking place right here at home. We must get the word out and we must support our community. While we serve all 48 counties in Northern California, I live here. I've lived here for about 18 years. My four daughters live here with their husbands and my eight grandchildren. And it is imperative to me that we stop human trafficking. I'm going to present to you in just a moment a folder that has some information as well as a flyer in it. And as I present this to you, I'm also going to give you a little jar. I've been a Christian for a long time. The Bible says that God stores our tears in the jar, and I would like that jar for these young people to be empty. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. And yes, we definitely will help promote the event. And we would love for human trafficking to stop, especially in our city.

The next public comment card I have is Jennifer.

Hello, I'm back. Good afternoon, or evening, I should say. My name is Jennifer Greenwood. I am a resident of Manteca, as well as a city employee of more than 21 years. And I'm currently the president of the Manteca Technical Support Services Association, or as we know, MTSSA. I'm here tonight as a spokesperson for our membership. If I can get them to please stand. Not on behalf of myself, I am one vote just like every other member. MTSSA represents a wide range of positions in every department in the city. Our jobs may be different, but our members are united in their concerns about wages, recruitment, retention, and the future of our workforce. Before negotiations began, we asked our membership to submit their priorities. They were more vocal than they have been in previous years, and from that process came 19 proposals, and getting our membership heard was a priority. MTSSA voted down our city's proposal in May. The primary concern was that the proposed 2% to 7% increases do not provide a COLA equally across the board. Some positions would receive a 2% per year. Most positions would be brought to median market over three years, but without a COLA. and seven positions currently representing four employees would not reach full median. That means three years from now, we could be right back where we started, falling behind the market without a true cost of living adjustment. Inflation is currently approximately 3.8%, while many of the cities we compete with for employees are providing 3% to 4% COLAs. The Gallagher report itself recognized that its market data would no longer accurately reflect those changes as of July 1, 2026. I also want to clarify our total compensation. MTSSA does not receive certification pay or an annual stipend, and we did not get a reduction in the percentage of what we contribute to our PERS retirement. We do receive wellness hours, which were provided in lieu of additional PERSable income in previous years. We are grateful to be in the upper echelon when it comes to benefits, but those benefits were factored into the compensation offer from the city. It was recently reported that five of the seven bargaining units have signed. The other side of the story is that two of the units that have not signed represent more than 200 employees or over 40% of the city's full-time workforce. And I think we need to be honest about the larger picture. And I'm quoting, you cannot substantially increase compensation at the top, build out administration, and repeatedly ask residents to pay more than suddenly preach physical restraint when the employees keeping the city running ask to be valued. MTSSA is not asking for proverbial key to the municipal cash box. Our current counterproposal is simple, a 1% COLA each year, totaling 3% over the next three years, equaling for our membership and bringing those seven positions to full meaning, which is frankly, I do not believe 1% is enough, and we believe a fair compromise. I'll finish up there. I think we got the point. Thank you.

The last card I have is Sudhakar.

Good evening, council. Thank you for the opportunity. I keep hearing that schools are not the responsibility of the city. It's only the MUSD. But I want to clarify that misinformation is being spread so much that let's discuss about the facts. The school district builds school, but the sites to be provided, adequate sites, lies with the responsibility of the city. We treat Manteca General Plan as a Bible. And there are quite a few goals which says to provide adequate site for the neighborhood growth. And in two decades, this has been not accomplished, though it's there in the Bible. So let me read a couple of them, which are there in the Manteca General Plan. Yeah, so the goal is community design 4.7. Each neighborhood shall include a distinct center, such as an elementary school, I repeat, such as an elementary school, neighborhood parks, and or mixed use commercial area within a reasonable walking distance of the homes, approximately one half mile. Why is this not a walk to school? I hear from the council there is no walk to school at all, but the Manteca General Plan, I don't know when it was written, and there are a couple of other goals also. The goal, land use seven, provide adequate land for development of public and quasi-public uses, including parks, schools, and community facilities. to support existing and new development and the community needs. These goals are never followed for the two decades. And residents are being thrown under the bus. Kids' future, they are commuting three to four hours for a commute to school. And they are being misinformed that city doesn't have any responsibility. please read through the Manteca General Plan and implement infrastructure first. Infrastructure is not only about roads. It's about schools, libraries, fire station, police station, and everything. That is needed for the growth and the existing facility. Thank you.

that's all the cards that have been submitted for public comment.

Okay. Anybody else like to speak on item that's not on the agenda?

One up, sir.

Make this short. My name is Frank Cornelis. I'm a resident of District 1. First and foremost, I'd like to give these individuals here, men and women, my empathy. I know what it is to grind every single day to work for a city and not be appreciated. Sometimes we even get hurt. Thank you for your service from the police, the fire department, the people that clean the streets, the garbage men, every single one of you. Never compromise your value. You bring substance. and value to this community. You are the backbone of this community. Second of all, I'd like to just speak about the Manteca art. Stay with me, because I'm going to go somewhere with this. This arch that we have on Main Street was approved by the city of Manteca, the city manager, and the city council. It started in September of 2025. Somebody might ask, well, who paid for that? Over $300,000 came from the ARPA, which is the American Rescue Plan Act, which is government funded, which means it was taxpayer funded. Another $300,000 came from the city general fund, which is also taxpayers' money. So we paid for that arch. In closing, if we can afford to put an arch that costs over $600,000, then we can afford to pay these individuals what they are worth. In closing, I am not complaining, just simply making an observation. Thank you for your service. I appreciate every single one of you.

Anyone else like to speak on an item that is not on the agenda? OK. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and move on to the next section. All right. With that, we'll go ahead and go to consent items. We'll wait for room to clear.

Amen.

Okay, all right, we're going to consent items. Charlie, Gina.

C-15.

Okay, David and Mike.

C-3, C-12, C-15. C-3, C-12, and C-15.

All right, and I had C-15 also. With that, I can entertain a motion for all items not pulled. So moved. We have a motion from Council Member Brighton-Brooker, a second from Council Member Halford. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 5-0.

Mayor, can I get clarification that you also pulled C-15? Yeah. Okay, that's the only one you pulled?

Yeah, C-3.

All right, C3, adopt a resolution accepting, oh, Mayor, we also had a member of the public pull C6.

Oh, okay. Go ahead and add that on there. C6. Do we need to redo the motion or are you good?

As long as the maker of the motion is comfortable with C6 being pulled as well, no need.

Okay with that, Dave? C6. You made the motion. Yeah. And the second's good? All right. Okay. It was added.

All right. C3, adopt a resolution accepting the donation of one refurbished 8x40 insulated dog kennel container from Vault Co. for use of the city's unsheltered emergency center and authorize the city manager or designee to execute agreement in all necessary documents to accept the donation. Tonight, we have Homeless and Housing Services Manager, Yoko Grossman.

Hi there. Good evening, Mayor, Council, Villalca Gracia, Homeless and Housing Services Manager. I'm here to answer any questions you may have. But before, I want to just take this time and thank VaultCo as well as Jill Falso for the generous donation of the dog kennel for our unsheltered emergency center for our unhoused, as well as the future program and collaboration that we are doing with Hold for Program for future individuals who are seeking sober living environment programs or other type of programming, and their barrier is their pet. And they are unable to enter these programs because of finding either a family member or someone that they can trust. So with this dog kennel that will be going to 555, it will allow for these individuals to allow their pets to go to 555 and are His Way Refuge Center staff will be the ones overseeing and taking care of their pets. So I definitely want to take this moment and thank Doug and Jill for the great generosity and donation for these dog containers.

I don't know if you want to invite them up if they'd like to say anything.

Absolutely, come on up.

And Viola, why don't you share too? We have a lot of people here tonight. We've already had a success with it, and I think it's worth sharing because I think it's going to be a way bigger value than we're anticipating it to be.

Absolutely. Well, in the meantime, if I can please have Jill and Doug come up and join me. Not going to get away, Doug.

So one of the things that kind of caught us on this whole situation of donating a kennel, I take homeless veterans off the street of our business in Stockton. And I happen to have a guy who came to me and I kept wondering why he was missing his appointments. And I didn't understand that he didn't have anybody to set his dog with. And the places where they're putting them were these cages with plastic over them, and it was a horrible situation. So, you know, my own vault moving a portable storage, so we took an old insulated 40-foot container and turned it into a pretty exciting dog kennel that the homeless people are going to be able to use and put their dog in, go to their appointment, get them back, get them spayed and neutered is the goal by Jill. And that's kind of the deal in helping out with the homeless program. So we also build some of our – containers, and we make them into housing. So you guys have taken them in nicely, and it was fun to donate. So we appreciate it. We got more coming.

Yes.

I would just like to express my gratitude to this council and the city manager for accepting this container. It's going to be life-changing for people and pets. and truly appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. All right.

Sorry, Mayor, let me go ahead and just interject one second there. So I do want to take this time, and I know City Manager may announce this later, but we will be having a ribbon cutting for the dog containers as well as the transitional housing containers that will be going on at 555. So that is on Wednesday, September 9th at 10 a.m. So I definitely would like to invite the public to see this ribbon cutting. And just to elaborate, it's just a great program that we'll be able to initiate at 555 because we've come that with our outreach and the different individuals that we are coming across, the barrier is their pets. They take care of their pets better than themselves. So we're just creating this program to allow them to seek the services and the help that they need. Thank you.

Thank you, Velka.

All right. Now let me ask Council Member Moriarty to pull the item if you actually have questions or comments.

Well, a lot of questions have been answered. I had the pleasure of meeting Doug a few weeks ago when I went out with city staff and we toured his business in Stockton. And he had a lot of different models that he used for homeless veterans, for folks, and These are just containers that are just very simple. But they were made into livable conditions with lighting, air conditioners for people. And then he showed us this very, very, very nice kennel. And it was designed with air conditioning as well, with the floors are slatted so you could wash them down easily. And then they had ropes that opened up to the back of the vault. of the building and went outside to another enclosed area where you would feed the animals and then they would go back and forth. So that way, you know, it's basically very similar to what we have in our own animal control shelter that we have in Manteca. And when we were talking, he was very generous with his time and we had other people there and we were walking and we showed a lot of interest in this. And I think before we even got back to town, I believe he called our city manager, we were in the car and pretty much said, you know what, I think I'm just gonna donate one of these. To the city. I think it's really important and I can tell you how important it is because myself and council member Brighton Booker are on the two by two homeless and housing committee and we go out and outreach every other week. And we also go out once a month of usually for the operations quality of life operations. And I can tell you that the first time we did this probably about three years ago, two and a half years ago. We encountered a homeless individual that unfortunately got arrested, and she had a dog. And it was horrible to take that dog away from her and separate her because she was so upset. She wasn't upset about going to jail. She understood that she had a warrant. She was fine with that, but she wanted to know what's going to happen to my dog. And a lot of people, so that initiated another program where we have animal control follow along during those enforcements to take the dogs away, hold them until these individuals can be released from jail. But then the other encounter is when we're out on these, OUTREACHES THAT WHEN PEOPLE WANT TO GO AND WE TELL THEM, HEY, WHY DON'T YOU GO TO THE SHELTER, WHY DON'T YOU GO SPEND THE DAY, WHY DON'T YOU DO THIS, SPEND THE NIGHT, THEIR FIRST IDEA IS I DON'T WANT TO LEAVE MY DOG OUTSIDE IN A CRAPPY CAGE OUT IN THE ELEMENTS. WELL, I CAN TELL YOU THAT'S NOT THE SITUATION NOW. I MEAN, THIS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER HOME. IT IS LIKE SOME TEMPERATURE CONTROLLED. It's safe for them. They're not intermingled in little cages on top of other cages. They're separated. So when we went on that tour and this gentleman, Doug, offered that, I think he knows what he's done, but I can tell you that he did a lot more Than people could imagine because like I say you can't convince someone to go to Shelter for themselves if they don't think their animals well taken care of so this was a big deal to get this Vault delivered, so I just want to say that's why I pulled it everybody looked at me Why did you pull it because it deserves more than just that yes? Thanks for giving it to us it really does it really means a lot to our homeless population And it's going to help encourage homeless folks to go into the shelter with their animals, knowing that they're not left outside in a crappy cage, as I was told by this woman. So thank you. I appreciate that.

Thank you, Council Member Morwitt. Yes.

So I wasn't able to go to the vault, but I did go by 555 and take a tour of the The unit, I had my granddaughter with me, and we went in there, and it was nice and cool. It was very nice. This is a refrigerated unit that they've converted, and it had 10 stalls in there with doors on the side to go out. His way is going to put artificial turf in the outside so they're not on the asphalt. It was really nice. Today, when we were out on outreach, I talked to a gentleman. He has a job, and he's trying to get a place in Tracy, a room to rent. but he doesn't know if he can get enough hours to afford the room. And when I talk to him, you go to 555, have you ever tried there? He goes, no, I don't want my dog outside. So I told him, well, guess what? We got that problem solved. We have a kennel that you can put your dog in. It's air conditioned. He's inside. He goes, really? I go, yes. He goes, OK, I'd like that. So we're already starting to fill it up. So you might want to be asking for a second. And then he was talking to another elderly lady who's hardcore, doesn't want to go in because of her pet, told her the same thing, and she was like, okay, yes, I'm going to think about that. It gives them now an option, and that's great because that's more that we can get into the program and get them moving forward. So thank you. Thank you very much for that.

Thank you. Vice Mayor?

You guys are angels, seriously. Thank you so much for everything that you've done for our navigation center. To echo what the council members are saying, I was out on the quality of life operations and spoke to a lady who has a dog and she would not go to 555 because why would she be comfortable in air conditioning while her pet is outside suffering? And they truly do take care of their pets. That is their emotional support, that is their safety, that is their security blanket, if you will. And the fact that we now have these air conditioned kennels shows them that we see the value of their family member. And that's what they are. They might be four legged, but they're their family. And so I don't know that this would have happened without you guys. So thank you so much for caring and to pouring into our community. It's very much appreciated.

Thank you. Charlie?

Thank you.

I won't repeat everything they've said.

Yeah, and I'll just add that it definitely, you guys have came through and it's going to be such an asset for our navigation center and already making a difference, so thank you so much for having the heart to do this, and pets are very important to people, as I know. So with that, I'll entertain a motion. Motion for approval. Second.

I'll second.

Okay.

I vote yes.

Okay, all right, I have a motion from Councilmember Morwit And a second from Vice Mayor Lackey. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. That takes us to C6.

Approved traffic calming measures along Sandra Street, Leo Street, Elm Street, Fishback Road, Coffee Berry Lane, and direct staff take all appropriate actions necessary to implement the measures in accordance with the City of Manteca Traffic Calming Program 2025 Citywide Guidelines. Mayor and Council, tonight we have Deputy Director of Engineering, Sam Horn.

Sam Horn. Traffic calming, my favorite.

Good evening mayor and city council member. So tonight we have five street sections. They were nicely listed already that has gone through the five steps, four step process, excuse me, that was approved as part of the 2025 traffic calming measures. So those five steps, just as a reminder, step one is there's a request from the community Just one member of the community. Step two is the community member has to reach out to other members along their street segments. There is a requirement for a two-thirds commitment to installing an actual traffic calming device. Once we get that two-thirds vote it gets turned over to engineering We do the data gathering we actually send folks out there and collect data during the mornings and the afternoon peaks And then once we determine that there is a valid concern about traffic Calming needs we do the actual design and here we are tonight looking for your approval on those designs and implementation

All right. Thank you, Samporn. I think this was pulled by members of the public.

Daryl?

Daryl, come on up, sir.

I want to give my support to this and what these are. I call, you call them lumps. I call them speed bumps. Same thing. Anyway, I've been out there on this Elm Street Avenue and Agronaut Avenue. I sometimes go out to Dave Thompson's church out at the Brethren Church, and I don't know how many times I've had to call the police on speeders in that area. It's that bad. And I urge the city council to pass this whole thing. I would make one real quick comment that we still need to get a speed bump thing down there on Maple Street from Manteca Avenue or reverse Manteca Avenue and make it a one way. The stop sign down there at the post office, always being run. And it's bad enough that the postmaster took the mailbox across the street on Center Street. They removed it. And the reason they removed it, they didn't want to endanger their employees for going over and picking the mail up. It's that bad. It's calmed down considerably. Of course, I haven't been downtown a few times in the heat, so I'm not sure exactly what's going on, but it's warranted, too. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, you know I'm a believer in speed bumps, humps, lumps. So, I'm wondering if you could kind of tell me, do you know how many of these are on the list? I know there's a bunch of them. that we're working on and a bunch on the list that also need to be installed still?

I wouldn't be able to give you a number off the top of my head, but I do know the last time I checked, I want to say there was about 35 that was on the list and we are slowly making our way through it. Requests do come in and as they come in, they get added to the list. Right now, in terms of delivery, we typically get one out anywhere between six to nine months. So it does take some time to collect those signatures. We do need to also reach out to the residents to make sure that if you are the resident that's having these lumps right in front of your house, we do give you an opportunity to provide your feedback. And then we also have to collect the data to support the design.

Perfect. And then the ones that are already approved, Are they all already installed, or are they still waiting?

So typically, once it's approved by city council, it takes another two to four weeks, sometimes six. It is installed by city staff, so it is installed by our streets department. Aaron, do you want to chime in?

Yes, I can chime in on that. So typically, once they've been approved by council, get come in we're about 30 to 60 days to do the install there has been excuse me some of the new areas that are being asphalt improvements those are taking a little bit long get done being done by the contractor but we try to do as they come in within that 30 60 day window so in the last two months I think there's been 12 sets of lumps installed in various parts of town and we have you know supply of them or are we still waiting on no we have I don't know, like 30 sets of lumps sitting in my yard right now, so yes, there's quite a bit to go. Some just came in in the last week.

Perfect. All right, any other questions from council? Okay, no other questions. I'll entertain a motion. Okay, I have a motion from Vice Mayor Lackey, second from Council Member Halford. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. That will go ahead and move on to C-12.

approve a professional services agreement with RRM Design Group in an amount not to exceed $554,054 to provide comprehensive architectural and engineering services for development of Manteca Fire Station number six and authorize the city manager to sign the agreement and any associated documents. Mayor and Council, tonight we have Fire Chief Steven Islas to present.

Good evening, so a brief update on where we're at. We're trying to get the plans completed for the new Company 6. In the process of doing so, it was the most expedited and economical way to do that is to utilize the plans that were used for Company 5. It's a really good firehouse, it's a good layout, it's got scalability to it, pace of growth. The issues, that require changes to the plans. We need a longer apparatus today. Right now, it only will fit one piece of apparatus per side, so that's been a, I mean, it was designed that way, so it wasn't a flaw, but it's a poor design, so we needed that changed. And then because of the time, we need updates to . So moving forward with that, there were two vendors that worked on those plans. The first was RRM, and they brought it to a 30%, and then it was kicked over through the design and build process to PBK. So because of the rights from those architectures, those were the options that we had moving forward with this plan. You have the amount from the proposal from RRM and the amount from PBK was $733,325. So RRM came in substantially lower. That's where we're at with the process.

And then how long do you think this process will take?

The process of architecture? Yeah. The code up and the changes I'm being told will take approximately 60 to 90. Perfect.

I like that we're going to go with double base because we have more space at the new station site. Yes.

So I'm glad you mentioned Station 5. I was on council when we broke ground on Station 5. So it's good that you've made improvements, because I've heard that there were some modifications that need to be made. Most importantly, what I wanted to bring to light is we are starting to build. station six you start someplace and station six is direct benefit from measure q i mean we talked about measure q and what it would do what we said we would do with it so for folks that probably weren't excited about uh three-quarter percent sales tax i think this was a great start i mean this is what a directly uh a benefit of the three-quarter percent sales tax i mean measure Fire station six is gonna be built and that's because of that so I pulled it because not because this is the very first stage of a Building something is you have to have a good design and I think we've done a good job as far as what it costs to do the design And now moving forward and it's actually going to happen and that's going to give a great amount of protection to Southwest Manteca and all of the city because as we've talked about before that fire stations when Occurrence has happened on the south side. We pull from the north and we bring them south So it's very important that we have a fire station six and a five and that gives protection along that 120 as well So I'm just glad we're bringing it forward and we're starting the process now So I'm looking forward to the groundbreaking in about a month or so Yes, thank you.

Thank you. Yes, and and I agree the other big win is for staff to be working on and saving money and by using the plans from station five and just adding to them and not having to start from scratch. So definitely kudos to that too. Okay, any of you guys want to add anything? District one over there?

It's the first step in probably what a two year process to get the station built. Not only is Measure Q helping pay for the station, they're already paying for Yeah.

Nine firefighters.

Yep. So there's nine firefighters, well, three firefighters, three engineers, that are being paid for by patient Q that are already on board and running a second engine out of patient Q.

We're making progress.

We'll get there hopefully before I get relaxed.

And the apparatus. Yeah. All the money adds up. Yeah.

All right. Any other comments from council? You know what? I will open this up for public comments. I got excited last time. Anybody on Zoom?

I have no hands raised on Zoom for comment on item C12.

Okay, no comment cards?

No comment.

Okay, the doc will come up.

Good evening. Thank you. Appreciate city for bringing fire station six and hopefully it operates in 2028. I think so. I want to get a clarification on the site that is required. So I heard it is two acres or is it 2.82? Sorry? 2.82.

I can't hear. Two acres?

Two acres, okay. So city has acquired 1.82 from the private developer and one acre from the school district. So like, like city identifies the fire station five is a .75 acre and a need to have a two acre fire station, why doesn't city understand that school district also requires to support the growth, not reduce their school site? And the PQP area should be balanced as per the school district Manteca General Plan, the land use to provide adequate land. I appreciate that fire station is being taken care and also wish the city fulfill their responsibility to provide adequate land for the growth. The school capacity is 1,000. For 1,000 kids capacity to support, a minimum of 15 acre is required. The current site itself is 15.87 of the school district. And if one acre is given, and it is 14.87 and it's not adequate for 1,000 kids. But how many kids in the region? There are 3,000 kids. What is the adequate planning missing by the city? Why doesn't it fulfill its responsibility for the kids along with the much needed both fire station and schools, all the public infrastructure are equally important. For benefiting for one, we should not dig grave for the other public facility. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Brad, can you clarify this whole 1.82, 2.82 situation? Kevin, one of you guys.

Yeah. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Brad Wallach, Director of General Services. So there are currently two sites. We have a site for the school that's 15.87 acres. in a high density residential parcel that's 11.22. In discussions with the school district several months back, there was communication regarding the potential for a fire station along one of those sites with the previous fire chief and the size that was determined that was necessary was two acres. In conversations with the school district, there was the opportunity to acquire or for them to donate one acre of that land to the city that would not affect their design or the number of students on the site. So with that, there'll be an item coming forward later that will essentially proposes to increase the acreage of public quasi public or public use on those parcels from the 15.87 to 16.87, reducing the high density residential, which will allow for the school to be built as designed, and for the city to construct the two-acre fire station site.

And the developer is not gaining any more acres?

Private developer is losing one acre as part of it. They're going from 11.22 to 10.22. Okay, thank you.

Any other public comments?

You've already spoken, sir.

OK, seeing none, I'll bring it back. If no other comments or questions from council, I entertain a motion. I do. Go ahead.

So I'm going to go back a little ways in history Manteca Fire, when I started, there was three stations. One was at Lincoln or on Powers next to Lincoln School. Station two was on Center Street next to Yosemite School. Station three was on Louise across from Golden West. So when Manteca started building stations, they put them next to new schools. And we have fours, we went to Del Webb, to the north side, because we needed one there. And five had to go to the southeast side at Woodward and Atherton. I'm glad to see that we are putting another station next to a school. That is what they should be. They should be there to protect the kids. And in the location it is, it will also provide coverage within the five minutes and make it safer. Measure Q staffed the engine at station one, We are going to be looking at ways to get staffing for station six. I don't see us wanting to go back to where we had the truck running first out, especially in that area. It would be just as bad as it was at once. And so, yes, Measure Q helped staffing, but that was to staff the engine at once to get the truck over where it needs to be, but it does not to be running first out. So that's what I have. Thank you. All right. I entertain a motion now.

Move to approve.

Second. Okay, I have a motion from Council Member Halfer, second from Council Member Morrow. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. Takes us to C-15.

Adopt a resolution approving amendment number one to contract services agreement with Block Safety for the addition of six Block Condor cameras at an annual cost of $18,000 for the remaining three years of the agreement, plus a one-time installation fee of $1,500 for a total contract increase amount not to exceed $55,500. and further authorizing the city manager without further council action to procure additional flock condor cameras under the same type in future years. Subject to appropriated funding within the police department approved annual budget in compliance with the city's purchasing policy. Mayor and council, tonight we have Police Chief Steven Schiller.

All right, Chief.

Good evening. Steven Schluer, Chief of Police. First, I just want to say that these are Condor cameras, not ALPR cameras. However, they do have a capability of ALPR, but they're a Condor camera. And there are five of them. And we're working jointly with Parks, Recreation, and Transit to strategically place these five in our parks that are being vandalized and are being broken into. We plan on putting them in Northgate Park, two of them, one near the snack bar area, and then one under the gazebo. Lincoln Park, one looking at the entrance of the pool, as well the outside of the restroom area there in the middle of the park and under the gazebo. The next one's going to be the skate park. It'll overlook the entire skate park. Morin Zoning Park is the next one. It'll be on the west side of the fall diamond there, looking at the side there and the restroom area that's constantly being vandalized. And then Woodward Splash Pad will have one, and it'll be focused on the pump house and outside of the restroom area there for vandalism. I also have Ian Osborne here, who is our flock. guru or a block guy here to answer any really specific questions that I may not be able to answer.

Okay. Does council want to start with questions or you want me to open it up for public? Okay, we'll open it up for public comment first. Anybody on Zoom?

I have attendees on Zoom. However, no hands are raised for public comment on C15.

Hey, comment cards?

No comment.

Anybody who would like to speak on item C15? Come on up, sir.

I wasn't familiar with what these are exactly, but I learned from the police department how these function. And I just want to tell you, these cameras do a tremendous job. And the amount of violence down there at Library Park that these cameras have cut has been phenomenal. And there's been situations that we've had with vandalism to Union Pacific rail line that has been curbed by those cameras. And I am 100% in favor of them. And I back them all the way. They've been a big help to the police department and the general public at large.

Anybody else would like to speak on this item? Okay, seeing no, we'll bring it back. We'll start with Vice Mayor.

Thank you. Okay, so I've done a lot of research this past week. I've asked a lot of questions for both Sergeant Osborne and Chief. And I'm going to play a little bit of devil's advocate here. Block cameras, as we know, it's a very hot topic in the news right now. And I know that a lot of news that's coming out is misinformation. One of the things that has come out is the misuse of information collected from the cameras in another state, not here, It's brought out questions regarding regulation, processes, sharing of information, and potential violation of constitutional rights. So at what point do we say, and like I said, I'm playing devil's advocate here, at what point do we officially say that we are becoming a surveillance state? We have cameras on the streets. We have cameras on buildings, parks, trackers in our phones and cars. All are the result of trying to eliminate a problem. People are out there vandalizing. We put up cameras. They find a new place to vandalize. We put up more cameras. Eventually, cameras are everywhere. Just the other day, I was walking down the street, crossing the street, and a house very proudly announced that I was being recorded. I was on the other side of the street already, but that's how far their camera reached. It's my understanding that these new cameras are going to be placed at five parks that are known for a high rate of vandalism. So unfortunately, we live in a society where people think it's OK to destroy what doesn't belong to them. As a result, we're considering putting more eyes out to keep an eye on the areas that we can't physically be there. RPD is good. They're really good. They can't be everywhere at once. And I understand this. So I've asked a lot of questions. I've done a lot of research. So a couple of questions just to put out there that I've already asked both of you that I think would be beneficial for the public to hear is these cameras, these Condor cameras, are they the same as the Pantil cameras that you were talking to me about?

Yeah, so Condor is the Pantil Zoom or PTZ camera that Flock offers.

Okay, so my understanding is that it's set on a fixed point unless somebody at a computer changes the vantage point of that camera and circulates it around. Is that right?

That's correct. That's how all of our cameras are currently set up. There is an option to monitor for movement, and so if it picks it up, it'll track the person until it goes out of frame. We don't use that currently. which we might with these ones, because in the parks it makes more sense to do that.

How clear is the picture? Does it pick up facial recognition, or is it just like with the LPRs, it's distinguishing clothing colors, stuff of that nature?

Yeah, so as they're defaulted right now, well, let me back up. There is no facial recognition built into this software whatsoever. Currently, they're on poles 35, 40 feet in the air that are just general broad views. You cannot generally see faces. Sometimes you can't tell the gender, but you can tell if it's black pants, black shirt, if they have a backpack, or if they're riding a bicycle.

So if it doesn't pick up facial recognition, how is it going to assist you in identifying those who are vandalizing our parks?

So facial recognition is computer software. We're old school, and we have officers that review the footage and are able to say, hey, that guy looks like Joe Schmoe, who I contacted two days ago. We know most of our clientele, and so that's how most of the people get identified, is just from other officers.

And to clarify that, the difference between facial recognition and a video, being able to pick up someone's face, two totally different things. like Lieutenant Osborn said, facial recognition would be taking that face that it picked up, putting it into a software program, and then spitting out who that person is, where it will be able to pick up their face and their body. Then we look at that to determine who that person is. It's not just their clothing, but it will be able to track their clothing and be able to say, okay, so we have a guy with a black shirt sweatshirt, white backpack, blue jeans, shorts, and a green bike. And then we can look at the other cameras to see where that person may have gone or the direction of travel that person has gone.

And You'll be able to prosecute based off of the video that it takes or to be able to collect damages, however that works out with the court systems?

Yeah. At that point, it becomes evidence that is used throughout the court process.

And so I know that Flock, because of the issues that they've been having nationwide, they're actually changing their policies, and they've been adjusting the way that their practices are happening. So instead of holding for 30 days evidence, they're holding for seven, and that's going to be applicable based on each jurisdiction. So we're still sticking with the 30 days?

Correct, yes. We will stay with the 30 days because we're not only using these cameras in the park areas for the vandalism, which is a property crime. We also have these in key other areas throughout the city Let's take the jugging that just happened at the bank. People don't, they usually come in and they will surveil or they'll scan an area prior to doing their crime. They may come back a week later or two weeks later or two weeks later or come back several times before they commit an actual crime. And then, like with the jugging, we were able to get the person who was doing the jugging at the bank, and then go back and see that he was at the other locations up to 30 days prior, and so we were able to charge him with several other instances of doing the same crime.

Chief, can you just define the definition of jugging for the folks?

Those of us that aren't hip enough to know.

Okay, so Ian can do that.

Okay. So jugging is a term. It is a real thing. It's not something we made up. Essentially, a criminal will surveil the bank and wait for victims to come out where they're carrying obvious money bags. And it's not always the business-type money bags. Sometimes it's just the envelope of cash. And sure enough, victims do walk out just carrying it in their hand. They will then leave the bank. and either be robbed down the road, or in this case, this suspect, he was breaking into the vehicles at their next stop. So, you know, they get out of the bank, go to the grocery store, while the person was in the grocery store, they would break into the car and steal the cash.

That's juggling. We didn't term it juggling. Somebody else somewhere. It might even be in Webster's Dictionary, I don't know. Or the Urban Dictionary.

All right, so it's my understanding that Lieutenant Osborne, you conduct audits of the camera once a month.

Or more.

Okay. And Chief already informed me, but can you inform the public? Has Manteca ever uncovered any misuse of FOC information?

No. It has not been uncovered during a random audit, and we've never had any allegations or... Allegations that there was misuse of the system.

Can you tell I put a lot of thought into this this week? Yeah. OK. So here's the kind of the issue that I'm having. Camera surveillance, the potential for it is really unlimited. We don't know where it's going in the future. We need to stay a step ahead and ensure that our residents are not only safe, but they're free to live with their constitutional rights. Right? Most people I know are not in favor of being a surveillance state where every step they take is being tracked. With that being said, I am about kids. I am about families. And knowing that these cameras help with things such as Amber Alerts, that's what triggers my brain. The way that this is written and the reason I'm going to decline on this is because I don't believe that council should be giving away their ability to decide on future flock camera installation. I think that's something that needs to be decided as a council. Here it states further authorizing city manager without further council action to procure additional flock condor camera units. I don't agree with that. I think that our ability to have surveillance around the city needs to have council consideration now and in the future. So that's kind of where I'm at.

I have a question on that. So in the future, if we sign any new contracts or extensions or anything like that, is this item gonna say that you're not coming back to council with it?

It would come to council in the formal budget process. So I'll just kind of give you a little bit of background. And, Chief, you can add to it as well. So we piloted the cameras, like the camera that you saw at Library Park that has really been a huge help in a lot of ways. It's even helping the local businesses downtown from vandalization. We had an incident at Lincoln Pool. We were able to arrest the suspect. So we've seen and we just piloted all different types of cameras. We were piloting Flock, LPR, I mean, all of these brands. And they give them to you. It's a free demo. We're like, hey, let's try it out. Let's see what works. Let's see what happens. And we've seen a huge success. And so some of the reasons why we're bringing this forward tonight is we just invested $3.2 million in a beautiful splash pad for our community. And so at the end of the day, if there are issues with it or something happens with it being vandalized, we have to report to the public and say, we didn't know. We didn't have an officer there. So in some of these areas where we know that they're hot targets, and as you know, the areas that are identified are, But at some point, this gives the chief or I discretion. If we need to get one, it's in our operational means. We can do that. That doesn't mean we wouldn't notify you. It just may not come before council. And chief, you can add to that if you'd like as well.

This also is for the condor camera. It's to procure additional condor cameras, which are not the ALPRs that you see at the intersections that are set up fixed to read license plates. These would be more of a brand of security camera, not so much the ALPR that we have fixed throughout the city that are the license plate reader ones that pick up the vehicles. So these are more surveillance camera type things? These are just like a security camera, pan, tilt, zoom security camera that block The block is the manufacturer.

Is there an AI or a software attached to the back end of this? For? For these condors? AI to do? Or no, a software to recognize and.

So it's not the facial recognition. It's the green bicycle and black shirt recognition. Also, this is. These cameras are a precursor to our Arctic. And that's something, which is the real-time information center that we just are going to be receiving $750,000 from the federal government for to help build. And the cameras, although yet it does surveil certain areas or things that we have it up on, what they do on the back end, not on the back end of the system, but on the back end of the product is invaluable. One of the most recent, we've had several cases to where we have solved major crimes with a robbery recently, but most recently as he was speaking about the human trafficking and STOP, We did have a 12-year-old girl who was being lured online and left her family, went out, the ring camera picked up a brief car that went by at her house, but also picked up her going out her front window of her bedroom. She went into that car and disappeared. No one knew where she went. We had a brief thing on the car, and we were able to, off of that, ring camera video, then take that description, put it into our flock, and through our flock, be able to pick up and realize what type of vehicle it was. Then another camera was able to pick up a plate, and we were able to backtrack. And then as we were getting ready to go to this person's house in Stockton that she fled to, she actually made it back home. And then there was some crimes that were alleged that occurred in Stockton with her. And so had we not had these flock cameras that we have, had she not returned home, we would have been able to go to where we were able to find him at in coordination with our flock, the flock that's in the county, the flock that's in Stockton, and being able to put things together Had she not returned home, I would like to think that we would have been able to do it to safely get her out of harm's way. We had a robbery a couple weeks ago at the convenience store at Yosemite and an airport that... A lady was inside the store when it was getting robbed. She calls. The person flees in a white, smaller vehicle. That was the description. We were able to pick it up on flock, get a license plate, and then eventually make an arrest at that person's home. And so they are great tools. And like with any tool, if they are misused, they can be a bad tool. And I'll be the first to admit that. However, we have safeguards in place at our police department And I think the state of California does a pretty good job in having safeguards in place with the facial recognition. And some of the other things that, yeah, we still have to do the old, one of the comments the other day that this takes away the gumshoe detective, but actually it doesn't. It gives us leads to go and apprehend these suspects that are doing these crimes. Not all of them are just vandalism or drug use in a park. There are violent crimes that occur. even in other cities. And in other cities, they can enter that license plate in, it's called a hot plate. Or, hey, this person just robbed the AMPM at Wilson and the Crosstown, and put in that license plate so that if it comes into our town, we know. I've read things that say, oh, it's mistaken, people are being arrested for mistaken license plates or this, that, the other, mistaken identity on the vehicle. We do get, when a car goes through and it picks up a hit, it'll send you a message and it shows you a back picture of the vehicle and the license plate. And that portion, and let's say the license plate was one J, T, F, one, two, three. And there's a license plate frame or J, I, E. And the license plate frame cuts it off and it shows that it says it's J, T, F instead of J, T, I. So it picks it up and we get a picture of that vehicle. And they'll tell you, like Stockton would say, hey, that's a green Toyota that did it. When it pops it up, because it pictures the car, it comes back as... Oh, no, that's a white Ford. And with this license plate, so you run it, and yeah, it sure as the day is long, it comes back to a white Ford. And so that car wouldn't be stopped. But there are safeguards in place, and the human factor is very real in it with us. And I believe that they're invaluable to being safe. As far as the surveillance state, I've read the book 1984 when I was a government major. I know who Big Brother is. I don't think Farwell in that book was envisioning the surveillance state, but we're not so much the surveillance state as people put us out to be. It's not the, like I said, it's not the facial recognition. It's not the drive-through and it's picking up your IMI on your phone. People think, oh, because my phone's in my car, it picks up my phone, it knows where I'm at. That's not happening. It picks up a description of the vehicle and the license, but it doesn't pick up the person in the car. At the condors that we'll have up at the, at the other sites and the condors that we do have up now are targeted at high crime areas. We have one that's at a high crime area that we've had shootings at, some establishments. And that's just so that it's reactive. And when we get an Arctic in in a few years, once our police department gets built, then we'll have personnel who will man it not so much 24-7, because the evening or the morning hours don't need it as much. And so we'll have those people who are able to look at those. So to say that these cameras are something that is being used to surveil people, no, it's to pick up criminal activity. And this here is just for condors, and it's not for the ALPRs.

Chief, how long have we had cameras in the city?

Oh, geez, we started with a program called Vigilant, and it was a license plate reader, and Charlie may be able to help us. We got those in, like, 09, right after you left, maybe 10.

Well, and before that, we had a license plate reader on a car.

Yeah, we had license plate readers on our cars. We had Vigilant readers on our cars, so we've had them. That's before I was in Delta Rat, and so that was probably... We're looking like 2005, 2006, 2005. We've had video cameras. And the same thing with our body cameras, our body-worn cameras. There's some misbelief about how these videos are stored. They're stored in the cloud. They can be accessed online. All of our videos, Axon body-worn cameras, even if you use the View, which got bought by Axon, all those are stored in the cloud. The proprietary access is to the police department. And same thing with Flock. It's stored in the cloud, but it's accessed by us. And we have agreements that it's accessed by us.

All right, anybody else have comments?

Just a brief comment. I think we go in every store, every market. I have them in my business. We have cameras everywhere. The only thing you do have to tell people is if you're doing audio, you have to let them know you're doing audio in your business, so that has to be told. My daughter's an attorney, and she told me a long time ago, there is no anticipation of privacy once you leave your home. That is just the way it is. Now the question is, who abuses it? I think the chief covered that well. Abuse is a potential problem, but not a problem in this city. I think the lieutenant made it very clear that we have stops in place. We've checked. We've never had allegations of misuse. That is the proof in the pudding. Not a few complaints across the country or a few misguided officers, bad apples as I like to call them, that does not dictate the entire country. And these cities in California is probably especially tough on anticipation of privacy, especially by police departments and misuse. So I'm confident these are specifically, I think we're only here to decide if we want six cameras in high crime areas. And I think that's really what we have in front of us. All the other information, although I appreciate, and I think we're gonna have some type of a little briefing on that next month or something on FLOC. Yeah, I'll be asking that. Yeah, so that's gonna be coming up. But in the meantime, Six cameras, high crime areas, two of them in my district, I can tell you, you mentioned. The ones you also mentioned are areas that we have a lot of folks sleeping in barbecue areas, under coverings at night, burning up barbecues. We just reported a bunch of barbecues that are burnt up at Lincoln Park, Northgate, Woodward. This is not happening during the day, folks. This is happening at night. And we don't have enough police officers or people watching everything. So I'm looking forward to these cameras being there. I think it's going to help. Hopefully, you won't have any more problems. Maybe it'll be enough to deter people. But in the meantime, I'm in favor of it, and I like the way the program is set up as it is, especially to watch private property vandalism and crime. Thank you.

Yeah, I agree. It doesn't matter how many officers we have. We never can be at everywhere, every place. And these extra eyes help our officers do their job better. And end of the day, I think they have helped tremendously. in certain places, and the locations you mentioned are all been issues, and I think it will actually help people feel safer in the parks, because they know that criminal activity is being watched. Eventually, like Chief said, with the Realtime Crime Center, this is vital to continue that going. I also feel that we do need to give some flexibility to, we're not here to do the chief's job and give him flexibility on and the city managers work together to kind of move them around or also add another one depending on if they get other hot spots in the community, as long as we are told about them at the same time. So I think I'm good with the way it is also, and I think these need to happen. And I do feel that it has deterred a lot of crime, has solved a lot of crimes too, and something I will ask during my council comments tonight to give a thorough report on this into a next meeting, but for now at least let's look at C-15 and see if we have consensus to move this forward.

Motion for approval. Second.

Okay, I have a motion from Council Member Morwitt and a second from Council Member Brighton-Booker. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye, and I had a comment or two. Oh, sorry.

Oh. You gotta tell me. You gotta yell at me.

You don't look at me. I'm very supportive of the cameras for a number of reasons, from both a prevention point of view and an investigative point of view. The other reality of it is, if we become known as not having cameras, guess who's coming to town? It'll be the people that we want on camera. The benefits of the cameras far outweigh any negatives. And so I'm very supportive, both of the ALPRs and the security cameras. They're a huge benefit. I mean, even to the point of if they get the call of an armed robbery at Wells Fargo, they can slave whatever cameras are in the neighborhood in the area to look over and see what happened before the responding officers even get there. When the real-time crime center gets there, that's what that group would be tasked with because it's a little much to ask the dispatcher to do that. They may or may not have time to do it right now. Tremendous benefit to the community, the safety. I'm fully supportive. That's why I voted yes.

Yeah, with the community, I think also it's a big win for our business owners and also encouraging more businesses to feel safe with retail crime in the city because we have this and we've solved a lot of those cases too. Vice Mayor?

I just want to be clear that I am in support of RPG. and I do recognize the benefit of these cameras. And what I don't agree with on this particular item is the council giving the future ability to decide on whether or not procuring more flock cameras is in the best interest of the community. Just as we have with this, We are given a recommendation. We are given the information. And what this is stating is that the council for future additional flock condor cameras, they just want to be known if they're going up. And I don't think that I can vote for that particular piece of this. Like I said, I recognize the benefit of these cameras. I do. And I said in the very beginning, I was playing devil's advocate. Our job is to speak for our constituents, for our people. And it has been a hot topic. But I truly believe that securing additional condor cameras needs to be a council decision, which is why that is the reason why I'm voting no on this.

OK. So it looks like we were in the middle of the motion, but I think it got done. Yeah, I think the vote occurred. You got that, Cass?

I got four yeses and one no.

Yes. Okay, with that, I think, is that all the consent items that were pulled? Okay, with that, I'm gonna go ahead and do a 10-minute break. All right, we are back from break, and we have made it to public hearings.

D1, conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution approving the Manteca Transit fixed route Redesign network and authorizing implementation of the proposed redesign fixed route network effective October 1st, 2026. Mayor and council, tonight we have transit manager, Juan, for you tonight.

All right. Transit. My other favorite. Can we turn that microphone off?

Uh, good evening. Yep. Yep. Good evening. Mayor, vice mayor, sitting council members, uh, Juan Portillo, uh, transit manager with the transit division. Uh, this, uh, item, uh, is a public hearing to receive community input on the proposed fixed route, redesigned network and adopt a resolution, improving the network and authorized staff to implement the redesign, um, effective October 1st, uh, 2026. The transit division began a comprehensive evaluation of the city's fixed route transit system in the fall of 2025. The evaluation was initiated in response to continued residential and community growth, changing travel patterns, and revolving transportation needs of the community. THE CITY RETAINED FEAR AND PEERS CONSULTANTS TO EVALUATE THE EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE, ANALYZING RIDERSHIP AND TRAVEL PATTERNS, IDENTIFYING SERVICE GAPS AND OPPORTUNITIES, AND TO DEVELOP THE RECOMMENDED NETWORK. THE PROPOSED NETWORK WOULD REPLACE THE EXISTING FOUR FIXED ROUTE SERVICE WITH FIVE NEW ROUTES. ROUTES 2, 4, AND 5 WOULD OPERATE MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY, WHILE ROUTES 1 AND 3 WOULD OPERATE MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY. Weekday service will begin at 5.30 a.m. Route 1, 3 would operate until 8 p.m., while routes 2 and 4 and 5 would operate until 9 p.m. Saturday service on routes 2 and 4 and 5 would operate from 8.30 a.m. to 6 p.m. The proposed routes are intended to provide a simpler and more direct transit network. Paired routes would improve the two-way travel on major corridors, including Main Street, Union Road, Yosemite Avenue, and Louise Avenue, without requiring passengers to ride an entire loop to reach their destinations in the opposite direction. Public participation was an important part of the design process. Outreach included four in-person workshops at the Manteca Transit Center. One was on January 29, and the other was May 11, 2026. We also had a virtual workshop on June 3rd, 2026. We had onboard and online surveys. And we did some outreach at the Manteca Senior Center and Eskoton Senior Living. And we participated in several community events. The outreach materials that was provided in surveys were also provided in Spanish. Staff also, and the project consultant, presented the proposed service concept to the city council on June 16th, 2026. And notice of tonight's public hearing was published in the Manteca Bulletin on July 10th, 2026, at least 30 days before the hearing. I am available for any questions and invite the Mayor Singh to open the public hearing process. Thank you.

All right, we will go ahead and open the public hearing at 8.15. Do you have any public comments on Zoom?

I have attendees, but no hands raised for public comment on item D1.

OK. Any comment cards?

I have no comment cards.

Anybody in the public would like to speak on item D1?

And I'm just wondering if this 5 o'clock in the morning start, if we'll have better service maybe over to Lathrop so we can catch the early morning age training.

I think what they're asking is, one, is connection to the A state.

Yes, correct. That's a great question. And because we're starting out at 5.30, we're able to add one early morning shuttle to the A train. So yes, we're going to provide one more.

Looks like somebody's happy. All right. So, Daga, come on up, sir.

So I appreciate the city for extending the route forward to the neighborhood so that Sierra high school kids who were denied the bus service were able to use but it's on the morning route only but the evening route will take more than an hour to reach. Will the new change of routes will operate in both directions so that it will save time for the kids? Thank you.

Juan, come on up.

I believe the school that he's mentioned is Sierra High School?

Okay, perfect.

So Sierra High School and Manteca High is one of the lucky schools because we're going to have four fixed routes in the PM to get them home. Currently, the students at Sierra High School are really taking advantage of the transportation system. Currently, they get picked up and they're taken to the transit center and they can jump on different routes to get to their homes. The morning, the only reason why we did it in the morning was Some communities, there was a gap. A couple of south side communities didn't have the service. So what we did is we heard from the residents, and we had a tripper that kind of gets them from this location, like Chrome up north, and then straight to Sierra High School. But on the return, Sierra has many routes that will pick them up. They can go to the transit center, and then from there, they can take whichever route. There is a future Route 6 that could be added that will do what the gentleman here is asking is to pick up from Sierra and then go straight to the south side of Manteca. But there is other routes that do go south. It just doesn't go all the way south to, for example, Griffith Park or Woodward Park.

And I appreciate the Route 5 and also appreciate the separate Sierra High School tripper. Anybody else in the public wanna speak on this item? Okay, seeing none, I'll go ahead and bring it back to council. I will go ahead and close the public hearing at 8.18. Okay, council, Council Member Halford.

It's like a good plan. Vice Mayor.

Thank you for all the work that you've put into this. I know it's been a long few months of making sure all this information gets out there, and I do appreciate the new route.

Council Member Bryant.

Well, and thank you for listening to the citizens and their input and implementing into the route. So thank you again. You're welcome.

Council Member Morwood.

I appreciate it. I think now we have a much more robust transportation in Manteca before people would complain. And now we have kids going to schools. We have more seniors involved. People can get from one place to the other. It used to be like an hour, hour and a half sometimes to wait if you missed the bus. So it's now becoming more what the Bay Area envisioned. We envision what the Bay Area's transit has done. So thank you.

Yeah, I'd like to say thank you, Juan. Thank you for kind of listening. Thank you for also getting out there in the public and sharing a lot of this information. We saw you at multiple events and community events. And also kind of understanding some of the limitations when it comes to the school district and the bus service and making sure we're also helping and doing our part in giving them access to the school. especially the south side of the community where some of the bus service is not available. I'm really liking the extra services and then also a lot of the south that are taking the ACE train so I like the ACE shuttle service also that can transfer and switch over once ACE is done. So this is great and I think we're truly becoming transit oriented from where we started. We've come a long way and I feel we're going to have that Route 6 probably going to be coming soon in the horizon too. So thank you for all your work. And with that, I'll go ahead and entertain a motion. Second. We have a motion from Vice Mayor Lackey, second from Council Member Breitenbucher to adopt a resolution approving the Manteca Transit Fixed Route Redesign Network and authorizing the implementation of the proposed Redesign Fixed Route Network effective October 1, 2026. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. Thank you. Thank you, Warren.

We need to conduct a public hearing and consider an addendum to the City of Manteca general plan update EIR prepared for the batch GPA site one through four project pursuant to sections 15162 and 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines adopt a resolution approving general plan amendment, amending the land use designation of the project parcels identified in sites one through four project and waive the first reading by substitution of the title and introduce an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Manteca, State of California, amending the zoning map set forth in Section 17.20.040 of Chapter 17.20 of Title 17 of the Manteca Municipal Code by rezoning the project parcels identified in Sites 1 through 4 projects. Mayor and Council, tonight we have Associate Planner Sol.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Sol Jobrak, Associate Planner in Development Services. The resolution is, it was a mouthful. I'm going to try to keep this item quicker for you all to enjoy. So this is a city-initiated general plan amendment and zoning map amendment involving four sites located throughout the city. The four sites total approximately 32.91 acres, and the proposed amendments update the general plan and zoning designations for these properties. No specific developments are being approved tonight. The Planning Commission did approve this item of five to zero on June 18th. The amendments are intended to maintain consistency between the general plan and zoning maps, support future public infrastructure planning, and provide additional housing opportunities for the community. This slide here compares the existing and the proposed general plan designations. As you can see, site one adds a commercial area along East Bronson Road. Site two adjusts boundaries between a high density residential and a public quasi public area. Site three changes the northern portion from commercial to quasi public. And site four, while it's correct in the attachments tonight, this does show that the PQP, that is not the case. It is staying and remaining as commercial. The only change we're proposing is the medium density residential along the eastern portion of that property. This, the proposed zone map amendments are intended to correspond with the proposed general plan amendments, very identifying or identical to the general plan designations. Staff finds that the amendments are consistent with the 2043 general plan. These changes support orderly growth, additional housing opportunities, public facility planning, and a balanced mix of land uses throughout the city. an addendum to the general plan EIR was prepared, and staff determined that no subsequent or supplemental ER is required. Staff recommends that the City Council consider the addendum, approve the general plan amendment, and approve the zoning map amendment. That concludes staff's presentation. We're happy to answer any questions if you have any. Thank you.

Thank you, Sal. Okay, we'll go ahead and Is there any questions from council before I open up the public hearing? Okay, we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing at 8.25. Any questions or comments on Zoom?

I have attendees, but no hands raised for public comment on item D2.

Okay, no comment cards?

I have two comment cards. The first one is Sukant.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, and the members of the public. My name is Sukant, and I am a resident concerned about the proposed General Plan Amendment, GPA 260052, and its impact on the site for proposed Tara Park School. I want to bring attention to the city's existing general plan that has clear policies that require cooperation with this school district to protect school sites, which is the foundation for my opposition. I'm here to clarify that any amendment that fails to protect the school site or allows incompatible development on its land directly contradicts these existing policies. This land is intended to serve a public purpose, specifically as a future school site, as our community continues to grow. The need for educational facilities becomes increasingly important. Once land designated for public use is converted to residential or commercial development, it becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible, to recover suitable land for future school construction. My concern is not only the loss of the school site itself, but also the long-term impact of residential development adjacent to the future school. Residential projects can create constraints on future school operations, including traffic circulation challenges, parking conflicts, noise complaints, student safety concerns, and limitations on future school expansion. These issues can complicate and potentially jeopardize the successful development of a school that our community may urgently need in the near future. Furthermore, approving rezoning the site may provide a short-term solution for housing or commercial needs while sacrificing long-term community assets. Schools are critical public infrastructure that serve generations of families. We should be planning not only for today's need, but also for the needs for our children and future residents. I therefore demand the city commit in writing to upholding its policies, specifically policy PF13 and PF32, by rejecting any land use changes that would jeopardize the school site. I respectfully ask the decision makers to consider the lasting value of preserving this land for public use and educational purposes. Before approving any zoning conversion, the city should conduct a thorough evaluation of future school needs, population growth projections, and alternative sites that could serve the public interest without eliminating a potential school location. Once the land is converted and developed, the opportunity to use it for a school may be lost forever. For that reason, I urge you to reject the proposed zoning amendment and preserve the site for its intended public purpose. In the end, I would like to reiterate that I oppose any amendment that does not explicitly protect the school from incompatible adjacent and on its land uses or reduced land availability. Thank you for your time and cooperation and thanks for the opportunity to speak up.

Thank you. Next comment card.

The last card I have is pseudo card.

Good evening, Council, fellow residents. So this is regarding the Site 2 and Site 1. So both are interrelated. And while we appreciate the increase for two-acre land for the fire station, the decrease of school site of 0.82 acres from PQP to HDR should be denied. And if city wants to use it for future use, public use, that's better for public use. And if it is unable to use for public use, it should be returned to MUSD. I'm not sure when two by two meetings with MUSD happens for the growth when school district says it's a surplus land or it's not a building that is space allocated to that one acre, why did the city not stand with public and ask, what about the future projection? So what about the future expansion? The three schools that were proposed, The Lathrop had a future building and a future bus drop-off planning. Why did not city have requested for an adequate land to be allocated? Instead, it is being given to a high density residential. Also, there is no truth in loss of one acre for the private developer. The Site 1, which the city owns as an R1 zoning, is being converted to commercial zone and given to the same private developer. The cost of the Site 2 or a residential land is approximately 200K to 300K. So for the 1.82 acre that that the private developer is giving it costs around 400K, but the site he's receiving on the 0.94 on the freeway exit being converted to commercial is close to a million. That means he has a profit of 500, more than a 500K profit. City could have requested more land for the exchange instead of reducing the school site from PQP to HDR. They could have asked two more acres to compensate the equal value so that we have enough public facilities. Thank you. And in that facility, there could have been a community SHARP program that can be distributed across four corners, which would be of a good public use. Thank you.

Anybody else in the public like to speak on item D2? OK, seeing none, I will go ahead and close the public hearing at 8.32. OK, I have a question. Has the school MUSD ever approached the city regarding the site that they needed more space, they didn't want to do this change, or anything from the school district that They need more space for their school.

I can defer to the director on that question. I can unequivocally say no. The school district has not made any comment about the loss of the one acre and how it might impact their school site. In fact, I can say that in conversations with them, it does not jeopardize the number of students, the design of the school at all. And that's why when we went to the settlement negotiations, they were willing to transfer that one acre of land to the city so that we are able to acquire the two acres to build the fire station.

And they agree with this general plan amendment?

Um, we have been in communication as part of this. They're aware they are also taking the one acre donation to the state september 9th and 10th their meeting as part of this donation city. They're aware of the change. Uh, both the hdr piece as well as the ptp fire station site have been involved for some time. Yeah.

Do you know if there's gonna be a bus stop over there?

I am unaware if there will be a bus stop or where it would be located. I have not gotten to that depth of conversation with the school district.

All right. Councilmember Horowitz.

So basically this is because we're not using the school site and we're converting it back. Is that basically the reason?

Thank you, Councilmember. So actually with these items, we don't consider uses. So uses are a separate issue, a completely separate discussion. What we're trying to do is align things with what potential uses could be. So under PQP, it could be a list of them. It just so happens that there's this stuff going on in the background that's related. But who knows? The fire station could evaporate tomorrow, and it's all PQP and could be used for a school. We don't know. We try to align it to be able to accommodate this project or any future project.

For government use, basically.

For public use.

Public use, I mean. Right. So not just for homes. It's for public use.

Actually, an increase in that public use acreage, a decrease in residential acreage.

That's the purpose of this. And this is, like I say, to make sure it balances. General plans are not just, they're just a roadmap. They're sort of an overlay. It doesn't mean it happens, but we prepare for it so that if it does, they don't have to go through the long process of changing it again so that people know, so developers and schools and public entities know that if they use this land, it's already set up for, in this case, maybe for public use. We don't know what dictates public use yet.

Correct. And honestly, we want to make sure these lines are appropriate to what is envisioned. If they're not, we could likely end up with a use that's on a zoning designation that isn't consistent, and we've created a bigger problem.

All right. So it's just a better roadmap for the city in the future. Yes. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Council Member Brayman.

So Brad, there was a thing that was sent to us, and it had the goals that was listed. And so I looked it up, and the general plan, right? And it talks about the core division of labor. MSD's responsibility is an independent governmental agency solely responsible for funding, designing, constructing, and operation of all public school facilities. City of Manteca does not build schools. Instead, its role is defined in land use planning, zoning, and coordination to ensure there is space for the schools as the community grows. That's the process we're doing today, correct?

That is part of the process. We are planning. I will note that the city development services and staff do have quarterly meetings with the school district in collaboration on these topics. So we are meeting to identify not only the issues with this site and how we can move forward, but also others as well.

And then on the goals, the land allocation goal, you seven city ensures that enough land is zoned for public and quasi public use, preventing residential growth from entirely crowding out space needed for future schools and park. We've met that goal.

Yes, we have. And two of the proposed general plan amendments go further in terms of adding additional public quasi public or public use acreage within the city.

And the next one is growth coordination. The city shares its population and housing growth forecast with MUSD, so the district can accurately project future student enrollment and plan where to buy land for new campuses, and we do that too, right?

Yes, we provide them data, if not quarterly, more often as they request it, so they can project those students.

Okay, and then neighborhood design goal CD 4.7. The city designs urban master plans so that new neighborhoods are built with central hubs, ideally placing elementary schools or parks within a safe half mile walking distance for local families. And we have been working on that in our general plan.

Correct. The 2024 general plan update has several of those central core areas, whether it's HDR, residential, commercial, PQP, they are built within that central core to that goal, yeah.

Okay, thank you.

All right. Vice Mayor.

Not smart. Member Brian Booker, you did a really good job asking all my questions. Thank you.

Welcome. Council member help.

Pretty much ditto. They've covered it all. They all make sense. Obviously, there's some disagreement on what some people feel on the P and R3 HDR. The net gain of PQP fire station is very much needed and the district is happy with that they have in addition to the other school sites are available in the southwest portion of town. And the section that has been quoted, the operative word in there is or. that it's a park, a school, or a commercial use area that's within a half a mile. And I would believe that I'm not aware of any subdivisions that have been built that don't have a park within a half a mile. I mean, I stand to be corrected if there are any, but I'm not aware. So I'm supportive. Thank you.

Thank you. Maybe one more question regarding schools. Are we the one that decides how big or large a school site should be, or is that a school district?

That's a school district decision. However, we do work with them to identify sites that would potentially be large enough as we go through not only the general plan update a few years ago, but also as we move forward with future annexation potential sites.

So the school district kind of tells us how much land they potentially would need and to make sure the general plan is zoned correct. All right, if there's no any other questions, I'll entertain a motion. So moved. Okay, I have a motion from Council Member Brian Booker, second from Council Member Halford to adopt a resolution approving general plan amendment amending the land use designation of the project parcels identified in sites one through four and waived the first reading by substitution of the title and introduced an ordinance of the City Council and the City of Manteca, State of California, amending the zoning map set forth in Section 17.20.040 of Chapter 17.20 of Title 17 of the Manteca Municipal Code by rezoning the project parcels identified in Site 1 through 4 project rezone. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. That takes us to D3.

Conduct a public hearing for the Yosemite mixed-use conversion batch GPA site 5 project and adopt a resolution making the necessary findings to adopt an initial study mitigated negative declaration and its associated mitigation monitoring and reporting program prepared for the project. adopt a resolution approving a general plan amendment, redesignating the project parcel identified in the batch GPA site five project, and waive the first reading by substitution of the title and introduce an ordinance of the city council of the city of Manteca, state of california amending the zoning map set forth in section 17.20.040 of chapter 17.20 of title 17 of the manteca municipal code by rezoning the batch gpa site 5 project parcels from public quasi public quasi public planned development light industrial and limited multiple family dwelling to the mixed-use commercial zone district. Again, we have Associate Planner Saul.

Mayor and members of the City Council, Saul Jobrak again speaking on this item. The item before you is the Yosemite Mixed-Use Conversion Project. We've also identified it as Batch General Plan Amendment Site 5. This is a city-initiated amendment involving approximately 22.95 acres located southwest of Yosemite and South Airport Way. The project area consists of 10 parcels identified on the slide. It is intended to establish consistent general plan and zoning designations throughout the project area. The Planning Commission did consider this item at its June 18th meeting and recommended approval 5-0. The amendment is being proposed to resolve the existing inconsistencies between the general plan and zoning maps and establish a unified commercial mixed use land use pattern. The commercial mixed use designation would support future residential and commercial development opportunities and encourage infill development within the existing urbanized area. The amendment also advances the general plan's housing and economic development goals by creating greater flexibility for future development of these areas. This slide compares the existing and proposed general plan amendments. The approximate 23 acre project site area currently contains several general plan designations and the cleanup proposed general plan amendment would designate the entire project as commercial mixed use. This would create one consistent land use designation across all 10 parcels. This here is the zoning map amendment. It compares the existing and proposed zoning designations This is to correspond with the proposed general plan designations from the previous slide. Staff did evaluate the proposed amendments for consistency with the 2043 general plan and found that the proposed amendments are in the public's interest and consistent with the general plan. Staff recommends that the city council conduct a public hearing and take the following actions. First, we ask that you adopt the initial study and mitigate a negative declaration. and the associated mitigation monitoring and reporting program. Second, we ask that you approve the general plan amendment, GPA 2639. And finally, third, we ask that you approve the zoning map amendment rezone application 2639. This concludes staff's presentation. We're happy to answer any questions if you have any.

All right, thank you for that. Any questions or comments from council before I open a public hearing? Okay, we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing at 8.44. Any questions on Zoom?

I have attendees, but no hands raised for public comment for item D. Okay, any comment cards? I have no comment.

Anybody in the public would like to speak on item D3? Okay, seeing none, I'll go ahead and bring it back. Closing public hearing at 8.45. All right. Question on this one I guess I have real quick is you have some zoning that changed from PQP to CMU.

Mayor, thank you for bringing that up. Assistant City Manager Jorgensen just mentioned that. We do show two parcels, 241-30067 and 241-30071, one under the ownership of SSGID and the other under the ownership of the city. I don't believe that was staff's intent to make that change, and we'd request City Council approve amended resolutions that exclude those two parcels as well as the ordinance doing the same.

All right. Hey, you know. People may not like that.

So the 7.39 acres of PQP is going to remain?

Parcel ending in 7.1 and 6.7 would remain PQP. Yes.

Is that where our future potential Milo Candini would be coming through?

I don't know to that, but I do know that's part of the wastewater treatment plant facility at that location.

Yeah. And that was not part of the Planning Commission? Those two parcels?

That was part of the Planning Commission recommendation to City Council.

So the PQP was in there switching to CMU? It was. Okay. All right. Yeah, we're going to leave that. Good cat. Okay, I'll go back to council if any other questions. Start with Council Member Helf. None now. Vice Mayor.

None. No, you can't go there yet.

Council Member Moravich.

So basically, we had just a mix of everything on there, existing mixed-use commercial. We had multiple family. We had some PQP and industrial. So now we're just going to make it all one mixed-use, CMU, correct?

That's correct.

And the purpose of that was that's kind of what we feel that's what we want to have there in the city. That's consistent.

it is consistent we do have development applications in on one of those parcels currently that is a clean this is actually part of a cleanup that we need to do for that project as well so yeah it's consistent we believe best for the city and best for that location once again we have an applicant yes most of that um i believe the uh applicant the project that we're working on that has for a second, has gone through Planning Commission or we know it has not?

Mayor, Council. No, that specific project's still under review pending tonight's action.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, very good.

Good, Council Member, all right? Good? Okay.

Yeah, no, I appreciate this cleanup. I also appreciate the consistency with CMU and actually also eliminating industrial in that area. Just with the changes with Fez and all the things that are going to be happening around there, we definitely don't need that type of use. So I think CMU is more consistent with things to the east and the south. With that, I do like this change and look forward to seeing that project move forward also when it comes.

I'll entertain a motion. I'll make the motion to amend 241, 300, 67, and 71 to leave them as PQP and accept the other as CMU.

I'll second. Okay, so we have a motion from Council Member Breitenberger and a second from Vice Mayor Lackey to do the PQP, leaving it at PQP for 067 and 071, and adopt a resolution making the necessary findings to adopt an initial study mitigated NGDAC and its associated mitigation monitoring and reporting program prepared for the project, adopt a resolution approving a general plan amendment redesignation, a project parcel identified in the Batch EPA Site 5 project, and waived the first reading by substitution of title and introduced an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Manteca State of California amending the zoning map set forth in Section 17.20.040 of Chapter 17.20 of Title 17 of the Manteca Municipal Code by rezoning the Batch GBA Site 5 project parcels from public quasi, actually, well, land development, light industrial, and limited multiple family dwelling to the mixed use commercial zoning district. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries five. Hopefully you got that. All right. Okay, we'll move on to D4.

Conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution approving amendment number two for the engineering and traffic survey for speed limits. Waive the first reading by substitution of a title and introduce an ordinance of the city council of the city of Manteca, state of California, amending Manteca Municipal Code 10, vehicles and traffic, chapter 10.12, speed limit section 10.12.020. designated and authorizing the city manager designee to take all appropriate actions necessary to carry out the purpose and intent of the resolution. Mayor and Council, tonight we have Senior Engineer Beshoy.

Good evening, Mayor and council members. This public hearing is to reduce the speed limit on Crom Street between airport way and Union Road from 35 to 30. California Vehicle Code give local jurisdictions authority to run traffic and engineering survey to complete this reduction. When we received concern from public regarding current speed limit on Chrome Street, we investigated the roadway element such as land use, public transit, pedestrian public facilities, crash rate, which was lower than similar corridors in the state. We also reviewed five years of collision history. And we have zero fatalities on this corridor. We have only one collision in July 2024 with severe injury between, and it was between motorcycle and a vehicle, and was a primary contributing factor in defying unsafe speed from the motorcycle. We also looked at free flow vehicles. We collected samples of 128 vehicle speed under free flow, and we calculated the 85th percentile. The 85th percentile is the speed which our observed vehicle, 85 percent of them were at or below that speed. 15% are higher than that speed. 85th percentile for Cromer Street on this study was 37 mile per hour. We rounded to the nearest five, which is 35. And because of its proximity to the school and the residential frontage, and also the one severe collision, engineering is recommending to reduce from 35 to take another five mile per hour reduction from 35 to 30 mile per hour. And that's also supported by California Vehicle Code Section 22358.6b. Staff does recommend reducing the speed limit to 30 mile per hour. Thank you. Any questions?

All right. Any questions from council before I open up the public hearing? Okay, we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing at 8.54. Anybody on Zoom?

I have attendees on Zoom, but no hands raised for public comment for item D4.

Any comment cards?

I have no comment.

Anybody like to speak on item D4? Come on up, sir. Or this one first. I'm sorry.

I am all for reducing that to 30 miles an hour. I think it would be a lot safer. Thank you.

Hello, council members. I'm Raymond Gedney. I live on Crom Street at Foxfire. We moved there approximately two and a half years ago. And as a retired traffic sergeant, I noticed that the excessive speed on that street and the dangerous condition. Dangerous condition being foot traffic to and from school, dog walkers, there's a lot of pedestrian traffic out there. I've been working with the engineering department on getting that speed reduced and also the housing on the other side of airport contributed to the traffic there. I worked with them and tried to get it down to 25 suggested speed. Eventually I turned in a traffic calming form and requesting 25. About two months ago, month and a half ago, I received an email regarding from the engineering department and they stated that they were going to make a recommendation to council to reduce it to 25. Well, I was ecstatic about that because that's my main goal is to slow down the traffic there. And then I think it was about a week ago, week and a half ago in the evening, I got an email from the engineering department that they modified it to 30 miles an hour. I don't agree with that. I don't think five miles an hour is gonna make much of a difference on that street. There's also the Assembly Bill 1014, which was passed this year, which has increased the amount that a local jurisdiction can reduce the speed from the 85th percentile, which is 37 miles an hour. It is my viewpoint that the speed can be reduced to 25 and also rounded off down to 25, according to the Assembly bill. So I'm referring you to the Assembly bill. and I received no information from the engineering department or the traffic committee that there was going to be any consideration regarding that assembly bill. So I urged the council to pass it for a 25 miles per hour speed limit there and reduce the school zone to 20 miles per hour. So that's my case.

Mr. Kenney, I have a question for you. When you submitted the traffic calming, did you ever submit to get speed bumps, bumps, bumps on Chrome, or you just asked for a reduction in the speed limit?

What happened is about a year and a half ago, I turned in the traffic calming form requesting speed bumps, and I was advised that they're not allowable for a 35 mile per hour zone. I wasn't aware of that. But that was the last request I made for it. And now I get the notification regarding this reduction to 30 miles per hour. And then I also got a form regarding the speed lumps. I looked at the form and I'm not too happy with the wording on the form because I was looking at it and it said one of the questions for the person assigned on Crom Street is, would you like speed lumps in front of your house? And I don't think that's an appropriate question. on that petition because I think it's gonna slant the response or the reaction of someone, possibility of signing that petition. I think that's a negative, inappropriate wording on that form. And also, another question is, are you the owner of the house? And I think that's irrelevant as far as what does it matter who owns the house, it's who's living in the house. Because there is a significant number of renters on that street. So I have a problem with the wording on that form, and I actually have two friends that have approved areas for speed lumps, and I'm going to show them that form to make sure that it's consistent with what they dealt with before.

Thank you, sir.

You're welcome.

Anybody else like to speak on this item? Okay, seeing none, I will go ahead and close the public hearing at 9 o'clock.

Okay.

A couple questions I have. First of all, Mr. Gaddini brought up the fact of AB 1014. Can you kind of explain that one?

Yes, sure. The California Vehicle Code, the new law does provide the ability to reduce the 85th percentile by 12.4 mile per hour. So to take it to 25 mile per hour, we could be using additional lowering the speed by five mile per hour. But unfortunately, and that's why we had to correct that email that that Mr. Guindy was talking about. that five mile per hour extra reduction comes with the very restriction requirements. Reading from California Vehicle Codes and the California MUTCD, it has to meet the following two requirements. Safety corridor, and the definition of safety corridor is a safety corridor that shall be defined as a roadway segment with an overall roadway network where the highest number of serious injury and fatality. Crashes acquire guidance. Just jurisdiction should use three or five years on the most recent crash data to determine a safety corridor. For crashes cover, safety corridor may be defined as a subset on overall roadway network where a minimum of 25% or fatality or serious injury crash acquired. And unfortunately, we don't have engineer basis to define Crom Street as meeting this kind of requirement. The second requirement is a land or a facility that generates high concentration of bicycle and pedestrian. So we have the school and we have the bike lane. Totally agree. But it adds that following requirement and meet the following condition. Crash data demonstrate a high segment. is within the top 20% of pedestrian and bicycle fatalities or serious injury over the three or five years. We looked at the five years, and we couldn't find that. So we couldn't find engineer bases to give the speed limit as a 25 mile per hour. And we listened. We all know that speed limits established at or near 85th percentile provides the law enforcement an appropriate level for citing drivers who travel at speed considered reasonable or considered by majority that is reasonable to get cited. So if you look also at the data in the presentation, if we go to 25 mile per hour, 98% of the people that we observed in that sample will be violators. So we couldn't move forward with 25 mile per hour and we recommend 30, so that's.

Okay, next question I have is, is reduction in speed a common traffic calming process that we use when it comes to our traffic calming application?

So the traffic calming application is serving the speed lumps. And what we told, what we informed the resident is that when we reduce it to 30 miles per hour, we will be able to add the speed lumps on Chrome. Because previously, it was rejected because it was a 35 mile per hour. But now with a 30 mile per hour near the 85th percentile, I can add the speed lump.

So if this gets approved tonight, speed, lumps, humps, whatever it is, is a possibility for that road?

Yes, we already approached Mr. Guindy with that application, and we told him you can start the petition in line with while we are trying to reduce the speed. And regarding the question, are you the... Are you the owner or are you okay with having the speed lamp in front of your house and the question application? We run through so many lesson learned that we go and put it in front of somebody house and they come during construction and say, no, we don't want it here. So from lesson learned from many years, we had to ask, the people, are we going to put a speed lamp in front of you, a sign in front of you? Are you okay with that? I mean, streets already have seen so many signs. When people are not happy, they just remove the sign and throw it away, or they just pull it up. So we're just trying to be proactive when we are asking those questions to the residents.

And are those questions consistent with all of our other applications?

Yes, yes, definitely. And you see how many speed lumps we have around the town. So if we have a serious speed issue, I definitely think that this question will get people happy. Yes, I want it here in front of my house because I have a speed issue. Okay.

Iceman, go ahead.

Okay, so I wanted to go first because this is actually a really important topic for me. I used to live on Crom Street. I lived on Crom Street for 10 years. I raised my kids from infants to 10 years old and a little bit older. And I can tell you firsthand that this street is an issue. People go speeding down the street. I've had my neighbor's house almost get hit. The only reason it did not get hit is because there was a tree in front of it, and it slammed into the tree. We've had our mailbox taken out. I've had cars hit that were parked on the side because people speed through Crom Street. And it's gotten worse. What I don't understand is it was at 35 miles an hour because half of the street is a golf course. And a few years back, part of that street was a farm. I lived directly across the street from the farm. Now it's all housing. And Crom now extends to the other side of airport. So we have kids that are walking down this residential street to get to a school that has access to the school on Crom Street. Every other neighborhood for the California DMV, their speed limit is 25. This street is a residential street. We have high density on both ends of Crom Street from Union. On that end, we have the apartments. and we have the high density, what are they? They're not condos, townhouses. On the other side, we now have all that new housing and all those kids are walking their way to school, riding their bikes to school. It is a high density street. And a lot of families can't allow their kids to be out front of their house because there is racing going on down that street. Now there's been a lot of mitigation over the years trying to keep it from going so fast 43 miles an hour down that street is ridiculous. That should not be okay. And that should not be part of this factoring of your 87th percentile. Yeah, you're gonna have 98% of violators. Guess what? At that point, maybe we get some traffic control and we ticket, every single one of them, for racing down a residential street. I have talked to Mr. Gedney, and I had said, do the petition for the speed lumps, because that will slow them down to 15 miles an hour going over these speed lumps. I don't know why we don't already have them, because it is a school district. We have three entrances to Stella Brockman. We have one on Silverado, we have one on Crom, and then I can't recall the other street.

Because that's a new policy we just created.

Well, I understand that. But what I'm saying is this is a residential street. We have kids accessing that school from three different points. All three of those points need to be treated just like all of our other schools under this new policy and receive those speed lots. There shouldn't be a question to that. But I haven't been on that street for 10 years. I moved to the other side of town where my kids could play in the front yard. This street has always been an issue. When I lived there, I asked for speed lumps. At that time, speed lumps were not a standard in Manteca. I was told that they could not happen. And it never did. So we had two cars totaled in front of my house because people were speeding. Like I said, we had our post office box knocked out for months because obviously it takes time. They have the curve in the street. It does not slow them down. They've put up stop signs. It does not slow them down. They've put up lights on those stop signs. It does not slow them down. We have at least put a sidewalk on the other side by the golf course, but the golf course, the fact that that's not housing should not be a factor in this. We have greatly increase the number of children using this street. So I am in favor. It's a residential street, plain and simple. Residential streets are zoned at 25. So I would be in favor of the 25. And then you get people out there to go after those violators. They'll catch on. They'll go 25. And they'll treat it as a true residential street. Because right now, it's just being treated as a highway, a thoroughfare. And that's not OK. That is not Louise. That is not Moffett. That is not Lathrop Road. It's Crom. It's a residential street in the middle of our neighborhood. So I apologize. This is a very touchy subject, because like I said, I raised my kids on that street. And I know exactly what these people are going through. And it's been long overdue for something to be done about the street.

I just want to mention that we do have 25 miles per hour when children are in prison signs, and we are here tonight to continue improving. This is not the last thing we're going to do at Crom, and this is not the first thing we did at Crom. Crom, we did, as you mentioned, the new sidewalk. On the south side of Chrome, we had now continuous sidewalk for the children going to the school. We did observe that this sidewalk is used heavily now from those children and bike lane on both sides. We updated all the ADE care ramp on that street. and we put flashing stop sign on all the stop sign on Chrome Street, and we also installed high visibility yellow crosswalk on all the crosswalk there, and all the crosswalk are controlled. We totally understand.

Why is this not being treated as a true residential?

It's a collector. It's a major collector.

It's a residential street. We have people that live on that street, and we have access to a school there. It needs to be treated as a true residential street. So just like all the other residents, it's 25 miles an hour. I don't see any difference between the two.

Yeah. From engineering basis, I don't have a backup to put it to 25.

So I have a question for you on that. If you change it to 25, and people are going 30 or whatever, is it enforceable?

I believe police did put a temporary trail there.

Yeah, I think police chief would probably like to chime in at this point.

It has to deal with the, well, that's loud. It has to deal with the 80th percentile and having a radar survey that supports that. If it's dropped to 25 miles per hour, you're not able to enforce speed via radar by law. And so it would have to be a bumper pace at 25 if they're going that. You can't sit on the street and run radar.

At 25 miles an hour?

At 25 miles an hour.

So at this point, we spend money on 30 mile an hour signs. get more data, and then spend more money to make it a true residential street. Is that what I'm hearing? Because that seems kind of backwards to me.

You're saying regarding the speed loans?

I'm saying in regards to the speed limit. You make it 30 miles an hour, you spend money to change the signs, and then the residents request more data to show that these people still are not doing what they're supposed to be doing. And they continue to request 25 miles an hour. And then we change, we spend more money to go through this whole process again. I don't understand why it's not being treated as a true residential neighborhood. It's an it used to be on the outer limits of Villa Tocino. It is no longer on the outer limits of Villa Tocino. Make it make sense to me, because it doesn't make sense. It is a residential street. It's no different than any other residential street, other than the fact that it has school access. Not all residential streets do. It has school access. You know you have the foot traffic and the kids there, so why wouldn't we be proactive and make it what it needs to be now?

Yeah, once we collected the 85th percentile, I'm not sure where to go from here.

Yeah, maybe if I could jump in, Vice Mayor. So from an engineering standpoint, we have essentially criteria that we have to meet when we do these engineering and traffic surveys. And when you look at a street like Crom Street, while there are residents fronting it, and you do have a golf course on the south side, it is what we call a collector street, meaning It's not just the folks who live on that street that are driving to get out of their neighborhood, unlike a Foxfire, say, or a Greenview. So this is a lot more cut-through traffic, if you will, and that's why it's a higher classification of roadway. If you were to look at, typically, when you get into the nitty-gritty of traffic analysis, a typical home will generate approximately 10 trips a day. And that's a one-way trip. So if you run to the store, that's two trips kind of thing. So when we look at a street like a Foxfire or Greenview, they're generating the number of trips that would be in that range, so to speak, from those houses there. You're not getting much more in the way of additional traffic. traffic running through those streets unlike crom because it does have that connection to both union and airport you're getting a lot more traffic you're getting the school traffic from people beyond just the immediate neighborhood and you're getting people that that's just another way you know right because you've either got louise to the north or you've got yosemite to the south and chrome's right in between So you do get those additional volumes and that's why I think historically it has had a higher speed limit like 35 and that's where we are trying to work within the limits that we have from an engineering standpoint. when we put out the tubes and we measure the speeds and we measure the volumes and then we look at the other criteria to come up with what can we be defensible as and what can we provide for PD to enforce the speed limit rather than just jump to what people would like it to be, in this case, 25 miles an hour. And so it is a bit of an incremental step, if you will, but now if we can get approval on the 30 miles an hour here, And if there is consensus amongst the neighborhood to get the speed lumps, I think you will see that speed drop. Because as you noted, there's been a lot of incremental things that we've done to try to get people to slow down. and we have been somewhat successful. You are gonna always get that 15%. Those are the people that are gonna speed no matter what, and that's why you have speed limits set at 85th percentile, because you're always gonna get some of those outliers, if you will. But anyway, so if we can get it down to 30 now, and if the neighborhood supports the speed lumps, I think you'll see the speeds drop, but it is an incremental process, and we have to kind of work within the limits that we're given.

What's the time frame that we'd be looking at for those speed lumps? I'm sorry? What's the time frame if he was to get the approval for the speed lumps, what's the time frame that he's looking at, that that neighborhood is looking at?

Once he submits a petition, probably four to six months.

City Attorney, is there anything that states I can't go out there and doorknock?

For what?

For signatures.

For?

Speed loans.

Yeah, no, I mean, they're saying once you get the application in.

No, I understand. I'm asking the city attorney, is there anything that says that I cannot go out with Mr. Gedney and ask the neighbors on Crom Street to sign that paper?

You're a resident like any other person in the city. Yeah. I think speed loans could be.

Okay. Thank you.

So once we do get an application hopefully and it's approved, then it falls in with all of our other speed lump requests, correct? Okay, anything else? Thank you. Councilmember Halford, you know anything about speed trailers and speed lumps and speeding? Maybe.

You know, Crom Street, when it was first built, did not extend all the way to airport. It is a wide, great street. And there has historically been some speeding issues there. I'm not sure what the original speed limit on it was 25 years ago, whenever it was first built. There were no sidewalks. There are no sidewalks on parts of it, which was by design. That's a rural estate zone there. That's what people wanted and what people purchased when they moved in there. As a result of speeding complaints many years ago, the little, I don't know what you call that little divot that got put in, because there was not sufficient room to make a roundabout. Board of an island in the middle to call it because, you know, when people get on the street, the line of sight, there's no obstructions, so it's easy to get up. So that was the purpose of that little divot that got put in. After that, there's been a couple stop signs that have been put in. which are not good for speed control. All it does is slow them down for the 150 feet on either side of it and create dust and noise issues and create stop sign value. which is kind of the same thing with the 85th percentile. That historically has been gauged to be what is a safe speed because people normally drive a safe speed for condition, which is what 22350 of the vehicle code says is you have to drive what's safe for condition. The vehicle code also defines what a prima facie residential street is. I've been out of business for 18 years. I don't remember the exact criteria, but I don't think prom street meets that definition. I think you have to have houses on both sides for a certain distance, two lane road. It has to be a certain density of houses within X number. And I would be surprised if prom meets that definition for prima facie 25, which means you have to justify a 25 mile an hour speed limit based on the traffic safety and engineering study. One crash in five years, Now, you cited several, but more than five years ago is not going to justify a reduction in ,, particularly when it did not involve a pedestrian. There is an existing school zone. Does anybody know what the start and end zone points are of the school zone?

500 feet. 500 feet from the limit of the school.

So that exists now, at 25, whenever there are children present, which The other issue is if you set a speed limit that's lower than what people perceive to be safe, they're going to violate it. It's going to happen because of human nature. They're going to drive what they perceive to be safe. I take that road quite a bit. I don't drive 35 on it. I drive about 30 miles an hour when I go down. If there are kids going to and from school, obviously I'm driving 25. So I mean, I understand Mr. Getney's position. And he bought a house there. Maybe he didn't realize the traffic that was on there when he bought it. He wants to sit in his front yard and enjoy the view, enjoy the, have his grandkids play out front. And he doesn't think that's safe to do and doesn't appreciate the traffic that's on there. I'm not sure what the traffic count is on, I think I saw it on there, 2,500? Per day. Obviously it's concentrated in the morning and afternoon when school's in session. It would be nice if the traffic officers, when school's in session, they could be out there working a little radar, encourage people to drive the 25 in the school zone. I would be hesitant to put 25 miles an hour on Crom, because it's gonna encourage people to violate the speed zone. And... The history of crashes just doesn't justify it.

All right. I'll throw in a bright book.

Wow.

How do you follow that one? I think the speed that they've come up with is fine. As far as the form, if you're filling out the form and you're not willing to say that you want speed bumps in front of your house, why are you filling it out? You're expecting others to do what you don't want to. I think that's a, it is a good question. You know, it shouldn't be a surprise. And as far as the ownership, yes, you know, if you're a renter, then that can cause problems. So, yeah, I'm okay with this. I think it's reasonable and we can also do the speed bumps now. So I think we're good. Thank you.

Maybe I can ask the police chief to clarify what a school zone is. We hear it all the time. What does it actually mean?

A school zone is marked out in certain areas near schools within 500 feet of the school. And it says when children are present. And the vehicle code states that when children are present, there can't be a barrier between them and where they're at. For instance, here, just because school is in session, doesn't mean it's 25. Children are present, but by the vehicle code, there's a barrier because it has a cyclone fence. And so it doesn't count as children are present. Similar, we have them like by Sequoia School and other areas where children are present, or Northgate is a good one with Neil Halfley, where it just has those like a little pylon with a chain, that's a barrier. And so if they're in that park playing, there's a barrier, so it doesn't count as when children are present. And so it's when they're walking, it's protect them when they're walking to and from school, because there's no barrier there. Thank you.

Also in the school ground, the one carrying the stop sign are in operation. So yeah.

Crossing guard. Yeah, crossing guard. Crossing guard, OK. I, too, lived about the 1,500 block of Crom Street until about 2014. Then I moved. It was, at that time, there was really nothing there. It had no stop signs. They only had one. I believe Council Member Morehead was pretty instrumental in getting a second stop sign off one of the streets as well, because she lived in that area. We didn't have districts then. So now I've been down that street, because I do frequent it as well, because I live off of Northgate. There is, I guess, flashing stop signs have been put in recently. I've seen the 24-7. 24-7, they're on. I've seen them also on the bike lanes, both sides. So there's been a tremendous amount of improvements in the last 10, 12 years, actually. I do think if you really want to slow people down, signs are great. But I don't know if Mr. Gedney would agree with me, but that's how he made a living. I was writing citations for people who didn't pay attention to signs. So in my mind, by reducing it to 30 miles an hour and the ability now for him to be able to fill out a form, and hopefully people will agree with him, put a speed lump or bump in, whatever you like to call them, I think that's probably a better solution. Because I can tell you that people don't like driving down streets with speed bumps just because they don't like it. And we have it down Hacienda. We have it all over. It used to be nearly impossible to put one of those in town. It wasn't done when I was on council before. When we came back, it's important. So speed bumps and lumps to me are really going to be what's going to be important. We also put those on safe routes to schools in front of the schools now. That's become common practice. I just had him installed those flashing LED lights on the corner of London and Northgate as well. These are all traffic calming, but a sign alone doesn't make the difference if someone is just a jerk. And like I say, if you make a career out of writing traffic citations, I think you've probably seen more of those than I have. But people who don't pay attention don't pay attention. But I do think the speed lumps and bumps are probably going to be the biggest answer to your problem. And by going to 30, it allows you to do it. And that's probably a better alternative than just a sign. because it really does slow you down. And quite frankly, you will probably be very annoyed by them as well, but you're willing to make that sacrifice because of your grandkids and other kids walking. So I think it's a small price to pay for something that we didn't do years ago. I mean, literally, quite frankly, until Mayor Singh came along, it was impossible to get it done. I remember working with Kassoon before you came in engineering. It took like two years sometimes to get one. I think the ones in Hacienda took 18 months to get. So what you do now, and we just did tonight's meeting, is proof of the pudding that it works, and it's an ability for the neighbors to get something done. So I think this is a good solution for a bad situation. And I've gotten Mr. Gedney's emails probably for, what, over a year now. And so I know he's very passionate, but I think this might be the answer to some speed lumps. Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah, I know, I've gone down crumb all the time. I've sat with Mr. Gedney and watched these speeders, people running stop signs. End of the day, I think for the people that are not following the rules, it doesn't matter what the speed limit sign says, but we also need to make sure we can enforce it. As you can see with all of the speed bumps and lumps going on throughout our city, that has made a difference. It is truly slowing people down. I'm a believer. I mean, unless you put something in their way, they're not going to slow down, no matter what the sign says. This is why I think now seven, eight years ago, I brought you know, speed lumps, traffic calming to our city. And it was a big push. We didn't really want to do it. I know people in the room that still don't like them. But it's something I think has really worked out really good, especially in neighborhoods and areas that are thoroughfares or collectors, where it's creating the issue of people speeding. And I think slowing people down is your goal. And I think now that we're going to get to that 30-mile magic number in order to get speed lumps, I think we're going to solve some of these issues and hopefully on the long run slow people down. So I'm supportive of this. My biggest issue with taking it down to 25 is I don't think it's going to solve anything because I don't think we're gonna be able to enforce some people that are going faster at that point for the police department. And a good section of it is 25 right now when children are present. But I truly feel that the next solution, and if you have issues with your neighbors not willing to you know, sign that application, I'd be happy to come and help you because I've convinced a lot of people about speed lumps. So they work and you can see with all the ones we approved tonight and I think we've done like 50 of them so far throughout the city. So with that, I'll entertain a motion. All right. Second. All right, we have a motion from Vice Mayor And a second for, I'm gonna give it to Charlie this time. Second from Council Member Halford to adopt a resolution approving amendment number two for the engineering and traffic survey for speed limits waive the first reading by substitution of title and introduce an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Manteca State of California amending Manteca Municipal Code Title 10 vehicles and traffic chapter 10.12 speed limit section 10.12.020 designated and authorizing the city manager or designee to take all appropriate actions necessary to carry out the purpose and intent of the resolution. All in favor, say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.

Thank you, and want a break?

Can we take a break? I'm going to calm myself.

Thank you.

Okay, and now we're back. Before we go to item D5, I know that at 10 o'clock we usually have to ask for an extension of time and make sure the council still wants to keep going. So if I can get a motion.

Second.

Okay, I have a motion and a second from Council Member Bright-Booker. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Wow. Was that an opposition?

All right, item D5, conduct a public hearing and consider adopting a resolution. One, adopting the August 2026 park dedication and in lieu fee and park acquisition and improvement fee nexus study. Two, adopting the park acquisition and Improvement fee project list pursuant to government code sections 66016.5 and 66002. Three, adopting updated park dedication and in lieu fees and park acquisition and improvement fees. Four, directing staff to implement the updated fees effective January 1, 2027, including the phased implementation schedule. Five, waive the first reading by substitution of the title and introduce an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Manteca, State of California repealing and replacing chapter 3.20 of the Manteca Municipal Code entitled Park Acquisition and Improvement Fees. and adding chapter 3.21 of the Manteca Municipal Code entitled Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fees. Mayor and Council, tonight we have Director of Parks, Recreation, and Transit, Brandy Clark.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. Brandi Clark, Director of Parks, Recreation, and Transit. Before you tonight is a public hearing to adopt a resolution adopting the park impact fee nexus study and park impact fees. This update is intended to ensure that new residential development contributes its fair share toward parkland and recreational facilities needed to serve Manteca's continued growth. This has been a significant and highly collaborative effort. Staff worked closely with our consultants, legal counsel, development services and representatives of the building industrial, industry, sorry, association to develop a program that supports the city's long-term park needs while recognizing the concerns of the development community. I'd like to thank Megan Quinn of Harrison Associates who will provide tonight's presentation as well as Megan Burke, the city's outside legal counsel for their guidance and extensive work throughout this process. I'd also like to recognize Megan Kustar, Administrative Assistant III, Michael Rosales, Parks Planning and Development Manager, and Brad One Luck, Director of Development Services, for their hard work, collaboration, and commitment to moving this project forward. I'd also like to thank organizations and community partners that submitted letters of support for this project. Their engagement and support reflect the importance of investing in parks and recreation facilities that will serve Manteca residents now and into the future. Finally, I'd like to thank the BIA and its members for its communication, participation, and partnership in helping us bring this item to the finish line. With that, I'll turn it over to Megan Quinn. I, along with the rest of the team, will also be available for any questions that you may have.

Thank you very much, Brandi, and good evening, Mayor Singh and members of the council. I will try to go through this presentation as quickly as possible I do know it's late. So just here to talk tonight about the park impact fees a little bit about what development impact fees are and why they are important so development impact fees are one time fees, I just want to. Mention that, that they're not taxes. They are fees that are paid by new development to mitigate their impacts on parks and recreation facilities. They're based on their fair share, and it's one-time fees, as I mentioned. They can only fund capital costs. It does not fund anything related to operations or maintenance, and that's what the fees are based on, land acquisition for parks and recreation, as well as the facilities cost for parks. funds must be used for their intended purposes and that's outlined in the capital improvement plan in the nexus study as appendix a as well as part of the resolution for you to adopt today assembly bill 602 or ab602 went into effect in 2022 and that made some changes to development impact fees so one of the changes that you'll see for the park fees is a residential fee going to a per square foot basis, where it used to be a per unit basis, as well as having that capital improvement plan. So as the park fees collect revenue, we do have a plan for how those revenues are gonna be spent on parks. as well as looking at the existing level of service compared to the proposed level of service. The existing level of service right now in the city is 5.01 acres per thousand, and the adopted level of service in your city is five, which is what this park fee is based on, so it's very similar. And lastly, nexus studies must be updated every eight years moving forward, so after you do this update, in eight years you will be required to do another update at least in eight years for impact fees. One of the purpose for updating and development impact fees, not only just required by Assembly Bill 1600, is also just to make sure that we're aligning the development impact fees with the cost of park infrastructure as well as land acquisition for parks. It also satisfies the Mitigation Fee Act, making sure that we're in alignment with current legislation as well as any case law. It satisfies the Quinby Act, as well as AB 1600 or also known as the Mitigation Fee Act for impact fees. And fees are typically able to be effective 60 days after the last action by city council. These fees will be effective on January 1st. A lot of times different jurisdictions will make them effective January 1st or July 1st, just making it a little bit easier for new development to know when they're effective. As part of this update, we did a lot. As Brandy mentioned, it was a really collaborative effort working with city staff, working with different departments, working with the development community, as well as the BIA. We updated the data, the land use data, making sure it was in alignment with the city's general plan, making sure that all the population assumptions and projected growth were updated. Updating the park and recreation master plan was adopted by this council. It was in January. January of 2026 by LPA Design Studios, and that was a visionary document for the future of your park and recreation. All of the information, the assumptions, and everything that was adopted in that document is also included in our NEXUS study. The methodology complies with all legal requirements, including the Mitigation Fee Act, the Quimby Act, as well as any recent case law, including the Sheets case that went to the Supreme Court not too long ago. It demonstrates rough proportionality to new development, as well as essential nexus to the fees and to the land uses that is being charged. We also had a lot of coordination meetings, not only with internal city coordination meetings, but with legal counsel. And then we had a lot of stakeholder outreach meetings, again, with the development community, really working with them, making sure that we had that stakeholder outreach and the BIA as part of this process. There's two different fees as part of this. One's the Quimby Act, one's the Mitigation Fee Act, but the fees are the same. The only difference is one's for subdivision and one's for non-subdivision. And that's because one's governed by the Quimby Act and one's governed by the Mitigation Fee Act. So for the subdivision, that's for land acquisition. And so as it's shown on this slide and in the NEXUS study, that's based on the Quimby Act. five acres per thousand. As I said, the existing level of service within your city is 5.01, but Quimby is based up to five acres per thousand, and any new subdivision development will pay that for land acquisition. They will pay the mitigation fee act for facilities. For any non-subdivisions, they will pay the mitigation fee act, and it will be the same for land and non-subdivisions. land the facility component for whether it's a subdivision or non subdivision and again it's based on that five acres per thousand the fee is broken into neighborhood parks community parks and special use parks and there's different costs for each of those and that's based on the park master plan as well as additional data and assumptions done by Harrison Associates and some conversations with the development community. So as you can see here, the cost for a facility or a park for neighborhood is $800,000, as well as the land acquisition is $250,000. Community parks are $143,500. And the facility cost to build that is $1.25 million. And special use parks is $250,000 for land acquisition and $1.25 million. Again, it's five acres per thousand as our level of service, and we do have to do this analysis as part of AB 602. This just shows the 2024 and 2026 acreage, looking at that due to Quimby, and this is pulled straight from the park master plan. And what everyone really cares about, what is the actual fee amount? So your existing fee for Single family is 3.99 and your proposed fee is 8.53. For multifamily development, it is 5.57 and your proposed fee is 13.48. The increase is a little bit over 100% for single family and about 140% for multifamily. This really reflects the updated cost. The fee had not been updated in a long time and the cost of land acquisition as well as facility costs has really escalated since the fee was last completed, as well as there's been a lot of additional compliance and changes to the fee. I know this table is pretty hard to see, so it's also in the NEXUS study, but this just shows the different components of the fee and how it's broken out per subdivision and non-subdivision, as well as the facility component and the land acquisition component. This shows the estimated fee revenue if all of the land uses that are estimated in the general plan at 2040 were to have built out as well as the single family and multifamily revenue for those proposed fees. And at build out, that would be about $358 million. With impact fees for parks, some of these parks will be built and dedicated instead of the revenue given to the city to build. It's another big table, so apologies there. But this is our capital improvement plan. It's also included as a attachment as part of the agenda tonight. But this is another part that needs to be adopted as part of the next study. It's Appendix A as well, which shows all of the planned parks. So while we do have this updated fee, there is a plan for all the parks that plan to be built by 2040. And this is in alignment with the park master plan as well as working with city staff to make sure that these are planned parks that the city plans to build. The estimated construction year, if there's any additional funding sources, and the total cost. As you can see there, the cost is higher than the amount that would be funded by development impact fees. So development impact fees are new developments fair share. The remaining is existing developments fair share. Lastly, I just wanted to go over real briefly that we did send the 30-day notice to all parties on July 9th in alignment with the Mitigation Fee Act. We published in the newspaper on July 10th as well as July 17th. We posted an access study more than 10 days prior as well. We have to do for the Mitigation Fee Act on August 5th, and then we're here today at our public hearing. If adopted, the fees will go in effect on July 1st. The last thing I want to mention is there are phased fees that are included. So there's the development impact fees that are in the Nexus study, which is the maximum justifiable fee. and then it's included with the phase fees amount for developments that are in different processes and projects farther along within the development process, and that's included in your package. I'm now open for any questions.

All right, thank you. Council have any questions before I open up for public? Okay, we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing at 10.04. Zoom, anybody there?

I do have attendees, but no hands are raised for public comment on item D. Okay, comment card?

Okay, anybody in the public would like to talk about item D.5? Okay, seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing at 10.04.52. And bring it back.

Council Member Howell. Is there an escalator built in?

Yes, there's an annual escalator. It's the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index, and it'll be annually escalated on July 1st.

And it's good for eight years, I think you said?

Yes, for eight years, and then it'll need to be updated.

When's the last time this was updated?

This was last updated in 2016. All right.

Council Member Morrow.

Make it fast. 2016, that's probably the reason it's such a large increase. It went from $399 a single family to $851. That puts us at, what, eight, ten years? Yeah, it's been about ten years. Ten years, almost ten years, and so we've had a lot of increases in costs, not just materials and in labor, I believe.

yeah and the annual escalations do not keep up with that type of increase as well um you know it tries to keep up with somewhat of an increase but the land acquisition cost and as well as the facilities cost labor cost has not kept up with that in the last 10 years plus as i mentioned there's been additional changes in terms of legislation and in terms of how the fee needs to be calculated and so just ensuring that going to a per square foot and some of those other changes That's why you see that large increase.

Okay, so new development pays a portion of it, and then, of course, the existing pays a portion.

Yes, because we can only charge it for their fair share, and so it's a proportional amount of the total cost of the new parks that are necessary at 2040.

And the Building Industries Association, also known as BIA, was agreement with this?

Yeah, so we met with the BIA and we did receive a letter of support in terms of this. And so we met with the development community and had good stakeholder outreach, as I mentioned, so.

Good. Everybody's on board. I think the most important thing about this is that people are asking for better amenities, larger parks, like the one up north we're going to be working on shortly. It's 60 acres. So this is all going to play part in that, to build something nicer in certain communities and neighborhoods. But the developers always have the option of doing it in lieu, building their own, or paying a fee.

Yes, they can either dedicate, build it themselves and dedicate it and do the in lieu fee or pay the fee themselves.

So that seems to be, depending on the builder and how extravagant they want to go, but it seems to work out well. So I appreciate it. Thank you very much.

Great job.

I think this is much needed, again, 10 years.

And on the new aquatics facility, you have five acres down, I'd double that to 10.

That's what they recommend for that size of area with parking and all that. Are you still coaching?

I'm glad we're finally here. This is much needed. Parks and Recreation is so important to our city for longevity and also for our next generation. We need to continue investing in that. And I'm glad our partners that are helping pay these fees are on board with it also. And I know a lot of work I went into this to make it happen and I'm also hoping in the future we can work on these fees and in a more timely manner and not have to wait as long. And I appreciate the escalator built into because that'll keep us going with future expenses and now, you know, As we continue to bring more amenities into our parks, I see more work to be done when it comes to our Parks and Rec Commission in ensuring they're bringing in what the public actually wants. And this will help us get to that point. So thank you, and I'm glad this is here. So with that,

Can I add something real quick?

Sure. Thank you. I don't know if you like Parks and Rec.

I just want to really take a moment and thank Brad for all your time, Brandy, Michael, the Magans. This is no small task to get this to the finish line and with a letter of support from the BIA in this day and age. So thank you all. And just a real quick story. I think it was in probably, I don't know, maybe 2014, I remember at council meetings for budget items used to put these dots, and I remember when we got the funding approved to do the first ever master plan that was approved in 16. And so, yes, this has taken us some time, All of our fees will soon be updated. But I think that was instrumental because we have some funding. Obviously development doesn't close all of the gaps to get a project to the finish line. There's much more involved than that. But I think we have some opportunities coming up that I'm gonna be really excited to bring before council on looking at some possibilities potentially with Measure Q after we kick off feeding the fire station six. and then some other funding sources that we've been really creative at making sure that we have to make sure that we're really building this community to be the best community.

So anyways, I was thinking about that story.

I remember you and Steve DeBrum. And Steve DeBrum, he was like, Tony, Tony. And I was like, trust me. You won't go wrong from this. And at some point, I mean, I hope you all are a part of that. Because I remember getting those green and red dots. And we're here. We have a pot. That's why the splash pad was possible. And so, I mean, look, it took over a decade But things are happening. And because of Measure Q, things are happening at a much faster pace. And so I'm grateful for that. I'm grateful that I was there during that time frame. And I'm also grateful that we have some ideas. We just got a federal earmark for almost a million dollars from Congress, Representative Harder, for a community center. so that we can actually start the planning, and now we've got some good funding sources. So it's really an exciting time, and these are needs we already should have had in our community. So I'm looking forward to bringing that to council in the future, and thank you guys all for supporting this tonight. I think that this is a really good move for our community, and thank you again to the team.

Just to add on, I remember those dots. And Tony was not the city manager. And she was saying, put more dots on my projects. Put more dots. And we said, we don't have any money. We don't have any money yet. But by putting the master plan together in 16, you're right. That is how we were able to do the things we're doing and start the process. So at the time, we just didn't have the money. But by building in fees into development, it made a big difference.

You know what else you approved funding for at that meeting? You gave us money for the master plan, for the parks master plan, and you gave us money for tax measure exploration. So both have been beneficial to the city in many, many ways. So anyways, good memory.

Yeah, I remember those guys. I had just caught on. No, I was.

She brought them over. When we're doing this stuff with parks and rec and what everybody wanted.

Yes, no, thank you for all the hard work. And this is a great thing. And this is great job with this council too, because we've really worked hard to update a lot of fees throughout everything and bring everything to modern times. So with that, who's ready for this motion? All right, we got a motion from Council Member Halford and a second from Vice Mayor Lackey. Here we go. To adopt a resolution, adopt the August 2026 Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fee and Park Acquisition and Improvement Fee Nexus Study. Two, adopt the Park Acquisition and Improvement Fee Project List pursuant to Government Code Section 66016.5 and 66002. adopt updated park dedication and in lieu fees and park acquisition and improvement fees, direct staff to implement the updated fees effective January 1st, 2027, including the phase implementation schedule, waive the first reading by substitution of the title and introduce an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Manteca, State of California, repealing and replacing Chapter 3.20 of the Manteca Municipal Code entitled Park Acquisition and Improvement Fees, and adding Chapter 3.21 of the Manteca Municipal Code, entitled Park Dedications and In-Lieu Fees. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. Thank you. Congratulations. D6.

Over. Conduct a public hearing for the Chamberlain annexation project, and by motion, find the project exempt from further environmental review pursuant to section 15319 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Adopt a resolution approving annexation and authorize staff to submit an application to the San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission to initiate annexation proceedings for the Chamberlain Annexation Parcels APN 218-020-08-14-17-18 dash 19 dash 24 and dash 25 and waived the first reading by substitution of the title and introduce an ordinance of the city of Manteca State of California amending the zoning map set forth in section 17.20.040 of chapter 17.20 of Title 17 of the Manteca Municipal Code by assigning APN 218-020-14-17 and 25 with a general commercial pre-zone designation. Mayor and Council, tonight we have Deputy Director of Development Services Planning, Jesus Roscoe.

Good evening, Mayor, Council, members of the public and staff. Someone teased me earlier about being last, but this would be the perfect way to celebrate my two years with the City of Manteca today.

Yeah, all right. Two years plus a day if you don't move faster. Couple hours, couple minutes.

All right. So before you is an annexation and a pre-zoning for the Chamberlain project. Some quick details on the project. This is a city initiated annexation. It entails approximately seven parcels, three of which are developable commercial parcels. The other four are encumbered as Caltrans right-of-way parcels. The overall annexation area includes approximately 17.4 acres and the general area is located on the southern portion of Lathrop Road and east of Inheritance Way and on the western side of Inheritance Way and on the eastern side of State Route 99 going northbound. I do want to note that there is no development associated with this project. Some key facts about the project. So right now, to the north of the project, there is undeveloped commercial land. On the eastern side, there is primarily rural residential with some agricultural land as well. And to the west and south is either State Highway 99 land or unimproved public right of way. On your screen, you'll also note that the highlighted are the three parcels, developable private parcels within the annexation area. The purpose behind this annexation is really to streamline potential future development to the north and to the east, as there have been several inquiries. But I do want to note again that there is no development at this time. This annexation would square off and provide for contiguous city boundaries, as there are some odd or... The existing city boundaries are somewhat irregular and this would allow for future development in a more streamlined fashion. I do want to note that the existing private commercial sites within this area are developed. They will remain as exist non-conforming until they decide to either expand, change in use, or do other onsite improvements. So as long as they continue their uses as currently in place, they would not be subject to the city zoning standards. That being said, those sites would be pre-zoned with a general commercial zoning designation upon completion of the annexation. Since this project does not intone a development and there are existing utilities within proximity and there is no intensification of zoning, the California Environmental Quality Act does allow for an exemption for annexations of these nature. Therefore, staff has prepared a notice of exemption consistent with section 15319 of the CEQA guidelines and the project was also duly noticed in no less than 20 days. in the Matica Bulletin prior to this hearing. That being said, staff is requesting that the council consider finding the project exempt from further CEQA, adopt a resolution authorizing staff to submit an application to San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission and introduce an ordinance to pre-zone three of the parcels within the annexation boundary. That completes my presentation. I'll be happy to answer any questions.

All right, any questions from council? All right, we'll open up public hearing at 1020. Zoom.

I do have an attendee, but no hand.

Anybody in the public would like to speak on item D6?

Good evening, Mayor Singh, Council. My name is Dave Brammel. I'm the fire chief of the Lathrop-Manteca Fire District, which is subsequently the district that is most frequently impacted through annexation and detachment. Other people know me as Chief Eastless's less handsome peer to the west, but... It's a pleasure to be here. I've been a resident of Manteca for 49 years. My family moved here in 1977, so I'm very familiar with the area, but I've only been the fire chief next door for about the last four years. And in that time, we've been noticed north of 16 plus annexation applications have come through or requests for mitigation agreements. And so it happens to, as you're well aware, it happens well to the north, to the south, to the east, and then to the extent possible toward the west a bit too. So my goal in coming here tonight is to talk a little bit about this specific annexation and as it relates perhaps to the process of annexation of the city. The city's been very good with us about providing notice and getting us on distribution lists so that we can see and have an opportunity to comment on projects. Frequently, this annexation I know is a annexation that's been initiated by the city where the majority of them are usually not in that frame. So we're often contacted by a developer who reaches out. Sometimes we're noticed about a project maybe a year prior. We provide comment to that initial distribution, and we might not hear for a year, and then a developer contacts me and says, I hear you're the guy that we do this with, and it's usually because there's a pending LAFCO meeting, and they know they have to mitigate impact to the fire district. And as you're aware, that is required via current LAFCO policy. The challenge for the fire district is that it usually keeps the fire district whole from the aspect of the current value from the parcels that are, often it's a single parcel or maybe it's three or four parcels with only one or two improvements on it. And so by itself, it's not that much. And so that impact, we typically negotiate over a 15-year agreement with an escalator that assumes a certain percentage of property tax increase. And we call it good. But depending on the parcel, that could be a developer writes us a check for $38,000 and looks around their pockets for loose change and satisfies this requirement. Project moves on. Detachment occurs. And in perpetuity, the fire district will never have that revenue again. So it's one-time monies. And the city is negotiating and the developers are negotiating in good faith with us to do that. But the reason I bring it up tonight is the Chamberlain annexation is one that we haven't yet had the opportunity to meet at the city has reached out I Turned some of that as well, and we just haven't been able to connect I know and I see in the documentation the attachments tonight that that is Certainly something that both parties are endeavor to do and accomplish May have just a little more time And so I know that we're going to do that. And I'm not here to tell you that we're going to thwart that or be an obstacle to such. But I just would share that the sheer volume of annexations that come through is exhausting, actually, in a lot of ways. But the district is looking to more closely look at these projects as they come through. We're working on developing a mitigation program so that it can expedite these processes and make it clear as we move forward. We're interested in arrangements such as tax sharing agreements that might be untraditional from just simply paying us a lump sum to make us go away for lack of a better term. So we're going to be looking at that a little closer because this in itself is not a significant impact. But there's discussion, as you're well aware in this community, about a couple other big project areas of already established, developed communities that would be a very significant impact. And so I want to get in front of it, and I just want to make the staff and council aware that we are looking a lot closer at this and making sure that the district, Because that's my charge, is to advocate for my fire district and make sure the funding sources are there. Because although I understand fully the city's right to develop, I understand the concepts of general plans and sphere of influence, and I know how all of that works, and the city's going to grow, but the district still has a responsibility to serve areas that are outside of your sphere that are impacted by these areas that you plan to develop in. And so we just have to kind of monitor that and partner and work with the city to make sure that it's best for all parties. And then lastly, I'll just say, in your documentation, the CEQA analysis talks about the fire station being, the current station 33 being two miles away and the city 244 being a mile and a half. Pick a center parcel and the business that's there, measure it, it's exactly the same. They're about 1.5, 1.6 miles apart. Also, it talks about 1,200 feet away for a water supply. That is not really consistent with the municipal level of water supply. It is in a rural setting, technically, or unincorporated areas, but not so much in a municipal setting.

So in any case, thank you for the extended time.

I appreciate it. And I just wanted to provide those comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else? Okay, that I'll go ahead and close the public hearing at 1026. Bring it back for council discussion. Some of the points that were raised. Any discussion?

One more time here.

Oh, sorry, okay, I said, some of the points that were raised, has there been any discussion regarding the fire district?

Yes, if I may just briefly. I do apologize. I did not speak on the detachment agreement. Staff is working and will continue to work with our district to come to a consensus and agreement on a tax sharing agreement as it relates to those specific parcels within the annexation area, which would be a requirement as part of the annexation application to LAFCO. With regards to the proximity of the fire station, I believe City of Manteca's Fire Station 4 is slightly closer to than the district's Fire Station 33. There might have been some oversight on the exact distances, but they're generally close, Manteca being the closest for the most part. As far as the CEQA, again, since there's no actual development, the standard utility service plan that goes associated with this project would not be as detailed as we would normally see with projects that do have development associated with them.

Currently, this is in the county, and so it's on well and septic, correct?

Correct.

They're staying that way until there's development?

That is correct.

There's a water supply, you said, nearby?

And again, well, the water supply would be required upon development. And again, there's only three parcels.

So they'd have to pull something closer.

That is correct.

But to your point, Mayor, yes, there is a water supply that was extended east of 99 along Laper Road that they would be able to connect.

Okay. Shirley.

You know.

I just want to thank Chief Ramel for coming out tonight. Somewhere out there, there's a picture of himself and Division Chief Forrest and I on a grass fire mopping up on 120 way back when you guys were starting as reserves. So it's good to see that you're taking care of Lathrop and watching out for their concerns and appreciate it. So thank you.

Mike.

Just briefly, I'd served on LAFCO, so I know there's always a concern of your predecessor, although you've done a much nicer job of presenting it today in front of us than he may have done a few years ago. That being said, though, I'm hopeful, and I'm sure you'll reach out to us Work on something, an appropriate detachment. It is important. Unfortunately, Lathrop Rural, that is the issue with LAFCO. I mean, as we go farther north and we go east, that is a real issue for their district. Like I say working with the developers always probably even a little better, but I think with the city I'm sure we'll do a fair fair Exchange and work with you and I'm sure you can reach out to us if there is a problem So I'm hopeful but thank you for your your pleasant approach to the council tonight Thank you

Yeah, thank you, Chief, for coming and also hanging out with us all the way until 10.30 at night. But yes, I think whatever we need to do, we will make it right with the city and make sure everything is moving forward. With that, I entertain a motion. So moved. This time, it's Councilmember Breitenbacher and a second from Councilmember Halford, to adopt a resolution approving annexation and authorize staff to submit an application to the San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission to initiate annexation proceedings for the Chamberlain Annexation Parcels APN 21802008, 14, 17, 18, 19, 24, and 25, and waive the first reading by substitution of the title and introduce an ordinance of the City of Manteca, State of California, amending the zoning map set forth in Section 17.20.040 of Chapter 17.20 of Title 17 of the Manteca Municipal Code by assigning APN 21802014-17 and 25 with a general commercial pre-zone designation. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. I need a five-minute break. Sorry.

All right.

We're back. We're almost there.

All right, that'll bring us to item E1. Establish a city council ad hoc two by two veterans memorial committee and appoint two council members to serve on the committee. Good evening, mayor and council. Tonight's staff is seeking city council's appointment of two council members to serve on an ad hoc two by two committee working with staff on a veterans memorial.

That's it?

That's it.

It's up to you now.

All right. I feel like I'm in the war zone here in the middle. I guess I'll go to public comments. Anybody on zoom?

I do have one attendee with no hand raised.

All right. Any comment cards?

No comment cards.

Don't be instructing people. Anybody in the public would like to speak on this item?

Breaking stuff?

Forming this ad hoc is a great thing for us. I think for veterans, it will help get you all out in the community and understand the veterans' needs and what you can do as a community to help the veterans. So thank you very much for considering this, and I look forward to all the great things that you're going to do with this. Thank you. Thanks for the help.

Wow. All right. Anybody else? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and bring it back. Council discussion. I don't know. Do we need council discussion or can I just make a motion? All right. I flipped a coin earlier just to let you know. Um, all right. Uh, I would like to make a motion to establish a city council ad hoc to by veterans memorial committee and appoint council member Dave Brighton Booker and me to serve on the committee. That's what I got. Do I have a second? Anybody? I heard a second. Okay, so I have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Abstain?

All right, I got a 4-0-1. All right, moving to E2.

to establish the city council ad hoc solid waste committee and appoint two council members to serve on the committee. Good evening, mayor and council. Tonight, staff is seeking the city council's appointment of two council members to serve on an ad hoc two-by-two committee to work with staff on solid waste and disposal options.

All right. Let's go to public comments. Jeff? Jeff, you want to tell us? You got nothing? Anybody on Zoom?

I do have some attendees with no hand raised.

OK. Anybody in the public would like to speak on the 2 by 2 solid waste committee? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and bring it back. You guys want to discuss this one? Anybody like eager to jump on board?

Bada boom.

All right, let's see who the trash talkers are. Okay. I would like to establish a city council ad hoc two by solid waste committee and appoint Council Member Morawyd and Vice Mayor Regina Lackey to serve on the committee.

Mayor, just confirming that is your motion.

That is my motion. Hey, I got a motion and a second. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Do I have a no or an abstention?

Aye.

Aye. It's going to be fun. It really will be. You guys don't talk too much trash, all right? All right. That was a 5-0, by the way, on that one. With that, we're gonna move on to, thank God we're finally here, city manager comments.

All right, thanks, Mayor and Council. So just a quick recap, big thank you for the parks fee, getting it to the finish line, and all the support from everyone that came along with it. We haven't been here in a while, so I do wanna thank the Sunrise Kiwanis for the 4th of July parade, and then also I wanted to thank Parks and Recreation pd for hosting the national night out community party again i thought that was really nice um some special events coming up we have loma ribbon cutting it's supposed to be on friday but at 11 but i saw something on social media it might be at two so keep your eyes out um for whatever time it is i'm not sure if it changed but excited that loma is open music on maple will be on the 20th Manteca Citizens Academy will kick off next week. This last week we started Level Up. We have lots of upcoming ribbon cuttings and groundbreaking. So the Wave Veterans Village will be on September 8th. The Transitional Housing and Dog Containers ribbon cutting will be on September 9th. We're going to be doing a groundbreaking for our police department on October 7th and then Fire Station 6 on October 14th. So all of this will be put on social media and more details to come on that. We'll also be doing a little event at our, what we're calling Mural Alley on September 17th before Market on Main Street. So more details to come for that. August 20th, I wanna take a moment. We're gonna be launching our new website, which is gonna include some ADA components. It's gonna have an AI chat bot. to help our residents with questions that they have in real time. And I want to take a moment and thank Penny, who is our IT and innovation director in her team. It looks really amazing. They've done a good job, and we've needed the update for quite some time. So thank you, Penny, to you and your team for all that you're doing, and I hope that the citizens in our community enjoy it just as much as we are. It's really user-friendly. And then lastly I kind of want to close out the meeting just saying that Even though tonight it was a long meeting that I just want to state that we do understand and respect all of our employees and their right to express their views We recognize the importance of negotiation and with that we've also had with the two bargaining groups that were here tonight a total of 17 meetings with them combined to date and with multiple emails, several costing of proposals, budget presentations. We are definitely committed to working collaboratively and constructively with our employee reps to reach an agreement. We value all of our employees. So I just want to make sure that that's clear. but most importantly we're committed to maintaining long-term success of our city and we talk about that a lot here. We've been engaged in discussions and I'm optimistic that we're going to find a good common ground and Also to yearly, I believe there's new legislation tied to it. It's tied to our retention rates. And we have a really high retention, and I do plan on keeping that. We have a really good work culture. So I'm really optimistic that we'll move this forward. I just wanted to close the meeting with that and thank everyone tonight for who came out. And the next meeting will be September 1, and that concludes my report, unless council has any questions for me this evening. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Tony. All right. Council member Howell.

Long but good meeting. Good night.

Vice mayor.

Good to be back. See you on the first.

So the next time we see you, congratulations, Grandma. Shout out to the budget engagement process. Thank you guys for doing that and allowing the citizens to take part in it. That's a great thing. I want to thank Brandy for helping Daryl tonight and addressing his concerns. HR and Streets, I was told you guys are already working on the concerns for Mr. Peters. I'm glad to hear that. He and I were in high school together, so... And then, you know, we've talked about the flock cameras and I didn't get to mention this because Gary passed me during comments. Yeah, yeah. It's a long night. But Library and Lincoln Park have benefited greatly from those cameras. We appreciate them. And then the three of us were out on Quality of Life Operation last Saturday. Yeah. And they had 14 arrests and 14 citations. I can't remember, did we get anybody directed to 555? Three got directed to 555. So very good night we had there. And again, that kennel is going to make a difference. And like I said, we should probably be looking at that second in the near future. So as the process goes there, I'm glad we got the roof going. We got it purchased, and we're going to move forward. So that's another great thing. With the police station, fire station, and that, we've got a lot going on. and the streets and everything else that's going on. Thank you.

All right. Council Member Morrill.

Great meeting. I will thank staff for all what they did tonight. I mean, we had a bit of a break. So moving forward, we had a lot of staff, a lot of meeting, a long night. Everybody was on their game. So I appreciate that. And to the folks that came to speak about their bargaining groups, I appreciate how respectful they were coming to the meeting and expressing their concerns. And we take those very seriously at the City of Antigua. So thank you and have a good evening.

All right, thank you. Yeah, this has got to be one of the longest meetings I've ever had in four years. No, not all.

There's been some doozies.

But thank you for everyone coming out tonight. It was a great meeting. Thank you to all of the staff that came and voiced their concerns, and we hear you, and I know our staff's gonna be working diligently to get a solution, and so hopefully we're gonna hear that soon. Also, A lot of good stuff covered tonight. One of the things I do want to see if we have council consensus, I would like to see our police department come back and present to us when it comes to flock cameras and a policy and procedures that we follow. And, you know, kind of talk about some of the myths out there and, and walk overall. And so that way we can also educate the council and our public. So If you guys are good with that, I would like to see a presentation come back to us sooner. It looks like we got nods, so we're good with that. With that, it's been a long time since we've had a meeting, and it might be a little rusty, but here we are. We made it to the end. Do we want to pick a date for them to come back? Is that what you're asking, Cass? Can you present that to us by next meeting? What kind of effort? Roll tide effort?

All right, sounds good. September 1st.

He's excited. And with that, those are my comments for tonight. I do want to adjourn tonight's meeting. We lost a great person in our community and wonderful person and It will be sorely missed and so I would like to adjourn tonight's meeting in the memory of Bruce Bell.